Edtharan

Oscillation is a back and forth motion. That is something moves one way, and then moves in the opposite direction. This means that on a single axis, you can't have 2 separate types of oscillations, as in a positive oscillation and a negative oscillation as they would be the same thing. This, as you said, is an assumption. If this assumption is false, then your proposal breaks down and does not work (as it it doesn't explain what we already have observed - namely electron/positron pair production). You are assuming, without any evidence that making a electron/positron pair must be the least resistance because that is what you need to make it sound like your idea would work. Science is based on observation and testing to get evidence for something. Even Einstein made this mistake and assumed that the universe must be static and thus introduced the cosmological constant into his equations. But when he realised that he had no evidence for it, he took it out. However, later on, when science found that an effect that causes repulsion over large distances did indeed exist, they added the term back in. So science does not include terms in their theories that have no evidence, but if evidence is later discovered that does require that kind of term in the theory, then they will add it in. Your assumption is that pair production is the "easy option". What if it isn't the easiest option under your proposal. You have provided no evidence that this should be the case, nor have you provided a logical or rational deduction from your initial concepts that would require it to be. In other words, your assumption is required for your proposal to even be considered to be a valid proposal, but this assumption is unfounded and you present no evidence for it. And remember, this is in light of current theory that does explain these phenomena and observations, without the need for such unproven assumptions. On one hand we have a theory that works, explains these observations and successfully predicts future observations, on the other hand we have something that requires an assumption with no evidence or argument to support it.

If god could have made the universe without suffering, then no suffering is necessary as god could have achieve the same ends without it. This is the inherent contradiction between an all powerful and good god and that evil exists. This can't be explained away by magic because the dilemma has nothing to do with how it was done, only that the existence of an all powerful god that claims to be good and the fact that suffering exists. They are mutually exclusive, and because we know that suffering exists, then the conclusion is that the other can not. It is like something can't be completely white and completely black at the same time. Magic couldn't make it both at the same time, it might be able to change it from one to the other, but it can not violate existence.

There are some things we can determine about an ecosystem based on an incomplete fossil record. For example: If we find a large predator, then we know there must be a prey species that it eats. Not only that, we can determine from the physiology of the predator (well what we can determine that is) how much prey it needs to survive. This then allows us to work out things like birth rates of the prey, size of the prey species, birth rates of the predator (and thus whether the predator had a predator), and so on (eg: that parasites exist, scavengers exist, etc). This is because no animal exists in isolation, and the relationships between them and the existence of one niche means that it create other niches too. Sure, we can not know for certain that it is exactly that way, and we can not know every niche that existed, but there is much we can determine about an ecosystem from just a few fossils.

I agree that you can not disprove that some god (or gods) might exist. But, it is possible to prove or disprove specific claims about a specific god, and if the existence of that god is dependent on those claims being true, then it becomes possible to disprove a god if you can disprove those claims. For example: If the claim what that a god made the thunder and lightning by banging his hammer (think Thor) and this god could only exist if this is true. Then when we investigate how thunder and lightning are produced and find that it is not created by a hammer, then we disprove that, that particular god does not exist. This however, does not preclude some other god making thunder in the way we see it being made. Another example is a God that knows everything, can do anything and is completely good. If a god is completely good, then they can not allow unnecessary suffering (although necessary suffering would be allowed). If they know everything, then they can conceive of a universe that does not require any suffering. If they can do anything, then they can create this universe without suffering. The next question is: Do we live in a universe with any unnecessary suffering? To this, the answer is yes. Thus we can conclude that no god that claims to have those 3 attributes (All knowing, All Powerful and Good) can exist.

There is evidence that the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. Light travels at approximately 300,000 km/s (when doing the actual calculation they used a much more accurate figure). Using various measuring techniques, they have managed to measure the distance to the furthest visible object. The distance is approximately 130,648,464,000,000,000,000,000km away. Light travelling at 300,000 km/s would take 13.8 billion years to cover that distance. What this means is that when the universe formed, the light from this time has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us, meaning that the universe must be around that old. So it is not so much a "Theory", but that is the age we have measured. Remember: Reality Wins. You might like to think that the universe is the way you believe it is, but without evidence to back up that claim (and with evidence against it), you can not claim what you are doing here. I could just as well think that the ground is made of fruit cake, but that does not make it so. Of course, if I could dig up some ground and show that it is indeed fruit cake, then I might have some grounds to claim that the ground is indeed fruit cake. Though, as I have said, is a process. There is evidence for this. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging shows activity in the brain associated with thought. Detection methods have become so accurate with this now days that in carefully controlled situations, we can detect what image someone is imagining. Electro Encephalographic technology is sophisticated enough for us to detect the difference in the pattern of activity in the brain to reliably (over 99% of the time) detect the thought of someone enough for it to be used as an input to control a computer (this technology is to the point where they are staring to make controller for computer games). Although all these techniques detect energy, it is not the energy that they are looking at (just as your digital camera detects energy, but you are not taking a photo of energy). What they are detecting is the changes in the energy that is caused by the processes going on in the brain. This means that thought is a process, not energy. Life too is a process, it is chemical process and much of this process has been examined and recorded and is understood. This means that someone who claims that life is energy, or that thought is energy has a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts the claim. And, because reality wins and the evidence comes from reality, then reality states that your claim of thought and life being energy is contrary to reality. reality wins and your claims are thus proved wrong. Personal space (in terms of people) is a psychological effect, not a force. If there was such a "force" that caused a repulsion between people, you could create a device that could detect it. No such force has ever been detected. More over, if the effect is psychological, then one would expect us to be able to control it to some degree or other. If the effect was an actual force, then we should not be able to control it (just as a magnet can not control it own force). In other words, the evidence you present for your claim (that we can control it) actually disproves your claim. There is a big difference between magic and science/technology. The quote you are probably refereing to was about how to deal with technology in fiction stories. In that Arthur C Clark was making a point that an author should not overly dwell on how the science fiction technology they use in the fictional story works, but instead get on with the story. Clark was not, in any way, when he made that quote, trying to say anything about reality, despite what some people would like to believe. Just because you don't understand something does not make it magical. Magic is something that full fills wishes. It is not, therefore, subject to the laws of physics. Technology, on the other hand, is totally dependent on the laws of physics. So while something you don't understand might "appear" as magic, if it is based on the laws of physics, then it is categorically not magical in any way. If, however, there is an invention that does not operate to the laws of physics, and can in fact break the known laws of physics, then that device would be magical. Mobile phones, wrist communicators (which do exist by the way) and all that are not magical, they work on known and well understood laws of physics and thus can not be magical. If you lack the understanding of how they work and don't seek to understand how they work, then, because reality wins, you do not have any grounds to make any claim about them.

But the point I was making is there needs to be evidence. DO you have any evidence to support your idea? There is plenty to support the counter claim though... Yes, and 13.8 billion is, well 13.8 times as much as 1 billion years... In a million years, we might not even exist to invent flying cars. There are many things we could do to wipe us out, and there are many more things the universe can do to us as well. Actually flying cars already exist (at lesat in a prototype stage anyway): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moller_Skycar_M400 One thing you must remember: Reality wins. What I mean is that we can think and feel and believe what we want, but this has no impact on reality. If you are standing on train track and there is a freight train racing towards you, it doesn't matter how much you believe, of feel that the train won't hit you. If you don't move out of the way, the train will hit you. Reality wins. I can imagine the cup on my desk hold a miracle drink that will make me live for ever. But the reality is that it is just empty. Reality wins. So you might be able to imagine these things, but just because you can imagine them does not make them real. And, if they are real, then we can detect and measure them and so get evidence for them. Have you got any evidence for your claims?

The best eye I have heard of is the eye of the Mantis Shrimp. We have only 3 colour receptors in our eyes, they have 16 and can even see the differences in circularly polarised light (afaik no other animal can do this). Compared to these guys, the human eye is severely underdeveloped.

Unless he can travel back through time, then he can not be telling the truth as the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. His school teachers of course... The early universe consisted mostly of Hydrogen and some Helium (and a few traces of slightly heavier elements). We are made of carbon and oxygen (mainly). These elements didn't exist in the early universe. Life is a process, and for that it needs a certain level of complexity in its chemistry, which is not possible with Hydrogen (it can only attach itself to 1 other atom) or Helium (it doesn't really have any free attachment to other atoms). The elements heavier than Helium need to be formed by fusing the lighter elements together, and this only occurs in stars. Thus for life to get going, enough stars need to form and then explode before there is enough heavier elements to form planets and eventually life. Thought is a process. Energy is not a process, so thought can not turn into pure energy and still remain thought. This works great in sci-fi shows like Star Trek, but it is actually a physical impossibility. No it is a process. Energy is used by the process, but it is not, itself, energy. Think of the analogy of a car engine. An engine uses fuel, but and engine is not, itself, fuel. This bit specifically: "Imagined or not, it is a real force." Sorry, if it is an imagined force, then it is not real. That is the definition of "Imagined". So, if it is an imagined force, then you not describing reality. If it is not, then it can be measured and detected. Your argument here has been examined under the name of "Élan Vital". It used to be believed that living organisms had some kind of property (matter, energy or "force") that made them fundamentally different to non living things. After a long (many hundreds of years) of searching for such an effect, they concluded that it didn't exist. So there is no evidence that such a field, substance, force or property that turns non living matter into living organisms. Now, as I said above, if your "force" was real, then it should be able to be detected, and despite a long search for such a thing has not detected anything (and we have explanations for why it doesn't need to exist), we can conclude that such a field does not exist, and thus disproving your argument. If there were being able to influence our thoughts, then they would have to have an effect on matter or energy that can cause a real measurable effect. If this was not the case, then they could not effect our thoughts (or at least our brains and that is what drives our bodies). So, either they are detectable, or they don't have an effect (and thus the percentage of their effect is 0%). If they are detectable, then we could detect them (and should have done as this is exactly what SETI have been trying to do for a long time now). As no such detection has occurred, then the vast probability is that the influence is 0%. But, what this means is that either the don't exist and your argument is just imagination (and thus they are not real), or they are not influencing us, and your argument is just imagination (and thus not valid). So in either case, your argument is disproved.

Think of it this way. If you roll a dice and it comes up a 3, then why did it come up a 3. It could have come up a 2 or a 5 or any of 6 numbers. Basically, despite the fact that other possibilities exist, it has to land on 1 number and only 1 number. This means that your thinking above has to be wring, because if it were true, then when ever you rolled a dice it would never stop rolling, or have to land on every single number it could at the same time. This is an incorrect use of the Uncertainty principle, but it is a common misperception of it. To put it in the simplest terms: The uncertainty principle is about the fact that when you try to detect one property of a particle, you have to erase the other properties to do so. Think of it this way. Imagine a pool (snooker) table and balls. Say you want to take a photo of the balls while people are playing. You could use a fast shutter speed. This would capture an image of the table as it is, but since you would not have the information that showed in which direction the balls are moving, so you would not, from just the photo, be able to tell how the table will look at the start of the next player's shot. Or, you could use a slow shutter speed. This would smear the image of the balls out into a line and this would allow you to tell exactly how the balls are moving. The problem is that the balls exist at all points along the line and not at any one point on the line they make. this means that you can either tell exactly where the balls are, but not tell how they are moving, or you can tell how the balls are moving, but not have a single spot they are in. Now the uncertainty principle gives a similar effect, but works quite differently because the smearing out effect is an actual physical effect and can be detected. The best example of this is the two slit experiment. In this they fire particles (usually light or electrons) at a screen with two slits in in. If the particles behaved like pool balls, then they would go through one slit or the other. If we placed a detector on the far side of the screen, then we would get two bright lines smearing into each other where we detect particles emerging from either slit. However, if the uncertainty principle is correct, then we shouldn't see just two lines, but see what is called an interference pattern (this is a whole series of bright and dark lines). This is what we would expect if the particles are waves. But, if you think of water waves, the reason water waved exhibit this behaviour is that there is a lot of water (which are atoms of H2O) which can flow through the slits. So, if this effect was because the particles we fire through are interacting with the other particles sent though at the same time, then this effect should disappear if we fire only 1 particle at a time though it. However, if the uncertainty principle is correct and the smearing out of particles is a real physical effect, then we should still get the interference pattern. This experiment has been done and what is surprising is that we get the interference pattern, even if a single particle is sent though at a time. So this means that the uncertainty principle is very different to pool balls, even though we can use the do demonstrate what it looks like.

Addiction is not complete a physiological thing. People can become addicted to substances that have no physiological effect. I have even heard of people that have become addicted to eating paper. Given that, I believe it is impossible to design something (anything actually) that people consume or use that can not be in some way, to some people addictive. Thus it would be better for this discussion that a minimal addictiveness be achieves, say no more addictive than caffeine, and with minimal withdrawal (actually caffeine has pretty bad withdrawal). But, if a drug could be made that had no side effects, minimal addictiveness, no (or again minimal) withdrawal, hard (if not impossible) to overdose and still had mind altering effects, then this would be better than any drug (even medicinal drugs) on the market.

Yes, my arguments are specifically against the God of the bible. These arguments wouldn't apply to a God such as Loki or Quetzalcoatl. However, as this thread is not about those Gods, and is about the God of the bible, I have made my arguments against that one in particular. If God is subject to logic, then via logic we can disprove His existence. In fact, my arguments would remain: If God, although subject to logic, has the power to create Heaven free of suffering, then He can create our universe free of suffering. In fact, all He woudl have had to do is not create our universe at all. And besides, if you use logic as applied to evidence, then God is not necessary and there is no evidence that He exists. But a God that wants us to believe in Him (so that we go to a place without suffering) would have to give us evidence of His existence. The bible tells us of faith, but it doesn't state that the faith must be blind faith. Exactly. The only answer is that God wanted us to have suffering, and because it didn't need to have suffering, then all suffering is unnecessary. As a God who forces unnecessary suffering on those it creates would be considered evil, then God must be evil. It is, it is also similar to how MMOs work with instancing. Think about an MMO where every time you tried to grief someone, you were transported to an exact replica world where your actions had no impact. Once you the griefing action is finished you are transported back to the main world again. You get nothing from it and the victim is not impacted by it. If we as mere mortals can actually set up something like this that follows the laws of logic, then it doesn't matter if God is subject to logic or not, He still would be able to set up such a system. The fact that we don't have such a system either means 1) God does not exist 2) God wants us to suffer unnecessarily (and is therefore evil and not the God of the Bible) 3) God is not powerful enough to make the universe (and thus not the god of the bible, and probably could not be considered a real God) Even if God knows evil, He could still be Good by not acting evil. Knowing something does not make you that. I might know how to cook pasta, but I am not made of pasta (nor am I Italian ). To be Good, you would have to know Evil. If you didn't know the difference between Good or Evil, then you can not be said to act with Evil (as evil is based on intent - that is why an accident is not an evil act). This means that even now, evil is an idea. You can't just point to an action and say that it is evil. Imagine a far out scenario: There is a self destruct button for a secret lair. If someone pressed the self destruct button out of ignorance (think of this guy as Homer Simpson) and blows up the base killing everyone, is that an evil act? No. It is an unfortunate act, and an act of ignorance, but it is not evil. Now imagine the same base, but instead of someone pressing the button out of ignorance, they instead press the button with the intent to blow it up and kill everyone (call this guy Monty Burns). Is this an evil act? Yes, it is the intent, the idea that they are doing that act as deliberate attempt to kill. So, Homer, although ignorant, could still be seen as a good person, but Monty, due to the idea of killing all the people in the base would be considered evil. The same act, the same outcomes, but the only thing that is different is the intent, the idea of a deliberate act. Therefore: Evil is only an idea.

Even if you assume an infinite recursion, the fact remains that you can not have that infinite recursion without there being something to be recursive. Mathematically, it is the "Set" of recursions that I am interested in. It doesn't matter if it is a finite set or an infinite set, the fact still remains that the set exists. So, instead of trying to see when the recursions end up (which if it is infinite is a pointless activity), I step back and acknowledge that it doesn't matter if the set is infinite or not, but that the set exists. Yes, if you take the statement "I think, therefore I am" and try to work out the relationships between the words, then you will end up in an infinite recursion and circular reasoning. However, if there is something that can ask truly make that statement (that is can experience "thinking"), and despite it maybe being a fragment of a larger entity, then because it can experience, then it exists. Not because of the unravelling of an infinite recursive loop, but because there is a loop at all.

It could just be a translation error. In some translations "offspring" is also "heir". As the David they are talking about is a king, then someone who give up the throne to their child (sort of retired), but when that child died without a descendent, then the father would be considered the heir and could take up the throne. So, depending on how you translate it, it does seem possible. Also, for a bit of humour what about the Muppets. It seems that they can be their own Grandpa:

And, as I said, that building was only to convey the fact that we understand the mathematical concept of multidimensionality. The building was not proof of multiple dimensions. If you read further I actually explained the proof. the fact is, the behaviour of a particle subject to a force is different than the behaviour of a particle travelling on a geodesic. This is the essential difference between Newtonian Gravity and Einsteinian Gravity. There is a subtle, yet significant difference. Such as the orbit of Mercury. According to Newton's gravity, it should be in one place, but if space is actually curved in a 4th dimension as per Einstein's Gravity, then it will be in a different place. When they measured the location of Mercury, they found that its position was not what Newton's theory predicted, but it was where Einstein's theory predicted. This is proof that space really is curved into a 4th dimension as a physical force could not account for the position, only the fact that the planet is travelling along a geodesic that has 4 dimensions can account for the motion. But you have added Aether, shells, negative mass, positive mass, and the fact that you need someone to actually force it to work. Not only does your idea disagree with observation, It also need biology, eyes, mouths, legs, etc of the person deciding if it has done what you want. In other words, your idea needs you to make it do things. It does nothing by itself, only when a human (or some intelligent agent) actively manipulates it does it produce any results. Your idea does not start with nothing, but requires the entire universe to exist before it can be at its starting state. If your idea really did work from "nothing", then you would not need any intervention at all for it to produce something meaningful. As I keep saying, just because something is able to be simulated, does not make it real. I can simulate a 3d universe with all its own rules and even enter it an interact with objects. There is physics with collisions and inertia and friction and gravity. Does this mean my simulated world means the real world is like this? No, not at all (it is actually a computer game). My simulated world is based on mathematics (and so could be described as coming from 1 + -1 = 0) and does not even need human intervention to work or produce fundamental objects. What you have to do is even though you can simulate something, you have to show that it matches observations, and can predict what futures observations will be. If it can not do this, then it is useless as a theory. It doesn't describe the real world, just a pretend world. Think about this: If your "theory" makes no attempt to predict anything about the real world, how can you state that it is an attempt to describe the real world. Saying that it predicts everything, unless you can actually show it does, is just words. I can write 1 sentence that predicts everything too: "Murphy's Law states that if something can go wrong it will, and Murphy's Law applies to itself". If you actually think about it, it can explain everything (the universe is something going wrong, or going right). It explains everything, but it is also useless because it doesn't allow us to predict anything. It is not science. At best it is philosophy and at worst, it is just words. So, unless your "theory" can tell us what, and why the electron has a certain mass, or why the speed of light is what it is, or any one of a number of things that science is actually looking for, then it is a worthless theory. It doesn't matter how many years you put into it, if it is not useful, then it is not useful.

The number of dinosaurs that existed was quite high. If there were super predators that could prey on all of them and drive them to extinction, then these super predators would have left fossil records as they would have to be of a large enough population to wipe out billions of individuals. Not only that, we should see the evolutionary development of such a super predator. not only that, at the end of the dinosaurs, the continents of Earth were not one big land mass. This means the super predator would have to have been air born. The T-Rex (most likely in jest) was previously put forward as the super predator in this thread, however, the T-Rex was not on every continent, so could not have wiped out all the dinosaurs (say for example, the ones in Australia). What is needed is a global event that is capable of wiping out not just the dinosaurs, but also many different species in many different environments (between 65% to 70% of all species), didn't leave any fossilised bones or biological traces (but might leave other traces) and can do so in a short amount of time (geologically speaking). There are really 2 such events that seem to fit the bill: 1) Chicxulub crater asteroid 2) Decan Traps It could also be that both of these are responsible.

I can imagine a person and that person would have experiences and could even utter "cogito ergo sum". But just saying those words do not mean that there is any inner experience that that entity has. Nor does it mean that that entity actually experiences anything. But, if that entity did experience something, and because it is a part of me, then I experience something, even if all that experience is, is the experience of something else experiencing something. I am not so much focusing on "thinking" therefore being, but that for the speaker to be able to know they are thinking, they must be able to experience the act of thinking. Experience is the key here. Something that does not exist can not experience anything. Therefore if you can experience something, then you must therefore exist. However, the only person that can know this is the person experiencing it. For your arguments to be valid, something would have to be part of me and at the same time be completely separate from me. This is impossible so any argument based on this assumption must be wrong. In a way, I am not really stating that there are true propositions, but that there exist propositions where by then being false is impossible (specifically in this case: That something that doesn't exist can have experiences).

But you haven't explained anything. How can I learn what your theory is and address it if you don't explain it? +1 + -1 = 0 means nothing by itself. All that is saying is that if you add inverse operations together then they cancel out. As this is the definition of inverse operations, you have not actually added anything to knowledge. As an example I can generalise your "formula" by stating that Function A + - function A = 0. This says no more about the quantum world than 1 - 1 = 0, or Fish + debt of fish = no fish. you have to be more clear than that. The problem is that you are making no sense with your claims. All they are are claims. I could claim it is pink faeries making the universe work (and thus the randomness seen in quantum mechanics is because that faeries are mischievous). But without evidence all they are is words. What I have been doing in my long posts is giving you that evidence and the reasoning form that evidence to the conclusions. That is why they are so long I have tried to be thorough about it. I could have just said that quantum mechanics works and then just lef tit at that and you would not have the opportunity to learn something. The other problem you seem to be having is that you don't actually understand what you are arguing against, and the arguments you make as to why it is therefore wrong are irrelevant. See the "Straw-man Argument" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man ). If you create a false representation (either intentionally or through lack of knowledge) and then form your argument against that, then you have formulated a straw-man argument. Also, you seem to be trying to argue that since (the straw-man) is wrong, therefore you must be right. For the sake of argument, lets just say that current theories are completely wrong. This does not mean your arguments are right. Not only that, if your model produces the same results as current theories, then because experiments were to give different results then you theory would have to be wrong too (as it would be giving the same - incorrect - results). this is why I insist on you providing more information about your ideas as that way we could work out where your ideas produce different results than current theories do and therefore be able to make a distinction about which gives the better predictions.

The simple answer is that we are a social species. We are not capable of surviving alone. If you were to place a single human in the middle of nowhere (even with the knowledge of the environment around them), they would not last long. Not only that, once that person dies, there would be no more people. So, we need other people to survive and continue the species. From that is where we get the value of others.

Basically, what I am saying is that because the bible states that Gods will can not be circumvented. See: Luke 18:27 King James Bible Revelation 19:6 The only way for this to be, is if God has infinite power. Think of it like this: If God is subject to logic, then God must have existed after logic. But if God was created, then He is not all powerful, nor is He eternal. Both of which are necessary for God to be the God of the bible. However, if God existed before Logic, then God created logic (and if God didn't create logic, then who did?). This means that God can transcend logic. This means that God can make 2+2=5. But, He chooses not to (just because God can do something does not me He will or has to do it). Even if one takes this position, that God can do anything that makes sense. It still does not counter that argument that God can't make a universe without suffering. If God made us, then He made us with the ability to suffer. There is nothing within the laws of physics that states that suffering is necessary. An electron can not be evil. Although it might be used for evil, it itself is not evil. Suffering is an emergent property of the universe. Thus it is has no necessary existence. If the rules governing the universe were different, then suffering could be eliminated. As an example: One such could be a multi-world universe. In this, when someone were to cause suffering to another, they would be split off into their own universe and cause suffering to a fake (ie not real, but give the appearance of being real) victim. Afterwards, the universe are joined back up (if so desired). This way the person that would be trying to cause suffering does not have their free will broken, they can know that their act doesn't really occur (because the two universes would develop differently because of the act or it not happening) and the actual people would know upon seeing the disappearance and then reappearance of the person trying to cause suffering. If God created the universe, then we know He has the power to create a universe. Thus this is not beyond the power of God to make 2 universes and have one of them filled with mindless "zombies" (as in the philosophical concept of a zombie) that are manipulated by Him to replicate the first universe as needed. Not only that, this would show people that it is futile to try and cause suffering or to do evil as it would be utterly pointless. As you can see, even a mere mortal like me, and only use the powers God has apparently used in the bible, I can conceive of a way to eliminate suffering and evil without removing free will. Now, imagine a Being with infinite power and knowledge doing this. This is what God could have done. But, if He could have done it and didn't then He chose to not do it and thus chose us to be subject to evil and to suffer, and as has been established, a God that chooses to do unnecessary evil, or to allow unnecessary suffering despite their ability to prevent it, is evil. But as an evil God is not the God of the Bible, we can conclude that if there is a God, it can not be the God of the bible.

What you have done is to misrepresent the experiences you are having. Such as with this: "I know exactly what it is like to grow up in paris and combray in the early years of last century, to be the son of a traitorous jedi knight, or a mad danish prince but then I remember that was a book, a film, and a play" Your experiences of each of these is as the book or as the play. Your experience was sitting there watching or reading them. Then your experience was of imagining them to be real. Note, just because you think something, it does not make it real. Even if you use Solipsism reducto ad absurdum, my point still stands. Even if you were the only mind in existence: Just because you think something does not make it true. So, even if your experience was that you believed something to be true (say being a traitorous jedi) and believed that you really did live that, this does not make it true (or false) in any way. However, it does mean that you did experience the belief or thought that it was true (and not that the subject of that thought was true). Even if all we are is the belief, or thought (a hiccup or even delusion if you will) in another entities mind, this does not counter my argument. It still means that there is someone experience it, and that this entity (which you would be a part of) exists.

As I keep trying to remind you, just saying something is so, does not mean it is so. Just saying that "you don't need protons, you just need shells" doesn't mean that you don't need protons. And besides, they can detect individual protons, and even know the structure of those protons. So saying they are not needed goes against the evidence that they do exist (if they exist then they exist). Now, these "shells" you talk about. You haven't actually given any evidence that this is how reality is. All you keep saying is that you say that it should be the way you say is should be. Wrong. this does not describe chaos at all. There are numerous systems that can have small changes made to them and they do not produce chaos. Take a single pendulum. You can move it just a small amount (or even quite a large amount) and it still produces regular (that is non chaotic) motion. So much so, we can actually use it to measure regular events (the rotation of the Earth, etc). Now, the differenc between the snooker balls and a pendulum is one of interactions. With the pendulum, there is not much in the way of interaction. With the snooker balls, there are many interactions. Thus, chaos, is not a "thing", it is a property of the system by which many interactions occur that are dependent on the details of the other interactions that occur. It is not a "gap" in space time. That rally only has simple interactions (if any at all). Plus what is meant by "gap" anyway? Is it a hole in space time (we have a name for that and it is a black hole), or is this some technobable that you have made up to sound convincing. Remember, if you are using actual real terms, then you must stick with what those terms mean, or you have to create and define new terminology (like the term black hole, event horizon, space-time have all be rigorously defined both in theory and mathematically). Any argument you make must be based on solid premises. If those premises are false, then your argument is not logical. If you just make up terms without defining what they are, or arbitrarily changing already existing definitions, then you are not basing your arguments on solid premises. And, besides. If you want to communicate your ideas successfully to others, then you have to use a common dictionary. If I were to make up my own dictionary (either a completely new language, or a slight cvhange of an existing language), then my ability to successfully comminicate is reduced or eliminated. This means that if you want to actually have other people understand your ideas, and to show they are correct in any way you need to use the terms as they are used by others. Not make up your own terms without definition. Randomness and chaos are very different thing mathematically. You can't just say they are the same without actually showing that they are (as they have already been shown to be different). Again, you are just defining your own terminiology to suit your own purposes and make it difficult for others to understand you. Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. I have used them, and if they didn't exist, then what was I using? Oh look, here is a building designed as a 3 dimensional projection of a 4 dimensional object: . True, it is not an actual 4 dimensional building (good if it was though ), but this is what the designer wanted to make it look like. The fact that we know what such an object looks like is down to the existence multiple dimensional mathematics. So, as far as the concept of multiple dimensional mathematics is concerned, it really does exist. But, does this have any physical, real world applications? Well, using the the mathematical multiple dimensions, we know what they should be like if they did exist. We can work out how they would effect the world around us. One such effect would be that if 3 dimensional space was curved into a 4th dimension, then it would cause a specific type of distortion of straight lines (or objects travelling in straight lines). So, to see if there really are multiple dimensions, then all we need to do is to look for such distortions. As these distortions are mathematically defined based on how multiple dimensions mathematically behave. And, as we have already established that multiple dimensions exist as mathematical constructs, then if multiple dimension actually exist in the real world, then they should behave the same as the mathematical ones, or, they would not be called dimensions (remember what I was saying about definitions earlier). When they examine the light from stars as they pass near the sun, the light from these stars behaves exactly the way predicted if the mass of the sun was causing space to be slightly rotated into the 4th dimension. In other words, we have proof that multiple dimension actually exist. Einstein when further and stated that this 4th dimension is time (rather than space). If the 4th dimension was a space dimension, then we would still get the same bending effect on light, it just would not produce certain other effects (such as the slowing of time - as this is the result of time being the 4th dimension and being rotated into a spatial dimension - but that is not the point I am making here). The point I am making here is that mathematically we know how multiple dimension should behave if they were real, and that we can see these behaviours occurring in the real world. Besides the curving effect I talked about, there are more subtle effects that are caused because of the curvature of 3d space into a 4th dimension that can not be accounted for due to a force applied onto an object. These effects have been tested for and the result is that it really is a 4 dimensional curvature of 3 dimensional space. This means that multiple dimension do exist and there is direct evidence that you statement that they don't is wrong. As your argument seems to require that multiple dimensions don't exist (other wise it wouldn't have had to be a point you needed to state), and the fact that there is proof that multiple dimensions actually do exist, then this proves your claims wrong. Again, Just saying something is the case does not make that statement true. Provide evidence for your claims, or at least a logical argument to support them (and that requires providing the initial premises that you are basing your reasoning on). Also: "entropy prefers the spherical shape" is wrong. A spherical shape is a highly organised shape. Entropy is defined as "disorganisation". Thus a spherical shape can not be preferred by entropy as the shape is organised. Remember what I said earlier about definitions. You can't just make up your own definitions of already existing concepts. Actually "Maths" is a process, not a "thing". We design computers to perform the process of maths. Computers do not have to use electrons. They can in fact, use mechanical components (gears and such), and the very first computer (the Difference engine) actually was a mechanical computer which did not need electricity at all. Thus this shows a big "hole" (sorry) in your argument. It is not because we translate electrons and holes into maths that computers work, it is because we translate maths into the flow of electricity and the position of switches, or into the movement of cogs and cams. You have it backwards, and because you have made such a mistake, you have reached the wrong conclusion. A model in a computer is by definition mathematical. Computers operate on logic. Logic is a branch of mathematics. Therefore computers operate on mathematics. Now, logic requiers certain premises which can be true or false. Even if theya re false, you can still derive a logical conclusion form them. This does not mean tha the conclusion is true, only that it is true IF and ONLY IF the initial premises are true. What this means is that even though you can simulate something in a computer, it does not mean that it must be true in the real world. So just because you can simulate something in your computer does not mean that your initial premises are true, not that it actually applies to the real world. The only reason you simulate something on a computer is not to prove it true or not, but to use the simulation to predict something based on your ideas. If the prediction works, then you can show that your ideas can be used to predict behaviours in the real world (and then it becomes useful). What would be interesting (as I am a programmer) is for you to show us the code you are using to simulate this (you can leave out the code to display it on the screen as this is not necessary). This will allow us to examine what you have done and to look for where your ideas break down and you have had to intervene to get the result you want (mainly 'IF' statements, constants you have used). Each 'IF' statements (which is not needed because the program is being run on a computer rather than the universe) is where you have had to step in and say: despite applying the ideas I have, I have to step in and change the result. Also, each constant (not needed to apply the algorithm in the given hardware) means that there is something unaccounted for by your ideas and thus needs you to manually put it into the system. And beyond that,because computers operate completely mathematically, it will allow us to see the mathematical definitions of your ideas.

With stage magicians it is called a "Plant". That is someone who will pretend to be one of the crowd so as to make the audience think they are not in on the trick. There is also a technique where a member of the audience will willingly become a plant as needed without prior set-up in what is called a "Willing Stooge". As a hobby magician, I have used this many times. The difference between me and them is that my audience knows that I am performing a trick to try and fool them. It makes what I do moral (and actually much more difficult as my audience is looking for any slip up and that audience will ignore any minor slip ups). This is why I believe that everybody should learn about magic tricks. It acts as a shield against those that try and use them for immoral uses, and also give you an understanding of how skilled a really good magician really is.

This is the key to your whole argument. Because you say we can't know for certain what eternal power means. But, what if we could know what that means, then your argument falls away completely. The thing is, we might not know everything about infinity, but we do know enough about it to know what it means. So when one claims that God has infinite power, then we can know what that means. In fact, this is what I have been trying to explain. I have used the knowledge of infinity to describe what can and could not occur. But, all you keep saying is that we can not know. There is a saying: There are none so deaf as those that refuse to listen. So listen: The bible claims that Gods will can not be circumvented. This is true if (and only if) God has an infinite amount of power (and this is consistent with the bible claim that God has an infinite amount of power). If God only had a finite amount of power, then His will could be circumvented by exploiting where His power was not. Thus, if Gods will can not be circumvented, then He must have an infinite amount of power. Using set theory we can define infinity. Infinity is the set that contains everything. Infinite power means that it is the set that contains the power to do anything. If there was something that could be done that did not lie in that set, then the set would not be infinite and thus God would not have infinite power and His will could be circumvented (which can not happen). What this means is that we can never say "God can not do...". Because, if there is something that God can not do, then that means His power is not infinite, his will can not be circumvented and he is therefore not the God of the bible (meaning the God of the bible does not exist). This is a property of infinity (specifically "infinite power"). What this means is that because the bible has stated that God's will can not be circumvented, God either has infinite power, or the bible is just a work of fiction. The result being that we can conclude that if we take the existence of the God of the bible as true for the sake of argument, then we can not claim there is something God can not do. This means that if there is nothing God can not do, then God could create a universe that achieves any goal He wants without the need for any suffering or for evil to exist. To say that God can not do would mean that He does not have infinite power, and thus His will can be circumvented and He is not the God of the bible. But, if we say that "God can do" that, it is consistent with God having infinite power. Then the question is: Because God could create the universe to achieve the ends He wants without suffering, then any (and all) suffering we do have is completely unnecessary. But a God that creates unnecessary suffering is not consistent with a God that is Good. However,as the bible also states that God is Good, then the conclusion of God having infinite power means that the God must not be good, and this is inconsistent with the bible. The result of this is either God doesn't exist at all and religion is just fiction, God is not the God of the bible and is evil or God is not the God of the bible and is not infinitely powerful. In any case, the God of the bible can not exist in a universe with any suffering of evil. As there is suffering and evil in this universe, then we can conclude that the God of the bible does not exist. And to link back to the OP: This means that God can not accept bribes, ransoms of the sacrifice of Jesus because if that God existed, there would be no need for any of those things. If any of those things are necessary, then the God of the bible can not exist as God is not all powerful. If those things are unnecessary, then the God of the bible can not exist as they were put in deliberately, not to achieve and end, but because God wanted us to suffer unnecessarily and is therefore evil, and that is inconsistent with the God of the bible.

I think you missed my point. My point was not that an experience of an event means that the event was real (or not). But that for you to experience anything means that you can prove to yourself that you are real. Not the experience, but that because there is a you to experience something, then you must be real.

How does this predict the mass of a proton? How does this predict the lines in a spectrograph? This proposition is not useful (as you have described it) at all. How does stacking apply to the 100 or so years of data about the quantum realm. Take: "But the 13th ball gap is chaos". This means absolutely nothing. You could have said that the 13 ball gap is tapioca pudding and it would mean the same. You are using chaos as a buzz word. Do you understand what chaos is? Chaos is not randomness and it is not magic. You can't just say "X is chaos" and have X work. Chaos is a very specific concept, both mathematically and scientifically. The way you have used it here show you don't understand what you are even saying. Chaos is specifically about how components of a system interact. It is not a "Thing" that can fill a gap. It is also not an absence of something that needs to fill it (so it is not a gap either). Chaos is a process that occurs when a system is sensitive to initial conditions. If you meant "randomness", then this too wouldn't work. Randomness is not a thing that can fill a gap, not is it a gap that can be filled. Randomness too is a specific mathematical concept. Randomness can be defined in many ways, but the easiest is that: The data sat follows no pattern. Thus randomness is not a "thing" but a property. Also a solution to the stacking problem has been found for multiple dimensions. We all probably know the solution for 2 dimensions (the hexagon). Actually a good way to work out the shape needed is with bubbles. Bubble will naturally form the minimum surface area for a given structural constraint. This is why in fee space they form a sphere and when constrained to 2 dimensions (like the surface of water) they form a hexagonal pattern. A quick Google will show images of bubbles packed in 3 dimensions. Thus solving the need for a 13th, "chaos" sphere to be packed (hint, they are not spheres). Actually, particles are not spheres. They are not like little balls whizzing around miniature solar systems despite the common (and incorrect) pictures that grace high-school textbooks. The closest they come to a "sphere" is that they are a wave function (which uses maths based on spheres to describe it). They are actually more like a sine wave (but in 3 dimensions - or perhaps more if the current thinking is correct). And, if you know what a sine wave looks like, they taper off to the sides, but never reach 0. This is what is meant by particles not having a specific place, they could be said to have infinite size, but that the part of them that goes out to infinity is infinitesimal. X-Ray crystallography, which allows us to examine the structure of crystals down to the atomic scale, Scanning Tunnelling Microscopes, The double slit experiment, Laser Path experiments, and heaps of other experiments have shown time and time again that particles, even light, acts in a way that is consistent with the "probability wave function" description (that is the sine wave type thing I was talking about above - it is not an actual sine wave, but it is similar enough to use that as something you can visualise). Computers operate based on maths (in fact, everything a computer does is mathematical). If you can do something with a computer it is mathematical. So, if you can simulate (or whatever) your idea on a computer, then you can construct a mathematical formulation of your ideas (which can then be tested mathematically). This means that if you are taking "maths out of the program" you absolutely can not simulate it on a computer, at all, ever. I have not said that the macroscopic world is not real. It is real. It is just that it is emergent from quantum physics. That is: the rules of the macroscopic world are the result of the interactions between the rules of the quantum world. So, in answer to your question, "why it appears to be real" is: Because it is real.