questionposter

I've heard neutron stars can rotate 500 times per second,

there is a neutron star named RX J0822-4300 which is moving through the milky way, this star travels at 3 million miles per hour,

As the faster you travel -the more you weigh would this neutron stars mass get multiplied travelling at this rate?

Wow, I can't believe I'm enough of a nerd to actually recognize that specific neutron star name.

I don't think your using the proper terminology. "Weight" refers to the force a mass at rest exerts on the ground. I think you mean either "mass" or "energy", which are equivalent, and it is true that its relative to you, if you move towards the neutron star it has a higher energy and therefore higher relative mass from your frame of reference. Similarly, if both of you are moving slow, the total kinetic energy the neutron star has is less to your frame of reference.

Another question to add to the previous would be whether in space, the speed of travel affect the weight of an object and perhaps friction is needed but there are still atoms in dark matter but just spread much further, I think it's three atoms to every cubic centimeter

Speed does effect the "mass" of an object because mass and energy are equivalent, and varying speeds effect the energy. Both mass and energy distort the fabric of space. Traveling slowly towards it decreases it's energy from your frame of reference, and traveling fast towards it increases its energy from your frame of reference, and consequently it's relative mass.

Just for the sake of it I'd like to know if anyone thinks a hypervelocity black hole is possible, although it would take one hell of a force to move one

I'm not familiar with the exact term of "hyper-velocity" and I can't really find a clear meaning, but it is completely possible for a black hole to travel at fast speeds. There's even stars orbiting the black hole in the center of the galaxy at 40km per second. However, it is not possible for them to travel faster than light. The warp drive has yet to be seen.

Question poster,

 

I believe in the Bible, as a work of Man. I believe in the universe, as the only reality Moses could have been talking about. Was he "right" about things, figuratively speaking, probably. Does God have a certain number and kind of people already picked out to join him in heaven? Absolutely not. Makes no kind of sense, no way, no how, and if it was true I am out of luck because I am not a Jew, don't think Jesus had the only key, and fall securely in Mohammed's nonbeliever camp. Outside of that, I was raised on the moral stories from the bible, and in that way, believe in it.

 

And figure God and I are OK with each other. No matter what. He is everything, and I am a glimpse of it.

 

Regards, TAR2

Well I don't think I said anything that is particularly against that idea, and there is still a possibility of a god, but the possibility of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish god is even smaller because of all the contradictions those assumptions can lead to. But I suppose your idea is more of a metaphorical view of god, as the entirety of nature itself?

why should this be the procedure? specially since its full of non sequiturs... 1.one cannot say "nothing exists" if we know that something exists (cogito ergo sum) 2.if one says "nothing exists" asking if it can exist is redundant and meaningless...

"nothing" doesn't exist right now.

22? (Darn)

You should be more specific. Catch 22? Post #22? The book Catch 22 and not the phrase? What? If it is a catch 22, how so? There exists the possibility I could just one day walk through a wall. How is that a catch 22? Because that's how I see the possibility of god as something that could one day just say "hey look at me, I exist" to prove it's existence.

Wait...You DONT believe that Jesus is the son of God. You quoted the Hebrew words for earth/Earth. You are still waiting for the Messiah. My mistake.

 

Perhaps this "Chosen people" stuff, and this believer/non believer stuff is the most broken part of religions. Like certain of us are "special" in God's eyes.

 

As if we all do not belong to reality, equally.

 

Another, "broken" vote.

 

(how many votes do I get, Inow? I think I am currently about 16 nays and half a dozen ayes.)

Jesus is proof in the eyes of the bible, which you don't seem to believe in, and I also believe Jesus was just a normal person, not the son of a god, I'm talking about a being that comes out and says "look at me, I can bend matter and time to my will".

I think due to possibly hitting the side of the tube as well as the Earth's shifting rotation and lack of perfectly equivalent gravity, an over-damped harmonic oscillator could model this problem and a person falling in would eventually come to a stop near the center. At first a person would approach the other side and then fall back, maybe even though to grab the ledge and get out, but otherwise they would just gradually lose momentum and come to a stop after swinging past the center over and over. Though I suppose it does also depend on the angle that the tube is placed. If it goes through the center of the Earth, then the oscillator can model it, but if it's at a angle and cuts through like only a quarter of the Earth, and you can probably just crawl through.

DrDNA,

 

Back in 465 you cherry picked some verses of the Koran to show that Mohammed knew and respected the Jews and Christians.

And forwarded that these words were not broken.

 

However I read him also decry the Jews for being money lenders, and charging interest, and describe this as an example of how the Jews had fallen from the way, as properly described to him by the ArchAngel of Allah. This is not the way to be if you are a believer in Allah and his messenger.

 

And Mohammed also learned from the ArchAngel (alone in the cave, mind you) that the Christians had also misunderstood Allah because Allah had no associates (family, like sons for instance) and Christ was only a Prophet like himself. (Notice in your quote he says "Son of Mary", not son of God). He was not a big fan of the "vigin birth" either.

 

Much of the first part of the Koran is a "retelling" of the Bible, as edited by the Archangel, to show both the power and wisdom of God, and usurp a bit of that power, for the use of the lowly "messenger".

 

It is really quite transparent if you read it with a critical eye.

 

Who do you think understood God better? Mohammed, or Moses, or Jesus? If you believe in God, and God's final messages were to Mohammed in the cave, why would you not believe that Jesus was merely a prophet and not the son of God?

 

Only ask this to point out that you have some discernment between what you know God means, and what others, even other Prophets, think he means.

 

And to Inow's point, you have no evidence to back up your take. You are taking it, on faith alone, no evidence required. And this is a sure way to recognize something, as "made up". Possibly, no probably very "reasonable" sounding, and you can make the story fit reality if you cherry pick what you want to see. But you ignore anything that might falsify your belief.

 

If you are blind to the truth, then you are merely attempting to rationalize your own personal vision of God. It is not a vision of God I can share with you. I am afraid this might make people that believe in God (as the Bible, New Testament, Koran depict him), broken a bit.

 

Regards, TAR2

To be fair, black holes were once "made up", and even the theory that there was a smallest constituent of matter, there still exists the possibility that at any moment god "could" show that it exists.

Okay so my theory on time travel is; when approaching the event horizon of a black hole( if you can even make it that far without whatever space craft your traveling in being stretched to it's absolute limit then being torn apart and swallowed) time seems to slow down untill it eventually almost seems to stop, but in reality, in the event horizon times seems to move at normal speed inside of it.But, on the outside looking in it looks as if your not moving at all. The laws of space time break down at the event horizon breaks down becuase there virtually is none. So, when you got back to earth you'd be in the future because you were basically in a place where time stopped or just didn't really exist, but on Earth, everything was still moving and time did work. I'd really like to hear opinions on this topic!

I think it's pretty close, but I don't think the semantics are completely right. To an outside observer, time doesn't "seem" to stop at the event horizon, it DOES stop at the event horizon, but to a frame of reference inside the event horizon, theoretically local space should be effected in the same way as the observer. It's not exactly so much that laws "break down", because I mean, gravity still exists, but we just don't have a cohesive theory that can explain both the relativity and quantum mechanics of a singularity black hole and we can't actually observe anything inside it.

Otherwise though, the interpretation of time on Earth I think is correct, because from the frame of reference of Earth, time is moving faster than anyone who has crossed the event horizon.

here: http://www.sciencefo...oth-directions/ is what had my nothing-exists-or-not reasoning led me in terms of physycs.

 

if its possible instead of quarreling, try to think.

 

 

 

@ I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner. (except for a couple of miliseconds after the presumed t=0. Universe of epochs is as valid as BigBang theory. ) A nice way-out would be to assume endless time in both past and future, but in epochs. It is not even completely wrong to assume existance of regions of universe, where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is reversed. Infact one of the most reasonable definitions of life is the reversal of the 2nd law. Asking for t=0 is perhapse really much like asking for a flat planet earth.

Regardless, it is still logical that before everything, there was nothing.

Your slant on this is in the minority but more importantly it does nothing to support the reality of god or the idea that people who believe in god are broken or not. You or anyone else can interpret the idea of god or gods all you want, you can twist it to mean anything and people often have but it still ignores the fact that you are believing something extraordinary with no evidence what so ever...

I didn't say specifically that it supported the idea of god, I didn't even say I supported the idea of a flood, though the occurring of nothing more than a flood is the correct interpretation of what I implied. I don't think Noah actually had "every" animals on his boat, but it's still possible the Black Sea's water level was rising rapidly and a guy built a boat with all the species he knew of. This shows evidence that religious accounts aren't always pulled out of thin air necessarily, but rather that they are inspired from real human experiences, which could logically explain why many people connect to religion.

This is an example the need to be careful how you interpret what you read, think, hear, say, etc.

 

1. a giant flood is lore in many cultlures

2. Was the whole earth flooded or some area flooded?

a.

Earth as in planet Earth = kadur ha'arets (כדור הארץ)

earth as in soil = adamah (אדמה). For example the soil/earth from which Adam was made.

earth as in land or territory = erets (ארץ)

hebrew words for earth

 

b. For example:

-God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's daughters said "there's not a man in the earth #776 Strong's Concordance (erets) to come in unto us" (Genesis 19:31) Not every man in the world was killed ... only those in the area of the destruction.

 

-Exodus 9:33 "the rain was not poured upon the earth" #776 Strong's Concordance (erets)... Of course we understand it is just speaking about a certain area in Egypt.

 

-Genesis 7, "Noah's flood": the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was #776 Strong's Concordance "erets", meaning "the land" (see above). The flood cover a particular region, not the whole earth.

 

This is a problem a BROKEN translation and our BROKEN interpretation of the translation. Not with the story itself.

That's more like it, but even with those translations, it's possible someone meant "land as far as they know" which from them could have meant the world, but nonetheless, the black sea formed in recent geological history which could have accounted for the stories.

http://fajardo-acost...timeline-00.htm

This says it was formed 5,000 years ago, but I've seen things that said 12,000 years ago.

More than anything, I think the stories in the bible were meant to be lessons, but some people abused the interpretations for their own benefit which is where problems occurred.

No, the reality of the situation is that Noah's Ark is easily shown to be a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

Well the black sea formed nearly 12,000 years ago, and it is a story that could be have been passed down orally, other than that, you still can't say it couldn't logically happen if god can do anything. It is only improbable with our current knowledge or unknown how it could be achieved with our current knowledge, nothing more.

No, in the past those people were mainstream, they were not fringe groups, they were the church.

Hundreds of years ago they were mainstream perhaps, but more than that things like those were issued from authority, and people would often only carry them out as orders, and since people back then couldn't read, they could only take the higher authority as word since only higher authority had the ability to read the bible.

you were the one that claimed that god was most likely real because he could not be disproved.

I'm pretty sure I have never said in my ENTIRE life that god is "most likely" real, I merely stated there is a possibility of it being real since it cannot be proven or disprove or that relative to other people it is more likely to them.

Being ridiculous has nothing to do with it, there is no evidence that supports the reality of a god or gods. Belief does not support reality, you can believe in the hollow earth or a geocentric solar system but belief does not make anything true.

Sure there's evidence to support it: How did everything get here? Why is physics the way it is? We are here, so we must have been created by something, and logically it could have been created by a being that can do anything.

None the less, if you start out with a flawed axiom then your conclusions are flawed as well.

There is no such thing as a "flawed" axiom, an axiom is simply any statement which you use build logical conclusions off of. There can therefore only be illogical conclusions based off of axioms. I can say "1+1=1", but it does equal one with a modulation of 1. Or I could say "this sentence is false", it's just a statement, but it would be illogical to say "this statement is false, therefore it is true".

I don't believe they are real but if they are real do then god is a ravening psychopathic monster.

Maybe the depictions of god are inaccurate. I'm surprised especially at this remark considering religion has been around for as long as humans have existed and those are very strict scriptures, and there's over 7 billion people in the world which means there's 7 billion different views on the subject.

Now you are being insulting, i think it's called a personal attack, that is against the rules here, please read them again.

Actually it isn't a personal attack because I am not insulting your intelligence, I am making a conjecture about your effort to understand different views in this issue.

yet another personal attack

please stop being insulting

I can see how that could be considered a personal attack and I apologize for the insult, but not for the evidence.

please show some evidence of this other than your assertions

It's part of Muslim religion, a dominant religion in the middle-east for hundreds of years, to pray 5-times a day in the direction of Mecca on a clean mat, and it's even mandatory in that religion to go visit Mecca at some point in your life. Other than the lifestyles, I don't know what other evidence to provide.

Then god is dishonest...

When did god specifically state he can't do everything?

What people believe about god is not evidence of gods existence

It doesn't mean it can't be logical, it simply means there is a chance of it being wrong. I can still form a logical sequence of steps and have it be either right or wrong. Just like the the Bhor model of an atom. There's loads of mathematics to support it, but it turned out to be wrong, and then look at Newton's light. There's lots of mathematics to support at the time that it was wrong, but it turned out to be right.

Again, this is meaningless in this conversation.

You somehow had the audacity to ask for evidence that atheists and religious people are similar without considering both sides consist of no more than humans, and humans are humans.

Seeing as how over 75% of the world is religious, I would say that it is more probable that religious people are not actually "broken".

Stop saying "before the universe." It's wrong if we accept our current models as fact.

I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner.

You haven't studied much higher-level math yet, have you? Not trying to be offensive, just trying to gauge your current level of interpretation.

I don't see where you get this from. Do you think if your swinging on a swing and I graph it that you will actually touch the ground? No, yet it still says you touch the ground at "i" times somethings. With "before the universe", it works like that. I'm not saying that all values before the universe existed were "i" in any way, I'm saying there were not real (the normal term, not the mathematical term that is meant to distinguish from imaginary or complex values) values that could account for anything, but it can still be logically concluded that if we go back before the universe was created, there could only have been nothing, in the same way that I can say we can logically conclude a person on a swing hits the ground at "i" something. I understand your point or how you think about it about how since time didn't existed before the universe there was no previous time to count back to in order to find nothingness.

Regarding the Quran,, perhaps this is what you may have been looking for (I know that I was after 9/11)?

It definitely does state that Christians and Jews are to be greeted with peace.

 

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69).

 

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

 

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' (61:14).

 

 

Also, regarding how Christians and Jews should treat Muslims and others...

 

Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

 

Exodus 22:21: "You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."

 

Deut 24:14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns. 15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

17 Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. 18 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

19 When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. 20 When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 21 When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. 22 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

 

Luke 6:27-31. Jesus says:

 

"But I say to you who here, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them."

 

It is so sad how this has been twisted and misinterpreted for selfish gain and hatred, and anger's sake.

 

These words are NOT BROKEN

I suppose it is nice to see someone besides me (who doesn't even believe in god) to defend religious attributions, but this is still no place for blatant preaching.

Your religious right? You believe god exists, but do you obviously do not advocate violence. Do you study science as well? Do you think science is the language of the devil? Do you believe you cannot sit on furniture which women have menstruated on? Do you believe people who have cheated on other people deserve to be stoned to death?

Noah's Ark can be shown to be false simply by the existence of echinoderms, if god can do anything why did he need and ark to begin with?

That merely proves that with our current understanding that WE couldn't do it, but logically if something can do anything, it could make room on Noah's ark.

Again, logic has nothing to do with religion and the Christianity you see today is afar cry from the religion is was before the enlightenment, it has been gelded and no longer kills and tortures people who disagree with the churches authority, but not because the church suddenly decided it was wrong. The church was forced to relinquish it's absolute control over the people.

And those people are called "extremists", which obviously not every religious person is. And besides, what would you do if there was some high authority that said some ridiculous thing that obviously went against your view of god as a being that was compassionate but that could also kill you for speaking out against them in any way?

No, now you know why disproving god is impossible without have god like powers as well.

That was never in question by me until you brought it up.

No, the assertion is that believing in something as outrageous as god with absolutely no supporting evidence is broken...

It doesn't how matter how ridiculous it is from your point of reference or how you like to automatically justify anything that has to do with religion along the lines of being improbable, it is unprovable one way or another which leaves room for belief.

But they can be shown to be true my mathematics... using your logic i can assume as an axiom that any god is real or that invisible dragons are real and that they really run the world by pulling on our puppet strings...

http://www.sciencefo...ou-proof-proof/

I never mentioned the crusades, the crusades are a drop in the bucket and not even in the bible but the bible was used to justify them...

It's strange that someone who doesn't believe in the bible would be acting as if all the horrible bible stories were real.

So now you assume I have never tried to understand this issue?

Ok, maybe you put a couple calories of brain energy into it, but this issue has had a lot more thought put into it than that.

Show some evidence of this please...

How about you get off your damn computer and actually talk to some different people? Even reverends I've talked to like to think of god as being logical, and even Newton did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

It's no wonder why religious people hate atheists when many atheists assume religious people are illogical children in some sense. Once again, there is no scientific research to back this notion that religions people are broken, the debate might as well be whether or not god exists.

Again, do you have any evidence of this?

Holy crap did you even go to high school or even take philosophy in college? Or just Sunday school?

http://www.islamicit.../ihame/ref4.htm

They even teach that in social studies classes according to my nephew and even I remember learning about those things when reviewing world time-lines and the history of mathematics.

yes and their religion dragged then into the black hole of fundamentalism which they have yet to recover from. it wasn't religion that allowed the science and scholars of the Middle east to prosper.

Actually, it WAS religion that allowed them to prosper because they followed their religion more than they researched and their religion advocated forming a decent community and did not say science was the work of the devil (that's ONLY Christianity and only during a few time periods), something which didn't really happen before someone said "you go to hell for stealing and killing your neighbors". We are descended from chimp-like creatures, just look at how chimps act in nature.

Actually I did. I pointed out that your position that "God can do anything" is logically inconsistent and, therefore, a bad axiom.

I realise it's nothing new- I didn't come up with the idea- it's a lot older than me, but I did bring it to your attention.

You ignored it - your response had nothing to do with the issue.

I didn't ignore it, it just didn't make sense. If god would in fact be able to do anything, it would have the ability to not show everyone that it can do everything.

Also, once again, you are ignoring the evidence by saying "There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived that long if it was that illogical "

It did, but that's not the big problem.

You compound this by saying " it actually didn't do one single thing for people,"

which is a straw man and, as such, a logical fallacy.

Such arguments are frowned upon.

Well I sure haven't seen him say anything good about religions. Atheists are no better, if they were born in the ancient era before we had all this science and variety of philosophical views and someone came up with logical conclusions as to how there could be a being that made everything, most would have just believed in god as well. Furthermore, there's people who believe/believed in a more compassionate god, like oh I don't know Martin Luther King (Jr.). Then there's people who believe in a logical god like Isaac Newton. You can't condemn a person for believing in a religion based on it's most ancient of scriptures and all it's little details, even John Stewart said that, things change, views change, and there's around 7 billion people in the world.

By the way, I thought you would have known this already, but http://www.telegraph...c-the-same.html

Whether you like it or not all you are doing is making unsupported assertions about things you have little knowledge of and nothing but assumptions of what you think religion is and says...

You haven't really provided any logical evidence for this. Go ask a psychiatrist, I learned the environment thing from asking one myself. All people like you are doing is making matters worse between religious people and non-religious people. There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived this long if it was that illogical and it actually didn't do one single thing for people, unless you believe there is some invisible microchip in people's brains that plant that thought. I don't know why you don't have the capability to understand that religion can bring people together as much as it can tare them apart.

This evidence thing works both ways. Let's see some evidence that just because god would "be able to do anything" it it means it "has" to do everything. If it can do anything, then logically it has the capability to not prove it.

It's not the uncertainty principle, and no, I don't think we do. I'd like to see your evidence of this. I can see targeting a small cluster of cells perhaps, or maybe even one cell, but not individual atoms. Not as a spatial target, in the context of aiming. I can see targeting in terms of a resonance that interacted with a specific target and not "bystander" atoms, but that's not the same thing.

Well there's this on laser cooling,

http://en.wikipedia....i/Laser_cooling as well as footage of an individual atom http://www.scienceda...80222095358.htm

And how is it not the uncertainty principal with aiming it considering

I suppose it could be more likely that its a group of atoms, but it's hard to think such a dangerous thing would be used in cancer treatment if it wasn't accurate.

A frame of reference is a coordinate system.

 

If you take the position that a photon can't be localized before measurement, then it doesn't matter what the wavelength is. Thus, the question is moot. However, in the context of doing multiple measurements, you could measure localization by looking at where the photons interacted with a detector. The area of this is going to be distributed over an area that scales, somehow, with the wavelength. Thus, if you know you have a photon with some wavelength, you expect a certain result. That's how you know: you have a well-tested theory that tells you what to expect.

Well photons aren't infinitely delocalized before you observe them, they have to have some kind of parameters of the 3-dimensional space they occupy before measurement otherwise we would never measure them or measure them instantaneously. I want to know what those parameters are.

I think jaungra needs to actually explain what he thinks a particle actually is according to his sources. Otherwise I don't see why he's making a big deal that a particle can't possibly be a wave.

Also, the same pattern IS formed by waves

Even pop-science knows that. Quantum wave mechanics wasn't pulled out of thin air.

Not only that, but the term "duality" isn't mentioned because that's not the proper name, the proper name is "quantum harmonic oscillator".

http://en.wikipedia....onic_oscillator

Your rephrasing changes the context of the question.

Well I'm constantly asking a different question so you can better see what I'm trying to get at since my previous questions aren't well interpreted.

Gammas and x-rays (i.e. high-energy photons) are actually very hard to focus.

Well I can see how the uncertainty principal would come into play, but we have lasers that can shoot at individual atoms and get rid of cancer, it's hard to think I couldn't hit a whole person with just 1.

No, that's the point I've been trying to make. If you are in the frame where it is a radio wave, it's a radio wave. Of the two frames, it only has a small wavelength in the frame in which it was emitted. The observer for whom it is a radio wave can tell no difference between it and a radio wave emitted in his frame.

But isn't it only a frame of a radio-wave after you measure it? What is it before measurement? You can't constantly observe it before you observe it, so how do you tell how localized it was before your measurement? How do you have a frame of reference of something before you measure it?

An electron is a particle. A particle is a physical system, neither a kind of motion nor a kind of function. As stated before, the ordinary quantum mechanics of particles explains the interference patterns observed when thousands of particles impact a screen in a double-slit experiment.

 

 

 

Yes, an electron can be excited, but above I wrote about the excitation of a field.

 

An electron alone does not form an interference pattern. Eleven electrons do not form an interference pattern (a). Thousands of electrons form an interference pattern (e).

 

Yes, the quantum 'wave' mechanics of particles can explain some aspects of excited electrons and can explain some aspects of interference patterns. As stated before, more general quantum mechanical formulations can explain other aspects beyond the quantum 'wave' mechanics formulation.

No, according to modern QM a single electron DOES make an interference pattern, but you don't directly see it with your eyes because it's just one electron. It's only after time of many many electrons interfering with themselves can you see the pattern. The same exact pattern can be formed by waves.

So therefore they have a cause. Regress to the beginning of the universe if you wish, even though it makes no sense to do so with regard to ethics and human sentiment towards them.

Can you logically show the correlation between the release of a chemical and how something "deserves" to get wiped out?

I don't consider the idea of being conscious tricky at all. To remind you, i took both the adjective and noun out because you didn't like them. The argument remains the same.

You should consider it tricky because not even science knows what it is, so I don't see how you can.

The state of your brain right now, is a state, and is "determined" by many things, vis-à-vis, it has a specific cause. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Assume the brain is in a vat or that we're a computer program if it makes it easier for you, the conditions give synonymous results of experience (because irrespective of either idea being true our experience is still our experience), and the argument is again the same.

I don't think there is an overall "state" unless you can be more specific, nor is there anything that "determines" the processes of your brain. I have never heard of anything like that in my entire life. You do not have to automatically do whatever your emotions suggest, this is proof that they are simply chemicals independent from consciousness.

Emotions also do correlate directly to any question of morality and ethics, assuming ethics to be based off of emotions (your argument), if they are concerned with human value. One necessarily implies the other, under the definition you gave and the assumptions you are using.

Emotions effect your decisions, some more than others, and that's it. They are just chemicals that cause a feeling or compulsion to do something, it's the choices to act on them or not that matter anyway.

I'm sorry, but your argument still just sounds like Plato's Form of the Good or something, and it's just as elusive.

Strictly speaking, "good" and "evil" are just words humans made up.

Keep reading this bit until you do see how it contradicts itself.

 

"god can do anything" is such an axiom.

 

Can God set Himself a task that He can't accomplish?

 

Because, if He can't do it then He can't do everything.

On the other hand, if he can do it then that task shows that He can't do everything.

 

The axiom you have chosen is paradoxical and, starting from a paradox is a pointless way to go about things.

How does the having ability to do something mean you have to do it? I have the ability to jump into the volcano. Does that mean I'm going to do it? I have the ability to drown a sack of puppies. Does that mean I'm going to do it?

Actually, I'm not even sure if "god can do anything" is actually a part of the Holy bible, that might have just been a vibe I got from it.

It is meaningless. There's no such thing as "before" time, just as there's no "north" of the North Pole.

Read my posts more carefully and you will see I said that exact same thing.

Having a beginning and being eternal are not mutually exclusive.

True, but one has to consider the evidence yet the fact we can't actually prove it one way or another.

It's true by definition. Time is just a separation of states. You can't be separated from all separation. It's like asking the difference between a duck. "Before" time is meaningless garbage.

If I ask for the amount of time before the universe started existing, it would be meaningless, but a lack of everything by definition means nothing, and before the universe, not even time existed, which seems pretty nothing to me. Whether the universe had an actual beginning is something we can't answer right now.

If you can't think of it that way, think of it like "i", or the square root of negative one. It's not a real value, but if you multiply "i" by itself, you still get negative one. Even though there wasn't real values to correlate to the physical existence of nothing, mathematically and logically before the universe there was literally no thing.

For whatever moral basis there is, there is something else with an equal and opposite view. This is why no particular moral is right or wrong, and why it is ultimately up to free will. Let's say you feed a starving human. With what? a plant will require sacrificing it's offspring or itself, or an animal gives up it's life. In that instance, for one thing it is beneficial to live, and for the other it is beneficial for that same thing to die.