The discovery of why will always be subjective and not absolute... Why would you feel the need to sit here and write and argue about something as subjective as faith, spirituality, and religion???
<a href="http://www.markpoyser.com"> <img src="http://www.markpoyser.com/imclone00.gif"width = 300 height=250></img></a>
Vital importance or not Dark, the way or "the truth" can never be found with words... so why indulge in it??? especialy with an aetheist
well, that depends on your definition of a "paradox". the well known fact that electron has both wave-like poperties and particle-like properties does not qualify as a paradox in my book, because both "particle" and "wave" are just macro-level objects used to compare the electron with. just like a motorcycle can be likened to a bicycle in certain contexts, and to an auto in some other circumstances -- hardly a paradox, is it. yes, of course the QM, like anything else, gets contradictionary on the "popular science" level, thanks to the ambiguity of the terms. however, on the most basic level, it's just a bunch of math used to describe the behaviour of micro-level objects. no paradoxes there whatsoever. where things get interesting and controversial though is the interpretation of the theory: that is, physicists trying to construct the "invisible" part of the theory. you see, the laws of QM have a distinct feel of "just a shadow on the wall" to them, provoking all sorts of theories and heated discussions about the "rest of it". well, i happen to be a physicist, programmer, and trader rolled into one -- you can't get a more explosive mixture of down-to-earthness, can you maybe, but i don't think we're there yet to call that distinction with absolute certainty. to me it seems that the perceived capabilities of animals have certainly increased as science progresses. hence your statement may be correct but it clearly "fights the trend". now, as far as portraying the god as the creator of natural laws goes, i know this is a pretty common belief, even among physicists. i respect that. however, i respect that as a theory, not as an absolute truth. moreover, intuitively i don't believe it myself, because it implicitly extrapolates the everyday notion of causality (ie eveything has something responsible for it) to realm that is anything but everyday. - jaan
Jaan: I respect your intelligently neutral view and do not expect all to share my understanding of reality. It is only mindless bashing that brings out the fire in me. Commisso: Seeds can be planted. If I can get one person to think objectively and consider something new or reconsider something they threw away years ago, then I have succeeded in my goal. It is not my job to 'convert' anyone, only to offer guideposts and encourage others to conduct the search for themselves. Faster: Here's a tip. Type your missives in all caps, for a shouting effect- to better mask your complete lack of substance.
c'mon chas, you know one cannot PROVE the non-existence of something. and it takes an even LARGER imagination to believe. :-/