Proving Atheists Wrong.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 55
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I have no good reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Do you honestly think I would not believe that my own mother being raised was sufficient reason? You don't even know me. You think that Bible verse is all you need to know? You and I must be living in different worlds.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt


Our resident Reverend Tradesecret wrote: 
Matthew 12:37-45 answers your question. 

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 

And it tells us that even if a dead person came back that they still would not believe. #30
FM! Talk about misusing a biblical quote.
Why ever these bible ignorant Pastors like the Reverend Tradesecret believe that the story of Jonah in a fish some how proves the resurrection of a dead rotting stinking three day old corpse come back to life simply shows how desperate not to mention how thick they really are.



Because Jonah wasn't fkn dead was he. And neither was Jesus. The bible clearly states that Jonah  was alive and praying.

Jonah 2:1  From inside the fish Jonah prayed to the LORD his God.


b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
It sounds like there is no way for me to become a believer then.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
I have no good reason to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Do you honestly think I would not believe that my own mother being raised was sufficient reason? You don't even know me. You think that Bible verse is all you need to know? You and I must be living in different worlds.

There are many good reasons for believing Jesus rose from the dead.  The fact that you think there are no good reasons is a matter for you.  But that is a subjective opinion on which billions of people disagree. Of course, truth is not decided by majority vote, but for you to say there are no good reasons, diminishes EVERYONE who says there are good reasons.   What is your standard for a good reason? 

Honestly, there are many reason that your mother could come back to life that are not dependent upon God existing. Perhaps aliens come to this world and decide to provide some wonderful contraption that enables your mother to breathe again. Or perhaps someone invents a Time Machine that enables you to go back and find some cure for her.  Or perhaps - she has tricked you into thinking she is dead and then somehow appears in the future claiming God has raised her from the dead.  There are lots of potential reasons - perhaps there is a clone made from her DNA - and this clone is somehow able to convince you that she is the real deal.  My point is - if someone does not want to believe in God, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever - to make you think otherwise. At least this side of death - or until God himself descends from heaven on Judgment Day. A time when - belief will be dispensed away with. 

I don't think that a bible verse by itself is something you need to know.  The bible itself - says that the leaders and teachers read the bible and can't find life.  I don't need to know you to know that you are deceiving yourself if you think a miracle will provide evidence for you to believe in God. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
It sounds like there is no way for me to become a believer then.
Excellent, then we are on the same wavelength. Jesus said the same thing. It is impossible for someone to become a Christian all by themselves.

The bible says - it is a miracle. Jesus said you must be born again. Nicodemus the priest of God, cried - "unfair". that's impossible. How can someone go back into their mother's womb?

It is an act of God. I have said it before and I will say it again. One of the proofs that people can prove the bible is fake and that God is a liar is for someone to become a Christian all by themselves.  The bible says it is impossible.  I read above - I am not sure who - that it is the easiest thing to do. But that is nonsense.  

It is impossible. and let me demonstrate this.  You do it. Become a Christian and prove to me that you are. Do it for 12 months. And then tell me it is all a lie.  

the bible does tells us - that if people want to be saved - they need to repent of their sins and be baptized.  Turn to Jesus etc.  And for some people this looks easy - but it's not.

Oh and by the way - although I say it is impossible for people by themselves to become a Christian, I am not saying that people do not become Christians.  I take a monergistic view. It is God's work. Not ours.  We can't do it ourselves.  

So do it - prove to me then that you are a Christian.  I won't make it difficult for you - but I will be honest with you. I know when people are trying to be fake or not. there are a few on this site for instance who claim - they are Christians but they are not.   I am not talking about the difference in theology or denominations. I know Christians in pretty much all denominations and people who have a variety and different theology and doctrines to me.  But there are some essential doctrines and some non-essential doctrines.  These are not ways to become a Christian - but evidence of - or fruit of being a Christian.  

PM if you want to know more. 
b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Thank you for explaining what you meant.
The truth is, I'm not interested in believing or becoming a Christian. But I sincerely responded to the question, "What would it take?" There is no doubt in my mind that a personal  miracle would be very convincing to me. When you replied that you wouldn't believe me then, it really sounded weird, like why are you even talking to atheists? That's no way to convert people (if indeed that is what you are trying to do).
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
It's not my job to convert. That is a matter for God. 

Jesus said the Spirit, like the Wind goes whither it goes.  

From my point of view - I just want to present the gospel. That is the good news that Jesus has come to reconcile humanity with God. 

Many people don't believe in God. Others don't consider that they are estranged from God.  

Yet the Bible teaches that all humanity is estranged from God, because of their unbelief and their sinfulness. Not that all men or even one man is as evil as possible, but that they are all tainted by their unbelief and sin.  Sin is the reason for this irreconcilable relationship.  Most people don't even believe in sin. Or they think sin is what evil people do.  Yet all of us have lied at one stage or another or taken something that doesn't belong to us or thought thoughts that we wouldn't want others to know. And these are just the human elements of sin. 

When it comes to God - sins against him are a form of treason.  To not believe he exists is a form of treason. It's a little like the sovereign citizen argument. Weak and flawed.  

Nevertheless, God, despite his notion of justice, also sought to save those who wanted to be saved from their sentence of death.  this is why he sent Jesus, to be punished - for those - who were prepared to accept his rule.  those who didn't would simply have to trust themselves that they had figured it out - and hope for the best. Those who trust him - receive mercy. Those who don't receive justice. It's that simple.

the questions most have to ponder is - why do people die? Why is there evil and why is there good? Who determines what good and evil are? Is there a purpose - an objective purpose for life or is it all just random and left to people to decide? Is there a God? Who is this God? How can I know for sure that this is God? what evidence would I accept? Which story makes the most plausible sense? Which ones don't? and how do I determine such things in the first place? 

If God does exist, what are the different religions? Can they all be true? Can any one be true? How can we know? Has God communicated to us? Are there differences or similarities with each of the religions or worldviews? Are they all the same or not? Lots of questions. I would be glad to discuss any of these matters with you if you are interested. 


b9_ntt
b9_ntt's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 275
0
2
5
b9_ntt's avatar
b9_ntt
0
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
Your last post was an interesting one. I agree that there are many questions about life and the world we live in, and I'm glad that you acknowledge that.
First, I need to get something off my chest. You referred to the gospel, as many Christians do, as "good news." That sounds weird to me, because the gospel is no longer news. It's been around for 2000 years and in the USA everyone over the age of 5 has already heard about it.
Second, if you believe the Bible, God is the source of evil. Isaiah 45:7 says "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (KJV) So it's not right to blame humans for evil, since God has already taken responsibility for it.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@b9_ntt
The Reverend Tradesecret wrote: It's not my job to convert.

Then as Mathew clearly states: - “You  are in error because you do not know the Scriptures ".Matthew 22:29

The Reverend Tradesecret, that tells us that he was "chosen by god"  must have totally forgotten this verse>

Matthew 28:19  "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".

But excuse me if I have this wrong but making followers (disciples) in the name of "Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"  sounds very much like "conversion" to the Christian church.



The Reverend Tradesecret wrote: I just want to present the gospel.


😂 "present"? I think the Reverend Tradesecret means preach in the case of the gospel.

This is a religion forum not a pulpit.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@b9_ntt
Your last post was an interesting one. I agree that there are many questions about life and the world we live in, and I'm glad that you acknowledge that.
First, I need to get something off my chest. You referred to the gospel, as many Christians do, as "good news." That sounds weird to me, because the gospel is no longer news. It's been around for 2000 years and in the USA everyone over the age of 5 has already heard about it. 
It is good news for anyone who has never heard it.  And for anyone who embraces it today as well. It certainly is good news for me.  


Second, if you believe the Bible, God is the source of evil. Isaiah 45:7 says "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (KJV) So it's not right to blame humans for evil, since God has already taken responsibility for it.
Yes, many people embrace that idea.  

I happen to agree with the verse as well. Yet I don't agree with your commentary and conclusions on it.  One might also say that perhaps God has taken responsibility for sin and evil by dying on the cross.  For God, a divine being, the author of life, to die is perhaps the greatest punishment any could receive.

There is also a demarcation between God creating evil - whatever that is - and being responsible for sin.   Evil in most translations in that verse is not translated evil.  The word for evil in Hebrew is Ra. which is the name of an Egyptian God. Perhaps the passage is saying God created the Egyptian God, rather than saying God created evil.   It might simply refer to tragedy. Or natural disaster.  I am someone who embraces predestination - so I don't get worried or concerned about the things I don't understand. It is the things I do understand that concern me more.  We have been told not to sin. Or we will face the consequences of it. Our choice. Yet I do find a bit of irony in the Atheist's worldview - which they don't actually have and yet is implied in their no - belief in God. 

Most atheists I know embrace determinism - cause and effect. our environments or our DNA determine what we do. For them free will is a bit silly. Yes, there are some free will atheists. Yet most are not. Do they say that when someone rapes a little child that the person is responsible or that it is simply determinism and that there was nothing the rapist could do? Our system would fall over if - we actually were consistent with that position.  Me, I agree with determinism but I also agree with personal responsibility.  In Christian circles, we call this covenant theology. 

Personally, I don't mind what people say - God is the judge of the universe and the rules he makes and the way he judges is a matter for him. If he chooses to be merciful, people jump up and say - great, if he is just - in relation to others, then they can deal with that, it is when he judges us justly for the evil or the sin or the offences we have done, that is when we get our noses out of joint.  

so to answer your question - I don't think God creating evil - whatever that is - makes him personally responsible to the extent that people are not responsible for their actions.  After all, if I am going to agree with the bible, including the bits you quoted, I also must agree with the parts that clearly say that God is good and can not do evil.  I take it all. Not just parts of it. the question is - which part do I start with and how do I interpret it? 


BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen

Stephen, MISS TRADESECRET,


I think that Miss Tradesecret needs another "time-out" from this Religion Forum because of the following statements she has made at her embarrassing expense once again.

1.   Miss Tradesecret admits that our Jesus as God (1 Peter 1:1) rose Himself from being  dead with her quote to b9_ntt herewith: "After all, he raised Jesus from the dead and you don't believe that."  

Barring the fact that Miss Tradesecret doesn't show respect to Jesus by capitalizing the pronoun "He," since Jesus is God to begin with, it is more hard to believe that Jesus AS GOD raised HIMSELF from death while He was rotting away for 3 days in a tomb, like Jonah did in the great fish story for 3 days (Matthew 12:40). Jesus  copied Jonah's story in using 3 days, and couldn't come up with one of His own new stories.  :(  


2.  Miss Tradesecret made another faux pas when she implied that our Jesus as God WAS A WEAK GOD when she said: "One might also say that perhaps God has taken responsibility for sin and evil by dying on the cross".  Can you imagine a God of our standing letting others murder Him and dying on a cross, whereas I try and keep this out of discussion because of its total embarrassment for us TRUE Christians like myself in Jesus showing absolute weakness in being a God!  

In comparison, look at the God Zeus, that was as real as Jesus because He is mentioned within the Bible, would NEVER let Himself die like Jesus did because He was a much stronger God than Jesus, and the "King of all Gods" as His historical writings so state!

Zeus a Strong God!

Our Jesus, as a weak pathetic God, that we Christians should keep out of discussion:


3. As if Miss Tradesecret wasn't embarrassed enough as you have shown with your rational refutations to her ungodly statements in this thread alone, then she has the audacity to state the following: "If God does exist,"  WTF!!!  "IF" Jesus exists as God? Huh?  She is not sure?

Yet she continues to "preach" His word here at DEBATEART Religion Forum?!  Total BLASPHEME on her part in continuing to be the #1 Bible Stupid fool, whereas this godly passage says Jesus does exist: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)


As we both know, we and others will have to continue to correct her Bible ignorance as long as she is a member upon this Religion Forum.

.



Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, 

Barring the fact that Miss Tradesecret doesn't show respect to Jesus by capitalizing the pronoun "He," since Jesus is God to begin with, it is more hard to believe that Jesus AS GOD raised HIMSELF from death while He was rotting away for 3 days in a tomb, like Jonah did in the great fish story for 3 days (Matthew 12:40). Jesus  copied Jonah's story in using 3 days, and couldn't come up with one of His own new stories.  :(  

With all his training  the Reverend didn't stop to think before posting that verse concerning Jonah that Jonah wasn't dead inside the fish and has nothing to do with a supposedly once "dead" and resurrected Jesus...... unless of course, it is as I have maintained all long that Jesus survived the cross.


2.  Miss Tradesecret made another faux pas when she implied that our Jesus as God WAS A WEAK GOD when she said"One might also say that perhaps God has taken responsibility for sin and evil by dying on the cross".  Can you imagine a God of our standing letting others murder Him and dying on a cross, whereas I try and keep this out of discussion because of its total embarrassment for us TRUE Christians like myself in Jesus showing absolute weakness in being a God!  

Well, I find it rather astonishing considering the Reverend has claimed above not to know what "evil means" in the bible!!!?#40 This tells me that the Reverend has been repeating the mantra of "The Lords Prayer" for most his life yet not knowing WTF  the words "deliver us from evil" even means!?





3. As if Miss Tradesecret wasn't embarrassed enough as you have shown with your rational refutations to her ungodly statements in this thread alone, then she has the audacity to state the following: "If God does exist,"  WTF!!!  "IF" Jesus exists as God? Huh?  She is not sure?
Takes the breath away Brother D.


Yet she continues to "preach" His word here at DEBATEART Religion Forum?!

 And preaching to his congregation of over 300 too!




Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
im gonna tell you something revelatory. You ready?
satan is dumber than God.

the lack of belief in God is satan's work his blinding of minds. He subdues truth and thereby confounds and shortchanges logic. so those who do not believe in God are entirely dependent on God unblinding their minds as their spirit seeks truth, waiting for God to visit the body it dwells in.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
@Malcharaz

Perhaps theists are dumber than atheists.

Or perhaps not.

Dumb is as dumb does I suppose.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen, 

In answer to my post #42 regarding the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool of this Religion Forum, Miss Tradesecret, as continually shown ad infinitum at her embarrassing expense, why do you think the esteemed moderators still allow her to be within this forum removing one of her feet from her mouth to insert the other one all the time with her biblical mistakes?

Unfortunately for Miss Tradesecret, she will NEVER live down this exact quote of hers that goes directly against the teaching of Christianity, EVER! 

"If God does exist








Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Stephen, 

why do you think the esteemed moderators still allow her to be within this forum removing one of her feet from her mouth to insert the other one all the time with her biblical mistakes?
I am guessing, entertainment value, Brother D.


"If God does exist
Priceless😂
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen


Stephen, 

UPDATE ON MISS TRADESECRET "LYING" ABOUT JESUS AS GOD NOT DOING EVIL THINGS!

MISS TRADESECRET QUOTE: " I also must agree with the parts that clearly say that God is good and can not do evil"

EVIL: morally reprehensible, sinful, wicked

With me being the ONLY True Christian upon this esteemed  Religion Forum, I have to accept that my Jesus as God (2 Peter 1:1) in HIs inspired words, did do evil things to innocent infants by letting, and having them smashed against rocks, dashed to pieces, wives raped, and women with child ripped open, which is a brutal abortion on Jesus' part!  

"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9)

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:16)

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)


As the membership have learned over time, Miss Tradesecret is one of the most embarrassing pseudo-christians that this prestigious Religion forum has ever seen, bar none! 

.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9)

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:16)

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” (Hosea 13:16)

But the Reverend  says  "I don't think God creating evil - whatever that is". #40😂

And also says :""  God is good and can not do evil"

While god admits to creating both "good and evil"😂

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil"  Isaiah 45:7😂


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All i’ll say is quantum physics doesn’t entirely play by conventional causation.
I'm asking for the scenario which doesn't play by conventional causation.
Here's a couple:

What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both  dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon  observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .

What about entanglement,  nonlocality implies instantaneous data transfer where sending and recieving information at different locations at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), violates conventional causality as it is defined in special relativity.



ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,697
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both  dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon  observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .
This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.

Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense. The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the  experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.

The state of the cat depends on the wave-collapse of the photon which triggers the Geiger counter. The wave collapse in turns depends on the electromagnetic wave encountering a locality where a quantum of energy could change state. The only "observation" necessary is the "observation" of a single electron in an electric potential.

"observation" was a poor word and people have been paying for it ever sense as they are duped by mystics, fake experts, and science-communicator-showmen.

What about entanglement,  nonlocality implies instantaneous data transfer where sending and recieving information at different locations at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), violates conventional causality as it is defined in special relativity.
No more than the wave collapse phenomenon itself, which could be described as "instantly" communicating from the point of collapse to everywhere else the wave suddenly disappears.

Furthermore instantaneous communication does not violate conventional causality or the mathematics of general relativity. If you have heard that traveling faster than the speed of light means time travel it is almost certainly due to the flawed analysis linked to in post #22.


The error that allows for the twin paradox is identical to the error that leaves some to believe that a moving reference frame has access to the past. Consider this simple example:

Relative to Earth a ship travels at the speed of light and sends a signal back to Earth at the speed of light. Following the false projections shown in the link above would imply the message was received exactly when the ship left Earth. As if moving back to Earth undid the time spent as well as the displacement.

It is (or should) be obvious that the message sent back travels only at the speed of light as seen in Earth's reference frame. The error implies that a ship traveling at the speed of light looks behind itself and sees the past and not only that it can send objects and energy into the past by shooting them out the back. The ship doesn't perceive anything behind it. It has been redshifted to darkness (no waves are catching up). It has NO information.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,984
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both  dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon  observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .
This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.
OK, and which interpretation of quantummechanics resolves the superposition paradox again?

Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense.
No, Schrödinger's thought experiment was toillustrate the paradox of quantum superposition, he was demonstrating anexample of how conventional causation does not apply to quantum physics.

The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the  experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.
Schrödinger used it in conversation withEinstein, do you think Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein are two of thepeople who people who don’t understand the experiments and mathematics ofquantum mechanics?  

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard Feynman

The state of the cat depends on the wave-collapse of the photon which triggers the Geiger counter. The wave collapse in turns depends on the electromagnetic wave encountering a locality where a quantum of energy could change state. The only "observation" necessary is the "observation" of a single electron in an electric potential.
Yes, and the underlying concept of the thoughtexperiment is the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, conventionalcausation is not probabilistic, it is deterministic. 

"observation" was a poor word and people have been paying for it ever sense as they are duped by mystics, fake experts, and science-communicator-showmen.
Oh please, quantum superposition is afundamental principle of quantum mechanics, do you really want to call PaulDirac, Erwin Schrödinger, NielsBohr, , Louis de Broglie, Max Born, WernerHeisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman some of the“fake experts” of quantum physics. 

The traditional interpretation of ThomasYoung's iconic double-slit experiment demonstrates that the photon not onlygoes through both slits; it simultaneously takes every possible trajectory, notexactly what I would call “conventional causation”.

What about entanglement,  nonlocality implies instantaneous data transfer where sending and recieving information at different locations at the same time (in a Minkowski spacetime), violates conventional causality as it is defined in special relativity.
No more than the wave collapse phenomenon itself, which could be described as "instantly" communicating from the point of collapse to everywhere else the wave suddenly disappears.

Furthermore instantaneous communication does not violate conventional causality or the mathematics of general relativity.
Nonsense, the finite speed of informationtransfer is foundational to the mathematics of the Theory of Relativity,without it you don’t get Lorentz transformation and the mathematics of the Theoryof Relativity falls apart.

If you have heard that traveling faster than the speed of light means time travel it is almost certainly due to the flawed analysis linked to in post #22.

So now Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are two “fake experts” that don't understand Relativity?

“People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” - Albert Einstein

“Time travel used to be thought of as just science fiction, but Einstein’s general theory of relativity allows for the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that you could go off in a rocket and return before you set out.” - Stephen Hawking

The error that allows for the twin paradox is identical to the error that leaves some to believe that a moving reference frame has access to the past. Consider this simple example:

Relative to Earth a ship travels at the speed of light and sends a signal back to Earth at the speed of light. Following the false projections shown in the link above would imply the message was received exactly when the ship left Earth. As if moving back to Earth undid the time spent as well as the displacement.
The “twin paradox” of Relativity is a matterof time dilation rather than superluminal signaling, it results from thedifference in the elapsed time of the two twins, and it demonstrates Relativity’stheoretical violation of conventional causality.

It is (or should) be obvious that the message sent back travels only at the speed of light as seen in Earth's reference frame. The error implies that a ship traveling at the speed of light looks behind itself and sees the past and not only that it can send objects and energy into the past by shooting them out the back. The ship doesn't perceive anything behind it. It has been redshifted to darkness (no waves are catching up). It has NO information.
The asymmetry in the paradox is that one twinleaves the other twin’s reference frame and comes back, theoretically, one twinis now younger than the other, the actual paradox relates to which twin isyounger.  
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,697
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
What about Superposition, in an unobserved state, Schroedinger's cat is both  dead and alive, causation that is retroactively dependent upon  observation when the box is opened is not conventional causation .
This interpretation of quantum mechanics is nonsense.
OK, and which interpretation of quantummechanics resolves the superposition paradox again?
There is no paradox once you let go of the constant particle concept.

Schrodinger created the example of the cat to demonstrate it is nonsense.
No, Schrödinger's thought experiment was toillustrate the paradox of quantum superposition, he was demonstrating anexample of how conventional causation does not apply to quantum physics.
Incorrect.

The only people who think the cat's life depends upon the box being opened are people who don't understand the  experiments and mathematics of quantum mechanics.
Schrödinger used it in conversation withEinstein, do you think Erwin Schrödinger and Albert Einstein are two of thepeople who people who don’t understand the experiments and mathematics ofquantum mechanics?  
They did (I assume Eisenstein did, I know Schrodinger did), and neither believed the cat's life depends on opening the box.

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.” - Richard Feynman
Cuts both ways don't it?

conventionalcausation is not probabilistic, it is deterministic.
The definition of "conventional causality" is implied by the original post I was responding to. In that post it was suggested that the universe need not have a cause because causes are unconventional in quantum mechanics.

The only way this could possibly make sense is by implying that something that happened once the universe "began" caused the universe to begin.

Thus unconventional causality = effect precedes cause.

There is nothing about probability distributions that implies such a thing.

Oh please, quantum superposition is afundamental principle of quantum mechanics, do you really want to call PaulDirac, Erwin Schrödinger, NielsBohr, , Louis de Broglie, Max Born, WernerHeisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Richard Feynman some of the“fake experts” of quantum physics. 
I do not, and will put no more effort into addressing your strawmen than to say "strawman".

The traditional interpretation of ThomasYoung's iconic double-slit experiment demonstrates that the photon not onlygoes through both slits; it simultaneously takes every possible trajectory, notexactly what I would call “conventional causation”.
"interpretation" -> "demonstrate", that's an oddity. The double slit experiment demonstrates that there is no photon billiard ball. The only reason we ever suspected there was one is quantized interactions of the whole wave which is considerably stranger than a billiard ball but is in no way a mystical contradiction.

What you call conventional is up to you. The context does not allow you the freedom to dispute what I meant.

Nonsense, the finite speed of informationtransfer is foundational to the mathematics of the Theory of Relativity
It is not. It deals with time dilation, length elongation when they are caused by relative motion and mass distortions (gravity).

It was assumed (rightly in my opinion) that since all energy and matter exists as fields (of various types) that do not propagate faster than light that no information can travel faster. It is not required by the theory in the slightest.

without it you don’t get Lorentz transformation and the mathematics of the Theoryof Relativity falls apart.
The Lorentz transform has nothing to do with information. See my last paragraph.

So now Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are two “fake experts” that don't understand Relativity?
Strawman

“Time travel used to be thought of as just science fiction, but Einstein’s general theory of relativity allows for the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that you could go off in a rocket and return before you set out.” - Stephen Hawking
Eisenstein's purported quote could be dismissed as metaphysical musings, but this one is certainly false. If Hawking really said this he was acting as a dishonest showman at the time.

The “twin paradox” of Relativity is a matterof time dilation rather than superluminal signaling
Read more carefully, once again: The error that produces the twin paradox is the same error that causes some to conclude that superluminal signaling constitutes time travel.

it results from thedifference in the elapsed time of the two twins, and it demonstrates Relativity’stheoretical violation of conventional causality.
It demonstrates the conceptual error of the one who thinks he is dealing with an implication of special relativity, nothing more. If it was truly a prediction of special relativity we could thus conclude special relativity is incorrect. Contradictions do not exist in reality, this is the only definition of truth that allows for debate.

The asymmetry in the paradox is that one twinleaves the other twin’s reference frame and comes back, theoretically, one twinis now younger than the other, the actual paradox relates to which twin isyounger.
It is a contradiction for both to be younger or both older. Therefore any understanding of general relativity which predicts both results is false, else general relativity is false.

General relativity is a series of assertions with clear mathematical formulations. It does not predict a contradiction. Only Eisenstein's aesthetic desire for an equality of reference frames predicts the contradiction, and he eventually recanted.

BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

YouFound_Lxam, that is trying to be more Bible Dumber than Miss Tradesecret,

Well, what did we expect, other than for you to RUN AWAY from my post shown below, in your own thread!


In prayer with Jesus last night, He informed me that He DOES NOT want you to represent His Holy words anymore!  Since you have already committed the Unpardonable Sin, and you act like this ungodly act has no consequences as you continue to post in this Religion Forum!  

PROOF THAT YOU COMMITTED THE UNPARDONABLE SIN:

How does your family and friends feel since you have committed the ungodly Unpardonable Sin?  Instead of seeing them in heaven, you will be burning in the sulfur lakes of Hell for eternity, praise Jesus' revenge!

.



ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,697
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Why don't you bible thump (R) ebuc? Do you bots know how to recognize each other?
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

ADreamOfLiberty,

Why would you think that I am a "bot," especially from you having absolutely NOTHING posted in your biography!

Furthermore, ebuc is Bible challenged, therefore it is not that fun for Jesus and I to take advantage of his Bible ignorance.  Jesus and I can only easily take on a few of His creation, like at this time,  the Bible screw ups YouFound_Lxam and Melcharaz, and of course, Miss Tradesecret being the #1 Bible stupid fool of this forum.   

.