Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[Slidey]

Any physicists able to field this question? It seems reasonable enough. Why do we opt for randomness rather than hidden variables?

Because hidden variable theorems have generally been discredited. Certainly, any local hidden variable theory is impossible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

And any attempt to get around this by proposing a global hidden variable interpretation must still reject the principle of locality (an extremely intuitive notion which I doubt Lentern would be happy to give up since it is required for causality) in favour of counterfactual definiteness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation

But even then, Bohm's interpretation doesn't reproduce quantum field theory, so it is very flawed.

Something also of interest is quantum logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
Again, I doubt Lentern would enjoy hearing about this, since it involves questioning commonly held laws of 'logic' (which he considers inviolate) as a subset of a larger logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_logic_empirical?

But I doubt that comes as much surprise to you, KFunk, since it's reminiscent of how our intuitive understanding of the world was rendered moot with the advent of quantum mechanics.

 

[Slidey]

I was curious about the views of physicists because technical results (with which I have little familiarity) likely have important bearing on these questions, e.g. mathematical interpretations and experiments related to the Bell Inequality. Apparently Gerard 't Hooft has been bouncing around the theoretical possibility of hidden variables:

"Contrary to common belief, it is not difficult to construct deterministic models where quantum mechanics correctly describes stochastic behaviour, in precise accordance with the Copenhagen doctrine." (e.g. large numbers of hidden variables could act in concert to generate - in the familliar stochastic sense - apparent randomness)

As you said - 'our best science is surely based on our best possible observations/mathematics'. But what if some of the universe or its processes are not observable? For all we know it would seem, at least according to 't Hooft, that hidden variables are at least a theoretical possibility. What should we do, however, if we have little reason to believe either 'there are hidden variables' or 'there are no hidden variables'? What justification can we provide for deciding either way?

Ah. I'm sceptical of Gerard's interpretation 'Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System' because he appears to try to trivialise the notion that locality must be forgone. Still, I'd be interested if anything comes of it. It's been almost 10 years and I don't think anything much has happened on that front?

It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the latter is restored. The notion of time in GR is so different from the usual one in elementary particle physics that we believe that certain versions of hidden variable theories can -- and must -- be revived. A completely natural procedure is proposed, in which the dissipation of information plays an essential role. Unlike earlier attempts, it allows us to use strictly continuous and differentiable classical field theories as a starting point (although discrete variables, leading to fermionic degrees of freedom, are also welcome), and we show how an effective Hilbert space of quantum states naturally emerges when one attempts to describe the solutions statistically. Our theory removes some of the mysteries of the holographic principle; apparently non-local features are to be expected when the quantum degrees of freedom of the world are projected onto a lower-dimensional black hole horizon. Various examples and models illustrate the points we wish to make, notably a model showing that massless, non interacting neutrinos are deterministic.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9903084

 

[emytaylor164]

Do you accept the biological fact of evolution?

I do not know enough about it to make a judgement

i hear the uai cutoff for wollongong's sciences is around 75

so is IT, Computer science and Information systems.

Wollongong IT is my Second Preference,and i wanna apply for early entry too.

 

[private]

Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an

1. Flat Earth Model

Only today are Kuffir scientists proving that the Earth is indeed flat. The idea that the Earth was round as recorded in the Christian Bible and Jewish traditions and propagated by Christian theologins in the Middle Ages such as Thomas Aquinas wrongfully believe the Earth to be round. Even prominent Muslims such as Caliph Al-Ma'mun wrongfully believed this view in contrast to the very clear words of Allah, "And the earth - We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable." Qur'an 15:19.

2. Geocentric Universe Model

Until recently scientists believed that the centre of the Universe was the Sun and that all planets, including Earth, rotated around the Sun. Now scientists know better but were they the first to discover this phenomenon?

Please take your propaganda elsewhere.
This post is simply there to ridicule Islam.
The Quran says no such thing and even the Islamic terminolgy used in this post is completly incorrect.

I know my religion so the next time you try to attack it, it'd be wise to make sure what you're posting is correct.

 

[private]

What.. are you on about?

Yes, the Islamic world were great natural philosophers, excelling in science and math especially in a time when the western world was rotting in the Dark Ages.

What of it?

I'm simply referring to the original question.
The scientific miracles of the Qur'an are too exact and too precise for a man 1400 years ago in a desert country to have known. Yet archaelogists have proven that these words of the Quran were indeed made during that time.

So how on earth did these facts, most which scientists have only just recently discovered in the past century with advanced technology, come to exist in such a time. It can only be that these are truly the words of the All-Knower, ie. God.

 

[ari89]

Please take your facts elsewhere.
This post is simply there to ridicule Islam.
The Quran says these words verbatim and even the Islamic terminolgy used in this post confirms it.

I know my religion so the next time you try to quote it, it'd be wise to make sure what you're posting is bias pro-Islamic propaganda.

Jesus saves!

 

[Slidey]

I'm simply referring to the original question.
The scientific miracles of the Qur'an are too exact and too precise for a man 1400 years ago in a desert country to have known. Yet archaelogists have proven that these words of the Quran were indeed made during that time.

So how on earth did these facts, most which scientists have only just recently discovered in the past century with advanced technology, come to exist in such a time. It can only be that these are truly the words of the All-Knower, ie. God.

lol no. Have you even read it?

The Koran is as inaccurate about science as the Bible. Heavens certainly knows that the Koran makes up a lot of stuff that's completely unscientific - even supposing there are 'scientific miracles' in the Koran (which there aren't) how exactly would you reconcile them with all the scientifically incorrect rubbish in the Koran?

 

[private]

Why do people tend to resort to sarcasm when proving a point? I mean it does say much about a person when they attack people who are simply trying to post an opinion with insults and sarcasm.
Whether, you're Jewish, Chrstian or Muslim, it doesn't make a differnace in respecting other people's opinion.

I'm sorry that you have been misinformed by what other people have said about the Quran particularly Muslims. But it still stands that what they say is incorrect to and cannot be jsutified. Please read further the site i have referenced in my original posts for i can longer talk now.

Must get ofline and return to reality.
Thank you for your time.

 

[private]

lol no. Have you even read it?

The Koran is as inaccurate about science as the Bible. Heavens certainly knows that the Koran makes up a lot of stuff that's completely unscientific - even supposing there are 'scientific miracles' in the Koran (which there aren't) how exactly would you reconcile them with all the scientifically incorrect rubbish in the Koran?

Well firstly you'll have to say what rubbish you're referring to because i cant read your mind.

 

[Slidey]

Well firstly you'll have to say what rubbish you're referring to because i cant read your mind.

Nah here's a thought: instead of me trying to explain to you why the majority of the Koran is unscientific, why don't you give us a few of your "scientific miracles of the Koran"?

If you want to be taken seriously, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove your religion but on you to prove it.

 

[Graustein]

Define "God".

Do you mean Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, all of the above?

Or do you mean god, lower-case, in the general sense?

To the first answer, I highly doubt it. Sorry Judeo-Christians, but I don't buy your holy texts. Too many contradictions. Certainly not a good thing to base your morality off of.

To the second answer, I haven't a clue, and I don't think it matters either way, really. If there is something, good for it, if not, also good for it. Doesn't affect me in any way I can control, I'm more concerned with what happens during life, which is going on right now, rather than what happens after it, which is anyone's guess.

 

[morning storm]

dont be stupid. god works in mysterious ways.

 

[Slidey]

dont be stupid. god works in mysterious ways.

You tell somebody not to be stupid in reponse to a very valid question, then defend God by saying "he works in mysterious ways" because you know full well it's a valid question and you have no answer for it.

 

[Iron]

Would it not be better for God and for all his flock if God showed himself in a sort of annual appearance or in the form of some pre-announced miracles so no one would have any doubts and then heavily penalize anyone who still bothers to deny him?

Where's the fun in that? Satan needs something (like free will) to work with.
We're SPORT, divine SPORT

 

[morning storm]

You tell somebody not to be stupid in reponse to a very valid question, then defend God by saying "he works in mysterious ways" because you know full well it's a valid question and you have no answer for it.

sorry i was being sarcastic.

 

[Slidey]

sorry i was being sarcastic.

Ahh sorry dude. It's hard to tell because religious fundies really do say that sort of stuff.

 

[darkwolfzx]

http://atheistblogger.com/2008/02/15/101-atheist-quotes/

 

[KFunk]

Where's the fun in that? Satan needs something (like free will) to work with.
We're SPORT, divine SPORT

"The devil ain't lazy no siree."

 

[Kwayera]

A somewhat biased summary of the Lennox v Shermer debate. Dan tells me it's rather accurate:

http://mycolleaguesareidiots.com/archive/2008/08/24/362.aspx

 

[KFunk]

God debates are generally a waste of time because they don't go hardcore enough (they are trying to make it accessible to a general audience after all). Unless you break it down to issues of epistemology, faith and justified belief I find that there is a tendency to rely on obfuscation and fallacious arguments.