When you copypasted the “Heisenberg’s microscope” section of the Wikipedia page in response to my telling you that Heisenberg proved you wrong, did you happen to notice the “microscope” was a theoretical one?
It’s not our equipment that’s the problem in simultaneously measuring the position and momentum of a particle. It’s that matter isn’t made of neat little particles, but messy waveforms that only collapse into particles when we observe them (given the Copenhagen interpretaion, of course).
*snicker*
However, this doesn't take away from the point of the discussion that introducing mysticism into areas of scence that are yet to be fully explained as a stop-gap "solution" is not an acceptable mode of scientific progress. The common trick that's played by these proponents of the 'theology of the fringes', involving vagueness of terminology and inappropriate usage of concepts, is as follows:
1. First, they make the presumption or the implication that science knows or can explain everything.
2. Next, they pick and choose those areas that are still insufficiently explored, and demand an explanation for them. This was what was being done when the earlier poster attempted to bring in not just a deity, but a deity of his / her choice, to pose as if that deity is the solution to the incomplete understanding of the position-momentum uncertainty - a classic case of introducing a god-of-the-gaps.
To such proponents, the tactic to be employed to counter their "reasoning" is simple. Make them climb down from the vanguards of scientific knowledge, and instead force them to go into the doctrinal and scriptural basics of their faith, straight to the definitional roots of their deity(s). To these proponents, I ask that they answer questions such as these:
Firstly, if their adopted deity(s) is (are) beyond the realms of time and space, then it implies that time has no influence over it (them) - in essence, it is (they are) timeless and has / have existed forever. Since the beginning of anything requires a transformational change from the moment of non-existence to the moment of existence, so too must the beginning of even the process that leads to creation, undergo a period of change. The present Universe (and they assume is the only universe) had a finite 'beginning', they believe. This implies that this Universe also was once under the realm of non-existence. Now for the deity to have begun the process of creation, it must have undergone a transformation, or change, from within the realms of its timeless existence, to the period of change that occurred when it decided to create. Since change implies time, how then is this deity existing in a timeless realm?
Secondly, and this is more specific to the religions under consideration, if you believe in the deity of the Old Testament, and also believe the deity to be the source of all morality, then what happened during the moment when this deity ordered for the son of David to suffer a week-long illness and then perish, for no fault of its? Additionally, how was it moral for the same deity to order for the slaughter of the Amalekite children and infants as detailed in 1 Samuel 15:3?
These are merely examples of forcing such introducers of the gods-of-the-gaps to reconcile the contradictions of their own adopted religions. To them, the choices available are as follows:
1. Reconcile with the contradictions by means of logical arguments.
2. Adopt the an agnostic, or at best, a deistic concept for the god they introduced to fill in the apparent gap.