Atheists who attack Christianity

yeah.. but who's alt are you?

I know I was accused of being someone's alt... I'm just trying to trace who is the root person.

I think we are all Ulrika's alts...

OHHH! I get it now.

Even Kevn?

THAT'S how he got his incredible power to deduce alts. So accurate, too.

I don't have any Kevn shirts, but you are welcome to use the Kevn image as long as I get to OK the design.

I wouldn't be suprised. Ulrika has done some pretty interestnig "performance art" in the forums.

Whether a being would ever be capable of perfect duplication of the entire universe is wild-eyed speculation on my part. But the principle holds:

A primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies, or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.

In order for anything to persist, it must be altered from its original creation. The instant of creation would be its state as-is. But what persists is not the truth, the original creation, but the alteration, or "lie". See the truth and persistence ceases.

A special case of this can be observed in subatomic physics, in the creation of particle pairs. When a particle and anti-particle are created, they must be altered (force exerted to separate them) or they will immediately annihilate each other.

To perceive something as-is, is to make a perfect duplicate of it. A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy and space, in its own space, in its own time using its own energy. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes the vanishment of the object.

This works both in thought and in the physical universe.

-------

Regarding reality:
I didn't say that perception equals reality, but that they are inextricable. Nothing has reality if it can't be perceived in some manner. (The key word being can't rather than isn't.)

Reality is the agreed-upon apparency of existence. You may see something, such as rain, but if others do not, it isn't a perception for anyone but you, so it isn't reality.

This is the apparency of our physical existence. We all agree that the physical universe around us is real, for the most part. However, the actuality is otherwise. As I said in the first part, if you were to perceive things as-is, they would vanish (for you).

It's very interesting to think about these issues, I have considered them in the past when reading the Scientology Axioms. I found it at http://www.scientology.org/wis/WISENG/34/34-scax.htm

I disagree with most of it, as an opinion, but it's fun to entertain the possibilities.

When I consider time and what would be if time should stop existing, it boggles the mind. I suppose there could be no physical universe without time, as all matter consist of moving molecules. If the Electrons and protons stopped moving around the nucleus everything would just "poof" into nothingness. Space would cease to exist.

If we imagine "living" in such we get a tiny piece of what may be reality. At this point we are like the Flatlanders trying to understand depth when all they ever knew was 2 dimensions.

You should read up on quantum physics. You don't actually exist... you have a tendency to exist... lol

I'm reminded of a thought-provoking Philip Dick short story, Rautavaara's Case - in which the savior of an alien civilization did the same thing - causing all kinds of religious and conceptual amusement for spiritual human beings.

For those of you who still like to read.

Quantum physics is the physics of the very small as I understand it. I don't see how that suggests anything about my existence. Can you explain in more detail what you mean please?

It is a science of the very small... and the very small are what everything is comprised of... and since protons, neutrons, and electrons have tendencies to exsit, as opposed to actually remaining "static"... you do not exist... you have a tendancy to exist.

It's a lot more complicated than that... but I don't feel like butchering an explaination at the moment. I'm at work, and not really an expert.

Not necessarily. Time might be a function of the brain, a way of ordering the events of the universe so that they are comprehensible to us. I believe some quantum physicists are indeed speculating that this might be the case.

Your God gambles with His Creations - that's what it means. When Christ returns, you'll find him in Vegas, playing the tables.

dont mean to step in here but quantom physics tells us that all those little things that we used to call subatomic particles are not actually truly particles at all.
What we used to call subatomic particles are not exactly particles, or "things," at all. They are not so much like little things, or little bits of stuff, as they are like little energies. We might perhaps refer to them as little packets of energy, except that that term might still give the impression that what we used to call subatomic particles were still particles, or at least were packages. To call them packets still might make it sound like they are little bundles or parcels or items of some sort, and that is precisely what quantum physics wants to avoid saying. So what we used to call subatomic particles are now instead to be called little amounts of energy. Just amounts of energy. The Latin word for "amount" is quantum (plural: quanta), so we will now refer to these... these... well, what we used to call subatomic particles, as quanta of energy, or amounts of energy.

So if we are going to speak accurately here we will not strictly refer to these subatomic "particles" as "particles" any more, because that would imply that they are things, stuff, matter. We will instead refer to them as quanta of energy. And quantum physics, at least when it is speaking strictly and precisely, does not want to imply that these quanta are "things," in the sense of material particles. And that is why today's physics and chemistry textbooks seldom draw atoms any more as little miniature solar systems. They now instead more often represent atoms as clouds of energies, concentrated in a more dense nuclear center and again concentrated in more and less dense orbital regions at some distances from the center.

Another question that we then need to ask about these little quanta of energy is whether they are even "existents" or not, namely, whether they are even something that exists. Quantum physics hesitates to refer to these little quanta as existents, and even refuses to say that they actually exist at some place at some time. Quantum physics prefers instead to say that these little quanta are more like probabilities than they are like actualities. They are said instead to have a tendency to exist at some place at some time. Current representations of atoms as clouds that are more and less dense in different atomic regions is an attempt to show that these little quanta -- what we used to call subatomic particles -- have only a given probability of existing in certain regions at certain times. In other words, they should not be conceived of as existents at all, but should rather be thought of as tendencies to exist. They should not be thought of as stuff at all, but only as probabilities, or tendencies, to exist.

Yeah, that's where much of my metaphysical philosophy comes from. I like to take that as a basic and figure out where it is testable, and where it might correspond to discoveries in physics and where it doesn't seem to. Its main application is in thought.

I agree that without time there would be no universe, because of this idea that a creation needs to be altered to persist. Without change, time would be meaningless. One thing I wonder is whether the slowing down of time as one approaches the speed of light will turn out to be an apparency rather than an actuality. This is another case where it is impossible to separate perception from reality, because all our physical perceptions and actions are limited by this upper speed limit of light.

I have always wondered; if you are going faster than the speed of light and turned around, would you be able to see yourself?

Thank you, I read that before as well at http://home.myuw.net/tkerns/MyUWsite/waol-phi-website/lecsite/lec-quanphys.html

It's very interesting, but there is no absolute agreement. "Quantum theory is generally regarded as one of the most successful scientific theories ever formulated. But while the mathematical description of the quantum world allows the probabilities of experimental results to be calculated with a high degree of accuracy, there is no consensus on what it means in conceptual terms..... According to the conventional interpretation of quantum physics, however, not only is it impossible for us to measure a particle's position and momentum simultaneously with equal precision, a particle does not possess well-defined properties when it is not interacting with a measuring instrument. Furthermore, the uncertainty principle implies that a particle can never be at rest, but is subject to constant fluctuations even when no measurement is taking place, and these fluctuations are assumed to have no causes at all. In other words, the quantum world is believed to be characterized by absolute indeterminism, intrinsic ambiguity, and irreducible lawlessness. As the late physicist David Bohm (1984, p. 87) put it: "it is assumed that in any particular experiment, the precise result that will be obtained is completely arbitrary in the sense that it has no relationship whatever to anything else that exists in the world or that ever has existed."

Bohm (ibid., p. 95) took the view that the abandonment of causality had been too hasty: "it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable. Thus, the conclusion that there is no deeper level of causally determined motion is just a piece of circular reasoning, since it will follow only if we assume beforehand that no such level exists." Most physicists, however, are content to accept the assumption of absolute chance."
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

Here's how that compares to the more metaphysical take:

35. The ultimate truth is a static.

A static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of “basic truth.”
---
36. A lie is a second postulate, statement or condition designed to mask a primary postulate which is permitted to remain.

EXAMPLES:
Neither truth nor a lie is a motion or alteration of a particle from one position to another.
A lie is a statement that a particle having moved did not move, or a statement that a particle, not having moved, did move.
The basic lie is that a consideration which was made was not made or that it was different.
---
37. When a primary consideration is altered but still exists, persistence is achieved for the altering consideration.

All persistence depends on the basic truth, but the persistence is of the altering consideration, for the basic truth has neither persistence nor impersistence.

-----------

A subatomic entity, whether you describe it as a particle or a motion or a quanta of energy, cannot be detected without altering it. Prior to perception it is undefined.

Things exist because we consider they exist, or agree to the consideration. But what is existing is the lie, and the prior truth is that there is nothing. Life is a shared illusion.

The reason it's undefined is no one is there to define it, as far as we know. The fact it's undefined doesn't mean it's non-existent even if no one is there to define it. We are defining things that were undefined before. Those things existed outside our knowledge. Things don't appear because we all agree it exists. It either exists or not. That's my opinion anyway

But what physicists have found is that, on the subatomic level at least, things literally are not in a state of existing until we detect them. The act of detecting them or perceiving them establishes reality. Before that, they don't exist and don't not-exist but are only probabilities. Neither persistence nor impersistence.

I would be interested in seeing the work of these physicists and read their reasoning.

How would one detect what isn't in existence.

Would that mean we can create anything by looking for it?

No, this is a misunderstanding of quantum theory.

The point of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is that the best we can /describe/ these particles involves a certain probability quantity. The particles /do/ exist before measuring them, but the act of measuring one attribute of the particle causes another attribute of the particle to be affected such that we cannot with certainty say that the other attribute is that way before the measurement. Measuring them strips them of probability.

Uncertainty is both a statement about the nature of the features of reality that we are examining (i.e. that they have /features/ of both particles and of waves, not that they /are/ both particles and waves), and an indictment of our methods of observation and our modelling of the processes involved.