lifegazer said:
I have read what I need to know to present these arguments:-
(1) There are fundamental particles.
If you read the previous post, I show why this means that there is fundamental energy. It's your job to counter the reason in that argument or accept it.
I have argued this on pages 1, 2, and 3. If you want to have ANY credibility at all, you might want to respond to these arguments.
But telling me that physics knows nothing about fundamental energy is both irrelevant and a mistake on the part of physics.
It is not irrelevent, it means that you MADE IT UP. Just like if I start talking about orange energy and claim that everything that is the color orange has orange energy. Just like your fundamental energy, it is meaningless.
... Physics knows that matter is a form of energy. Therefore physics should know that fundamental forms of matter are derivative/effects of fundamental energy.
There is no other type of matter than fundamentel matter. So we can reduce this sentance down to "that matter is the derivative/effect of fundamental energy". Please note here that above, you noted that physics says that matter is a form of energy. Now see that your adding of fundamental before energy is meaningless.
Just because we cannot observe this energy doesn't mean that it isn't there.
But if you can't tell me anything about fundamental energy, or how it is different than regular energy and you just made it up, then its meaningless. Just like my orange energy.
In fact, you cannot observe any energy - you can only observe its effects.
But you can observe the effects, you've given us no effects of fundamental energy to observe.
Well, fundamental forms of matter are clearly the effect of fundamental energy.
No, you admitted above that matter is a form of energy. And there is no matter except fundamentel matter, so if you really want, you can say that fundamental particles are a form of energy. Please not that the word "fundamental" has no place in that sentance.
Start using your brain and stop bringing physics into this.
You are trying to show that your philosophy is consistent with physics. We *have* to bring physics into this. If we don't, we aren't using our brains.
Physics cannot go where I am taking you, which is why physics knows nothing about what I'm saying.
You claim that physics is consistent and irrelavent all at once. You can't have it both ways.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle
Snippet, from the overview:-
"The uncertainty principle is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself offered this explanation initially. Disturbance plays no part, however, since the principle even applies if position is measured in one copy of the system and momentum is measured in another, identical one. It is more accurate to say that the particle is a wave, not a point-like object, and does not have a well-defined simultaneous position and momentum.
There... that's exactly what I said. There is no realm of definites, except within the mind of an observer.
That is not excatly what you said and I picked apart piece by piece what you said, which you have failed to respond to. The fact that we live in a QM reality has nothing to do with a mind or an observer and is no evidence whatsoever for your god.
What I have said is credible and has been criminally overlooked.
I have refuted everything you have said and overlooked NOTHING.
There is evidence within this thread for God's existence.
Where? Nothing you have said has been credible, everything has been refuted without challenge.
