@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
Hi Krumple,
Why do you think that you know what my interpretation of God is, when I haven't even stated a sentience application to It?
I never did state what you believe, i was only deducing aspects and possibilities and the flaw within reasoning if such properties were true. i didn't even need to know what you believe.
mark noble wrote:
And why (regarding prior post) Do you think that the internal workings of QM are known? When they are not.
I never said known, i said knowledge of. there is a difference. your talk is like a person who doesn't understand how a car engine works, you might have a very superficial understanding, that there is some fuel, air and a spark but out side that you don't know the process. So you might be making assumptions based on that lack of knowledge. My claim is to match that and say you make your claim without any knowledge of QM. Did I say anything like QM is known fact? No. However if some of the theories are correct then what you claim here would be in conflict. So how is it you can make your claim?
I find it incredibly funny that you can make claims like this
"Yes, of course God does. Nothing is random. All is predestined."
but then turn around and say, "Do you think that the internal workings of QM are known? When they are not."
You can't even notice your own contradiction here?