You make some pretty sweeping judgments about God based on theories. My understanding is that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible theories. Isn't it just sophistry to use two seperate theories, that are mutually incompatible, and to argue regarding ultimate reality based upon them, depending on which helps you try to score a point?
It is one thing to use them scientifically for a bounded result in a particular context and another to generalize them beyond the universe itself to God who stands outside of the universe and is its creator. Can't you imagine a God that stands outside of your physical limitations and your lack of knowledge?
Be intellectually honest. Don't you see that this Heiseberg Uncertainty argument applied to God is bogus? If no, which is correct Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, and why? Can you provide mathmatical, publishable proof, or will you admit they do not jibe and so are incomplete theories in contradiction. Let me know when you've worked out the theory of everything and I'll calculate God along with you . . . though I do think it will take an awfully big blackboard.
“Isn’t it just sophistry to use two seperate theories, that are mutually incompatible, and to argue regarding ultimate reality based upon them, depending on which helps you try to score a point?”
Please note the last line in my profile. Sophistry is ALL we have in regards to the empirical, analitical, and dialectic thinking.
By the logic of disregarding one for another, then discussion cannot possibly lead to understanding, due to it not being direct observation on the part of all parties involved.
It really boils down to- What if Einstein was right? If he for a fact, is not, then what if Super-String Theory is wrong? Just because it’s newer, it does not make it “correcter” as well. Maybe a direct comparison IS the best way to break it apart.
Actually I have been trying to stick purely with QM. Non locality does seem to be a contradiction between QM and Relativity, but it appears that time and distance are relative and better understanding will probably clear up the differences. We just need another genius to come along and then we will all say that it was obvious ^_^
It is one thing to use them scientifically for a bounded result in a particular context and another to generalize them beyond the universe itself to God who stands outside of the universe and is its creator. Can't you imagine a God that stands outside of your physical limitations and your lack of knowledge?
Anything can be imagined, is that your point? I can imagine pink unicorns. Does my imagining make it so? You can imagine an all knowing being who intently watches your every move and knows your every thought. Does that make it so?
Be intellectually honest. Don't you see that this Heiseberg Uncertainty argument applied to God is bogus?
No. It is testable and predictive. God should be as good.
If no, which is correct Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, and why? Can you provide mathmatical, publishable proof, or will you admit they do not jibe and so are incomplete theories in contradiction.
I will certainly admit to the incompleteness but not the contradiction. If you can demonstrate the transmission of useful information at faster than the speed of light then I will admit the contradiction. If you look at it from the stand point of the wave/packet moving at the speed of light. the distance and time factors are resolved.
Let me know when you've worked out the theory of everything and I'll calculate God along with you . . . though I do think it will take an awfully big blackboard.
Why don't you just admit that God isn't absolutely Omniscient and the Universe will make a lot more sense ^_^ Freewill becomes possible, rebellion against God becomes possible, etc. God can still know with certainty the outcome, what will be new to him is the path.