rasmack 0 #101 July 20, 2005 Quote... But there's still got to be an answer. Why? If you ask a meaningless question, there really is no answer, and asking whether light is "really" a particle or a wave is a meaningless question. It is an attempt to dress up an unknown with something you think you understand. (not you specifically )HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #102 July 20, 2005 QuoteMaybe the answer is the question. Would a loving God not give us the capacity to understand Him, and then demand that understanding? Wendy W. I could be wrong but I don't think he's given us the capacity to understand everything yet. I think there's a trust element and that's what he's looking for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #103 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuotenor can you prove there is not, and YOU are the one making assertions you cannot support, not i... but perhaps that subtle difference eludes you... QuoteIt is not my job as a non believer to prove there is no God, the responsibility to prove there is one, lies with the believers. Back to that powerful word "faith". Not many religious folk have the evangelistic tendencies to compel them to try to "prove" there is a god to you. In fact, I've observed far more non believers strongly voicing their opinions then believers. Why is that? Why do "believers" tend to keep that private? Because it is private? Because it is usually more acceptable in a social environment to shun religion then to embrace it? I mean I hear people saying "Religion is fine, just don't push it down my throat". But I rarely see the "believer" pushing anything. It is usually the other way around. I find it interesting that most atheists and agnostics will have no problem discussing in mixed company, why there is no god. And that is generally excepted. But on the rare occasion that a "believer" testifies to their commitment, it seems a social faux pas and they have painted themselves as weak in the eyes of others. Then I see what people do in the name of religion/Christianity in regards to selfless efforts for others. Hospital work, charity programs, community support for all races and points of views. People who take volunteering to the next level per say. I acknowledge there are non religious groups that do the same stuff. But at least in my community, no way near as much as the "holy rollers". Good people - Good intentions - Good things - Good results for everyone. Why not, as a non believer, just be happy there is a group in your community that is willing to spend their efforts trying to do the right things for not only themselves, but yes, even for non believers? I guess you're right. "why take them seriously" Silly people Just an observation. QuoteHowever after nearly 2000 years since the supposed Birth of Jesus, there is still no evidence that he even existed.. Therefore I feel quite comfortable in saying there is no god... Disagree - I guess it all depends on what you consider evidence. There are many references to Jesus existing that are not in the bible..... ....but then again, you are going to believe what you want....fine by me Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #104 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote... But there's still got to be an answer. Why? If you ask a meaningless question, there really is no answer, and asking whether light is "really" a particle or a wave is a meaningless question. It is an attempt to dress up an unknown with something you think you understand. (not you specifically ) I agree that there are meaningless questions and that's exactly what they are....meaningless. But it doesn't seem logical to me that determining whether light is a wave or particle is one of them. There will certainly be advances made with our better understanding of what light is exactly and how it acts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #105 July 20, 2005 QuoteThe basis of 'faith' is belief without proof. With proof, the entire religious structure would be a moot point. No. Belief without proof would be more like "blind faith." That's not the case with Christianity. There's plenty of evidence. Just not what all will accept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #106 July 20, 2005 You haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #107 July 20, 2005 QuoteYou haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? The Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,560 #108 July 20, 2005 QuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #109 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? Wendy W. God ultimately. The only standard I have to go by is the Bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #110 July 20, 2005 >Just because we don't know doesn't mean that it's both. There's >got to be an answer to the problem. We just don't know it yet. >Maybe someday we will. Actually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. And that's far from the strangest thing in particle physics. Electrons can literally be in two places at once. Vacuums have vacuum energy that you can suck out. Google Casimir effect, or Bose-Einsteinian condensate, or spooky action at a distance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #111 July 20, 2005 QuoteActually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. And that's far from the strangest thing in particle physics. Electrons can literally be in two places at once. Vacuums have vacuum energy that you can suck out. Google Casimir effect, or Bose-Einsteinian condensate, or spooky action at a distance. Ok. I’ll buy that. It definitely has properties of both. But that doesn’t mean that there are two answers to the question. You can’t say “light is a particle” without also saying “Light is a wave” correct? You have to say light shows properties of both a particle and a wave. One answer not two. Not trying to argue with a physicist (well…yes I am ) and I fully admit I can be wrong. Sorry...got you mixed up with Kallend (the physicist) there for a second. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #112 July 20, 2005 Seems that this discussion on religion attracted a swarm of us. Greetings from CERN. I'll go build that anti-matter bomb now...HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #113 July 20, 2005 >But that doesn’t mean that there are two answers to the question. Is Schrodinger's Cat alive? Yes and no. Is light a particle? Yes and no; depends on when you look at it. Can you measure a particle's energy? Yes and no; depends on whether you have previously measured its position. >You can’t say “light is a particle” without also saying “Light is a >wave” correct? Sure you can. It has momemtum; if you bounce it off a solar sail, the sail moves in the other direction. That's a particle, since particles have mass and waves don't. On the other hand, when you shine it through a diffraction grating, you get an interference pattern. That's a characteristic of waves, not particles. Particles don't generate interference patterns. The problem here is that we don't have a good way to talk about this stuff. Quantum mechanics is very non-intuitive. On the other hand, there are some very significant philosophical implications. From Heisenburg we learned that not only is it hard to know everything, you CAN'T know everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,117 #114 July 20, 2005 Quote> From Heisenburg we learned that not only is it hard to know everything, you CAN'T know everything. And Godel showed us that there are some things that can neither be proved nor disproved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #115 July 20, 2005 well they base their brand of bullshit off a version of the bible so that makes them christian. What other definition of christian is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites madscape 0 #116 July 20, 2005 QuoteWhat other definition of christian is there? Ask 100 Fundie Zealot Asshats that same question, get 100 different answers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,090 #117 July 20, 2005 >What other definition of christian is there? The one most christians use is "a version of christianity that agrees with mine." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Alias 0 #118 July 20, 2005 QuoteYou haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? Well, a few. The door knockers. In LA when I was 19. I invited them in and listened to what they had to say (open mind ya know, and the one young lady was way hot!) - took their literature and thanked them for their time. When they returned a week later to discuss the literature left, I kindly told them I was not interested, but admired their efforts.....and that was that.......I see that you feel it (religion) is all "bullshit" and am fine with that. I'll assume that was the only point in my rant you disagreed with? Like all groups, it is the "hard cores" that meddle in others business....and they seem to be an extremely small percentage....but sometimes used by the non-believers for why they dislike religion so much..... My main point was, and I think you would have to admit, that Christians as a whole are a pretty loving bunch with good intentions towards their (your) community. No? High morals - not a bad thing in my book Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TomAiello 26 #119 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? There's actually quite a bit of interesting literature, and academic research, on the difference between a cult and a religion. So, in a sense, lots of people have tried to judge that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #120 July 20, 2005 QuoteActually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. I think you’re talking about a photon being able to exist in two places at once (e.g. quantum physics). I don’t think that means that the photon “is” two things at once, though. Right? Anyway, you guys are describing properties of a particular thing and saying that effectively makes it two things (e.g. 2 answers to the question). I’m saying that it’s got properties that we can’t necessarily reconcile but that still doesn’t change what it is (e.g. one answer to the question), IMO. That’s cool. My head hurts. By the way, I think you kind of described the Trinity in your reply above …in a scientific sort of way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #121 July 20, 2005 I subscribe to the Bullshit Theory. Everyone has their particular brand of bullshit and everyone thinks that their bullshit is the best around. But in the end it is still all bullshit and then we die and find out whos bullshit was the best. No one has ever came back to confirm which brand of bullshit is the winner, so there is no way to know who has the best bullshit around. By the way there is no proof that anyone named Jesus actually did come back from the dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #122 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat other definition of christian is there? Ask 100 Fundie Zealot Asshats that same question, get 100 different answers... Nice contribution. Just start calling those you don't agree with names. I used to get put in the corner in grammar school for doing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #123 July 20, 2005 QuoteBy the way there is no proof that anyone named Jesus actually did come back from the dead. Just the eye-witness testimony of those who were there. Depends on what you consider proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites beowulf 1 #124 July 20, 2005 I don't consider the bible a very credible source of evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #125 July 20, 2005 QuoteI don't consider the bible a very credible source of evidence. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
pajarito 0 #104 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuote... But there's still got to be an answer. Why? If you ask a meaningless question, there really is no answer, and asking whether light is "really" a particle or a wave is a meaningless question. It is an attempt to dress up an unknown with something you think you understand. (not you specifically ) I agree that there are meaningless questions and that's exactly what they are....meaningless. But it doesn't seem logical to me that determining whether light is a wave or particle is one of them. There will certainly be advances made with our better understanding of what light is exactly and how it acts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #105 July 20, 2005 QuoteThe basis of 'faith' is belief without proof. With proof, the entire religious structure would be a moot point. No. Belief without proof would be more like "blind faith." That's not the case with Christianity. There's plenty of evidence. Just not what all will accept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #106 July 20, 2005 You haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #107 July 20, 2005 QuoteYou haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? The Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,560 #108 July 20, 2005 QuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #109 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? Wendy W. God ultimately. The only standard I have to go by is the Bible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #110 July 20, 2005 >Just because we don't know doesn't mean that it's both. There's >got to be an answer to the problem. We just don't know it yet. >Maybe someday we will. Actually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. And that's far from the strangest thing in particle physics. Electrons can literally be in two places at once. Vacuums have vacuum energy that you can suck out. Google Casimir effect, or Bose-Einsteinian condensate, or spooky action at a distance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #111 July 20, 2005 QuoteActually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. And that's far from the strangest thing in particle physics. Electrons can literally be in two places at once. Vacuums have vacuum energy that you can suck out. Google Casimir effect, or Bose-Einsteinian condensate, or spooky action at a distance. Ok. I’ll buy that. It definitely has properties of both. But that doesn’t mean that there are two answers to the question. You can’t say “light is a particle” without also saying “Light is a wave” correct? You have to say light shows properties of both a particle and a wave. One answer not two. Not trying to argue with a physicist (well…yes I am ) and I fully admit I can be wrong. Sorry...got you mixed up with Kallend (the physicist) there for a second. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #112 July 20, 2005 Seems that this discussion on religion attracted a swarm of us. Greetings from CERN. I'll go build that anti-matter bomb now...HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #113 July 20, 2005 >But that doesn’t mean that there are two answers to the question. Is Schrodinger's Cat alive? Yes and no. Is light a particle? Yes and no; depends on when you look at it. Can you measure a particle's energy? Yes and no; depends on whether you have previously measured its position. >You can’t say “light is a particle” without also saying “Light is a >wave” correct? Sure you can. It has momemtum; if you bounce it off a solar sail, the sail moves in the other direction. That's a particle, since particles have mass and waves don't. On the other hand, when you shine it through a diffraction grating, you get an interference pattern. That's a characteristic of waves, not particles. Particles don't generate interference patterns. The problem here is that we don't have a good way to talk about this stuff. Quantum mechanics is very non-intuitive. On the other hand, there are some very significant philosophical implications. From Heisenburg we learned that not only is it hard to know everything, you CAN'T know everything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,117 #114 July 20, 2005 Quote> From Heisenburg we learned that not only is it hard to know everything, you CAN'T know everything. And Godel showed us that there are some things that can neither be proved nor disproved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #115 July 20, 2005 well they base their brand of bullshit off a version of the bible so that makes them christian. What other definition of christian is there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
madscape 0 #116 July 20, 2005 QuoteWhat other definition of christian is there? Ask 100 Fundie Zealot Asshats that same question, get 100 different answers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #117 July 20, 2005 >What other definition of christian is there? The one most christians use is "a version of christianity that agrees with mine." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alias 0 #118 July 20, 2005 QuoteYou haven't met very many Jehovah's Witnesses have you? Well, a few. The door knockers. In LA when I was 19. I invited them in and listened to what they had to say (open mind ya know, and the one young lady was way hot!) - took their literature and thanked them for their time. When they returned a week later to discuss the literature left, I kindly told them I was not interested, but admired their efforts.....and that was that.......I see that you feel it (religion) is all "bullshit" and am fine with that. I'll assume that was the only point in my rant you disagreed with? Like all groups, it is the "hard cores" that meddle in others business....and they seem to be an extremely small percentage....but sometimes used by the non-believers for why they dislike religion so much..... My main point was, and I think you would have to admit, that Christians as a whole are a pretty loving bunch with good intentions towards their (your) community. No? High morals - not a bad thing in my book Carpe Diem Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #119 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe Jehovah's Witness religion is not Christian even though they claim to be Who judges that? You or God? There's actually quite a bit of interesting literature, and academic research, on the difference between a cult and a religion. So, in a sense, lots of people have tried to judge that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #120 July 20, 2005 QuoteActually, we do know it's both. It's a problem of human perception, not scientific understanding. Many people have a problem comprehending something that can be two things at once, but that doesn't change the phenomenon. There are surely more details we will learn later, but we do know that photons can effectively be two things at once. I think you’re talking about a photon being able to exist in two places at once (e.g. quantum physics). I don’t think that means that the photon “is” two things at once, though. Right? Anyway, you guys are describing properties of a particular thing and saying that effectively makes it two things (e.g. 2 answers to the question). I’m saying that it’s got properties that we can’t necessarily reconcile but that still doesn’t change what it is (e.g. one answer to the question), IMO. That’s cool. My head hurts. By the way, I think you kind of described the Trinity in your reply above …in a scientific sort of way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #121 July 20, 2005 I subscribe to the Bullshit Theory. Everyone has their particular brand of bullshit and everyone thinks that their bullshit is the best around. But in the end it is still all bullshit and then we die and find out whos bullshit was the best. No one has ever came back to confirm which brand of bullshit is the winner, so there is no way to know who has the best bullshit around. By the way there is no proof that anyone named Jesus actually did come back from the dead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #122 July 20, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat other definition of christian is there? Ask 100 Fundie Zealot Asshats that same question, get 100 different answers... Nice contribution. Just start calling those you don't agree with names. I used to get put in the corner in grammar school for doing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #123 July 20, 2005 QuoteBy the way there is no proof that anyone named Jesus actually did come back from the dead. Just the eye-witness testimony of those who were there. Depends on what you consider proof. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #124 July 20, 2005 I don't consider the bible a very credible source of evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #125 July 20, 2005 QuoteI don't consider the bible a very credible source of evidence. Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
