"Why does there have to be a God?"

[morgantj]

its meant to point out that different interpretations of something, dont necessarily throw doubt on it.

but you missed that.

I guess I did, maybe it was because you specifically asked, "there are at least 11 different interpertations of QM, does that make you doubt a quantum particles existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I guess I did, maybe it was because you specifically asked, "there are at least 11 different interpertations of QM, does that make you doubt a quantum particles existence?

exactly, you dont doubt the existence of a particle, just because there are several different ways to explain it, or there are several different opinions on it.

 

[morgantj]

exactly, you dont doubt the existence of a particle, just because there are several different ways to explain it, or there are several different opinions on it.

No, because there is evidence that particles exist. It has nothing to do with how many opinion there are of it on how these particles behave. These opinions are not on whether particles exist or not, the opinions are on how they behave.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No, because there is evidence that particles exist. It has nothing to do with how many opinion there are of it on how these particles behave. These opinions are not on whether particles exist or not, the opinions are on how they behave.

here let me show you what you said and seem to have forgotten.

On one hand you have people attributing all kinds of characterstics to god, on the other you have people saying that humans cannot possibly know god because god is beyond human understanding. These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.

on one hand you have people attributing all kinds of different characteristics to QM, on the other you have people saying that you cant possibly know what those different characteristics are, because there cant be hidden variables. these contradictions on the verity of all the interpretations.

do you see the similarity now?

you dont doubt the existence of particles because there are different interpretations, even though some say that we cant really know anything about those particles because certain paired metrics cant be simultaneously defined. and despites these contradictory interpretations, you still believe in these particles.

its a pretty simple analogy.

 

[JDaniel]

You have not even explained what you find wrong with my comments to begin with. You are just being belligerent.

DID YOU JUST CALL ME FAT?

OK, buddy, you’re in trouble now. :slapfight:



jd
PS: I will get to the points you raised, but not tonight.

 

[morgantj]

here let me show you what you said and seem to have forgotten.

on one hand you have people attributing all kinds of different characteristics to QM, on the other you have people saying that you cant possibly know what those different characteristics are, because there cant be hidden variables. these contradictions on the verity of all the interpretations.

do you see the similarity now?

you dont doubt the existence of particles because there are different interpretations, even though some say that we cant really know anything about those particles because certain paired metrics cant be simultaneously defined. and despites these contradictory interpretations, you still believe in these particles.

its a pretty simple analogy.

The existence of particles has been proven. The existence of a god has not. There are actually particles there to test their characteristics and see how they behave. God… still missing, nothing there to test or determine any characteristics. That is not analogous. You can proceed to skew and twist this as many times as you like to try to make them sound the same, but they are not.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The existence of particles has been proven. The existence of a god has not. There are actually particles there to test their characteristics and see how they behave

.

you must have a nobel prize, because no one has ever actually observed a particle, in fact its actually impossible to do.

they know they exist from their effect, which is definitely not a settled issue

even if you hadn’t just exposed your lack of knowledge on the subject, again, it still wouldn’t change the analogy you claim to doubt the existence of G-d because

These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.

 

[morgantj]

they know they exist

Thank you! So you agree particles existence has been proven!

God’s existence has not. Nor has any effect been proven to have been caused by a god.

not analogous.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you! So you agree particles existence has been proven!

its interesting how you dont seem to notice i can just qoute what was already said.

***no one has ever actually observed a particle, in fact its actually impossible to do.

they know they exist from their effect***

selective qouting, to purposefully, change the meaning of a post is considered bad form at the best and dishonest at worst.

so which is it with you, do you not understand appropriate behavior, or are you being dishonest?

hundreds of people see these posts, be careful what you do, your reputation is based on your behavior.

God’s existence has not. Nor has any effect been proven to have been caused by a god.

as to G-ds existence, i notice that you haven’t replied to the arguments for that, i assume you are furiously reading wikipedia, to find counter arguments, if not then i can only assume your not willing to examine the evidence.

the universe is proof, if you cant propose a reason thats not true, then you cant really say G-d doesnt exist, or that there is no proof of G-d.

the problem is you keep making statements and not arguments

either back up your assertions or admit, you dont really know if there is any evidence for G-d

not analogous.

once again im just going to repost why thats not relevant to your belief or disbelief.

Quote:
These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all.
not because one is proven or not. but because there are contradictions.
yet the contradictions in QM, dont cause disbeleif.

your standard for verity was not proof it was contradictions

Originally Posted by morgantj
One can say anything they want about god, it doesn’t matter a bit unless they are able to back up their claims with supporting evidence. On one hand you have people attributing all kinds of characterstics to god, on the other you have people saying that humans cannot possibly know god because god is beyond human understanding. ***These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all. ***

see?

you specifically said ***These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all. ***

where did you say that proof?

because what you said was this

***These contradictions cause suspicion on the verity of it all. ***

 

[morgantj]

its interesting how you dont seem to notice i can just qoute what was already said.

no one has ever actually observed a particle, in fact its actually impossible to do.

they know they exist from their effect

selective qouting, to purposefully, change the meaning of a post is considered bad form at the best and dishonest at worst.

so which is it with you, do you not understand appropriate behavior, or are you being dishonest?

hundreds of people see these posts, be careful what you do, your reputation is based on your behavior.

Thank you once again for agreeing that it is known that particles exist. Your continued agreement will be witnessed by hundreds of people.

the universe is proof,

Another statement without an explanation. Please explain why you think the mere existence of the universe proof that a god exist? Please back up your statements with some kind of support.That would be a bit more productive.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Thank you once again for agreeing that it is known that particles exist. Your continued agreement will be witnessed by hundreds of people.

thats ok by me, i never claimed that particles dont exist, if i did, then simply qoute that statement, and provide the post number.

when you cant find that claim i will be happy to accept your apology

Another statement without an explanation. Please explain why you think the mere existence of the universe proof that a god exist? Please back up your statements with some kind of support.That would be a bit more productive.

i did here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=316400&page=8

we started the conversation in posts 107,108,109

you just stopped reponding to the first cause argument, though bear claw took up where you left off, feel free to respond to the latest post there.

not much point in having the same argument on multiple threads

 

[morgantj]

thats ok by me, i never claimed that particles dont exist

I didn’t think you did. Yet when I said, " So you agree particles existence has been proven"

You said I was being dishonest and changing the meaning.

I await your apology.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I didn’t think you did.

really so when you posted these things you weren’t making that implication? for someone so interested in the use of langauge i find that hard to believe

post #70
Thank you once again for agreeing that it is known that particles exist. Your continued agreement will be witnessed by hundreds of people

and

post#68
Thank you! So you agree particles existence has been proven!

so you either dont understand the implications of your words, or you are unwilling to admit the implication

as decried the improper use of langauge elsewhere, it can only be a failure to admit the implication.

Yet when I said, " So you agree particles existence has been proven"
You said I was being dishonest and changing the meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgantj
Thank you! So you agree particles existence has been proven!

its interesting how you dont seem to notice i can just qoute what was already said.

no one has ever actually observed a particle, in fact its actually impossible to do.

they know they exist from their effect

selective qouting, to purposefully, change the meaning of a post is considered bad form at the best and dishonest at worst.

really because here in the quote, i implied it was dishonest to selectively qoute someone, in order to change the meaning of their post, because you only qouted this

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

they know they exist

yet again, you are so interseted in being ‘right’ that you sacrifice your intellectual ethics.

I await your apology.

good luck with that

 

[morgantj]

really so when you posted these things you weren’t making that implication? for someone so interested in the use of langauge i find that hard to believe

Yea, it was pretty easy to figure out since you said, "they know they exist. "

Apparently you are severely confused now or are just playing dumb.

I didn’t change the meaning of your post. You saying, " “they know they exist. " means they know particles exist” Which is what I have been saying. Now when I point out that you agree to this, suddenly you accuse me of being dishonest.

You are not making any sense now, and your misdirection tactics are not worth any more of my time. Good luck with that.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yea, it was pretty easy to figure out since you said, "they know they exist. "

Apparently you are severely confused now or are just playing dumb.

i posted the evidence of your behavior, i wouldn’t call that dumb or confused.

I didn’t change the meaning of your post. You saying, " “they know they exist. " means they know particles exist” Which is what I have been saying. Now when I point out that you agree to this, suddenly you accuse me of being dishonest.

here is the evidence again

i posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by morgantj
Thank you! So you agree particles existence has been proven!

its interesting how you dont seem to notice i can just qoute what was already said.

no one has ever actually observed a particle, in fact its actually impossible to do.

they know they exist from their effect

selective qouting, to purposefully, change the meaning of a post is considered bad form at the best and dishonest at worst.

here is what you actually qouted

Originally Posted by warpspeedpetey

they know they exist

caught red handed.

You are not making any sense now, and your misdirection tactics are

accusing me of misdirection in the face of the evidence is the classic misdirection

not worth any more of my time.

of course not, now that there is undeniable proof of unethical behavior.

Good luck with that.

it wasn’t luck, i didn’t make you do that.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Whats going on here?

 

[ready]

There has to be a God…otherwise we’d have chaos and anarchy rampant.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There has to be a God…otherwise we’d have chaos and anarchy rampant.

Once the various intrinsic Qualities that makes up the universe exists, Science can explain the emergence or actualization’s of various qualities and properties through natural processes. But they cannot explain the existence of the fundamental properties or qualities.

Thats why there has to be a God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It doesn’t make much sense that a grouping of blind atoms would feel depressed or happy. But it makes perfect sense if the fundamental ground of all being is perfectly personal in Nature.

Thats why there must be a God.

 

[MindOverMatter]

That a creature whom has life, would seek to protect it, doesn’t make much sense in terms of mere physics. But it makes sense in terms of God.

Thats why there must be a God.