Seraphim

You guys know what is funny (and some what pathetic)?

For bunch of guys who doesn't believe in God, you guys can really cook up stories about how God should be like or isn't like or something like this and that.

eh

What's even funnier is that some adults actually believe in God, Santa Claus, fairies, and other bullshit. Yes, it's actually true.

Seraphim

By eh

What's even funnier is that some adults actually believe in God, Santa Claus, fairies, and other bullshit. Yes, it's actually true.

Well ... at least they (those who believes in such things) don't spend hours upon hours, day by day talking about something like that, like some of you here. Hell, you talk MORE than those who believes in it which is indeed ironic.

Have you come to a point that you cannot go on living without blaming someone for your mishiefs and bad things which happens to you?

Word of advice - Get a life. If you don't believe in it, fine ... stop blaming Physics, Nature or God (mine anyway) for your problems.

Jesse

Let's try to have less mocking of other people's views on theology and more quantum physics here, guys.

Seraphim

By Jesse

Let's try to have less mocking of other people's views on theology and more quantum physics here, guys.

Good advice but a question here : IS logical debate possible with such topics as this - Does God knows about some irregularities in Physics?

I don't know about you, but irregularities in physics (if it exists) should be debated by concept of physics ALONE and do not need to add Theology into it. After all, did some of you actually went and asked God (which you guys don't believe) what He thought about it?

Such "debate" as this is a JOKE to Science and Logic.

Jesse

Actually I think the answer to this question should have very little to do with one's beliefs about God. By definition, God would know every true fact about reality, so it's really just a question of whether one believes there is a "real truth" about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum or whether it's a question that has no answer because its basic premises are wrong, like "what do quarks smell like?" I think it basically just depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics, regardless of whether one is an atheist or a theist.

Anyway, there's a difference between asking a question that might unintentionally "make a mockery" of science and/or logic because of bad premises or whatever, and intentionally mocking someone else's views on theology in a substance-free manner, which is what you and eh were doing in your last few posts.

Seraphim

By Jesse

Actually I think the answer to this question should have very little to do with one's beliefs about God. By definition, God would know every true fact about reality , so it's really just a question of whether one believes there is a "real truth" about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum or whether it's a question that has no answer because its basic premises are wrong, like "what do quarks smell like?" I think it basically just depends on one's interpretation of quantum mechanics, regardless of whether one is an atheist or a theist.

Whether God would know every true facts about reality or not is illogical since most of you here don't believe in God nor find any proof of Him.

Is it logical to assume that God know something if God (according to you) doesn't exist?
Is it logical or even scientific to add another factor (God) into a scientific discussion (assuming that is what going on here) if you have no proof of His existence nor data (calculative factors) about Him to add into a Physics (of ALL subjects) discussion?

Anyway, there's a difference between asking a question that might unintentionally "make a mockery" of science and or logic because of bad premises or whatever, and intentionally mocking someone else's views on theology in a substance-free manner, which is what you and eh were doing in your last few posts.

This "discussion" is either a scientific one NOR is it is a theological one. It is simply bunch of people who has nothing to do, lack of scientific knowledge or knowhows who get together and talk about something they have no understanding of. In that context, it IS mockery to both Science AND theology.

Like I adviced earlier - Get a life. There must be hundreds of things you can do out there with your time.

Jesse

Seraphim:
Whether God would know every true facts about reality or not is illogical since most of you here don't believe in God nor find any proof of Him.

No, that's just part of the definition of omniscience. You don't have to believe something actually exists to talk about what it would be like if it had certain well-defined properties. I can define the property of "smoogliference" as "knowing the eye color of every vegetarian in the universe", and then ask whether a smoogliferent being would know my eye-color--that's really just a long-winded way of asking whether I'm a vegetarian or not. Likewise, if "omniscience" is defined as "knowing every true fact about the universe", then asking whether an omniscient being would know the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle is really just a long-winded way of asking whether there's a real truth about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum. The question of whether omniscient or smoogliferent beings exist, and what other properties they might have, is not relevant to these questions at all.

Seraphim:
This "discussion" is either a scientific one NOR is it is a theological one.

Would you say the question of whether particles really have well-defined simultaneous positions and momenta is not a scientific issue?

Anyway, you're free to disagree with me on these issues, but speaking as a moderator personal comments like "get a life" or "you must have better things to do with your time" are inappropriate. Please avoid making them.

Nowhere357

The nice thing about skeptics is they're likely to entertain any POV they can see. It doesn't hurt to look.

Seraphim

by Jesse

No, that's just part of the definition of omniscience. You don't have to believe something actually exists to talk about what it would be like if it had certain well-defined properties. I can define the property of "smoogliference" as "knowing the eye color of every vegetarian in the universe", and then ask whether a smoogliferent being would know my eye-color--that's really just a long-winded way of asking whether I'm a vegetarian or not. Likewise, if "omniscience" is defined as "knowing every true fact about the universe", then asking whether an omniscient being would know the simultaneous position and momentum of a particle is really just a long-winded way of asking whether there's a real truth about a particle's simultaneous position and momentum. The question of whether omniscient or smoogliferent beings exist, and what other properties they might have, is not relevant to these questions at all.

Exactly which branch of Science did this "smoogliferent" comes from? It is illogical to even add data which is unmeasureable into a physics discussion, much less calling it scientific. And as I remember, some of you here made a big fuss about logics and all a few months back when they claimed my logic is impropriate.

This discussion is a sad joke and I think I have enough of it.

Would you say the question of whether particles really have well-defined simultaneous positions and momenta is not a scientific issue?

Not if you add God's opinion into it. Hell, anyone here knows what God is thinking?

Keep scientific discussion purely in scientific terms and if people do not enough of science, they shouldn't discuss it since such data deprived from this discussion could easily mislead people who maybe coming here for knowledge.

Anyway, you're free to disagree with me on these issues, but speaking as a moderator personal comments like "get a life" are inappropriate. Please avoid making them.

Sorry ... I wasn't telling you to get a life, I was referring to those who are adding God into their little fiasca here.

Anyway, I was referring to statement that they shouldn't waste time talking about something they have little knowledge of. Either way, sorry either way if you thought I meant you.

I think we have spent enough quality time here, right? We both said what we wish to say and that should be enough. The rest could make their own opinions.