Evidence for God from Science

A most illuminating read, very fascinating!
http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-i ... -the-past/

You must read upto page 3, the last one, where it becomes much easier to understand, don't skip pages though.

Wow that's extremely fascinating. It completely changes the way we should look at the world around us. If true, it completely turns all we've learned up until this point, upside down.*








*Could someone tell me what this article means? I have no idea what they're talking about.

It's almost like there's an omniscient intelligence that exists in multiple dimensions of time controlling it all...

...hmm...

SoCalExile wrote:It's almost like there's an omniscient intelligence that exists in multiple dimensions of time controlling it all...

...hmm...

Reminds me of this quote:

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us, Eccl 1:9-10 NASB

Then there is this verse in chapter three:

That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by. Eccl 3:15 NASB,

You think they proved all this true then?

Will they ignore the next verse in chapter three? Eccl 3:16,17
-
-
-

Rick, let's start with the double slit experiment. Tell me if you do not understand something in this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

1over137 wrote:Rick, let's start with the double slit experiment. Tell me if you do not understand something in this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

I don't understand why he's wearing a "Q" on his superhero uniform.


But seriously, I understand what the video is saying. But how do they know it's the act of observing that is causing the difference, and not simply that whatever is observing is in some way affecting the way the particles react?

They're making it sound like some kind of intelligence is at work within the particle. Why can't it just be interference?

Might I cryptically suggest that neither observations the article is talking about nor the double slit experiment mean what people, and scientists in particular, think it means? This is just one of the many places that Descartes has messed us up, and it points to a concrete example of where bad philosophy/theology is creating bad science, and where good philosophy/theology would lead to better science. I'll say more later (when I have internet at somewhere other than work!), but for now, just try googling "thomism double slit experiment" or "thomism quantum mechanics." Interesting stuff, even if it is, of course, rather technical . . .

Rick

Check this video out - this explains it quite well.

Basically it implies that materialism may not be the most accurate description of reality - which is good news for us theists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

RickD wrote:

1over137 wrote:Rick, let's start with the double slit experiment. Tell me if you do not understand something in this video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

I don't understand why he's wearing a "Q" on his superhero uniform.


But seriously, I understand what the video is saying. But how do they know it's the act of observing that is causing the difference, and not simply that whatever is observing is in some way affecting the way the particles react?

They're making it sound like some kind of intelligence is at work within the particle. Why can't it just be interference?

Yes, they are making it sound like that. But I think it is because of whatever is observing affects the particle. Not some intelligence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 103110.htm

If one chooses to believe that the atom really did take a particular path or paths then one has to accept that a future measurement is affecting the atom's past, said Truscott.

"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," he said

Notice that the first sentence starts with the "if". I do not look at the experiment that way. What scientists may only say is: we observed this or we observed that. What is really going on - maybe some future theory will explain. Quantum theory is just set of rules and when people tried to understand it, they said: do not try tounderstand it and rather calculate. It is weird (but very succesful in applications) theory.

B. W. wrote:

SoCalExile wrote:It's almost like there's an omniscient intelligence that exists in multiple dimensions of time controlling it all...

...hmm...

Reminds me of this quote:

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new"? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us, Eccl 1:9-10 NASB

Then there is this verse in chapter three:

That which is has been already and that which will be has already been, for God seeks what has passed by. Eccl 3:15 NASB,

You think they proved all this true then?

Will they ignore the next verse in chapter three? Eccl 3:16,17
-
-
-

Wow! That is exactly what popped into my mind also.I was going to post the same verse until I realized you already did.Solomon nailed it,too bad witchcraft got in his way.

Isaiah 48:3 " I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth,and I shewed them\ caused them to hear it;I did them suddenly,and they came to pass.

Revelation 22:13 " I am Alpha and Omega,the beginning and the end,the first and the last."

Hebrews 11:3 " Through faith we understand that the worlds framed by the word of God,so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."