Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
New posts
All threads
Latest threads
New posts
Trending threads
Trending
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New ads
New profile posts
Latest activity
Free Ads
Latest reviews
Search ads
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Contact us
Latest ads
Puffin Rock Characters Plush Toy Set
anil1961
Updated:
Saturday at 3:51 PM
Toyota Vitz scp10 For Sale
Lakmal Bandara
Updated:
Wednesday at 10:50 AM
Kandy
Welcome all my all new pet shop Bark.lk
dilumrane
Updated:
Nov 2, 2026
Windows RDP Only Rs.500 a month
Blogerwiki
Updated:
Nov 1, 2026
Ad icon
V2ray VPN for Tunneling
hu KANNA
Updated:
Oct 22, 2026
Electronics
Vehicles
Property
Search
Reply to thread
Forums
General
Religious
A BEST ANSWER TO ATHEIST (INTRESTING CONVERSATION)
Get the App
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mononoke" data-source="post: 5582281" data-attributes="member: 238323"><p><span style="font-size: 10px">What bull shit is this. I read the quantum mechanics article because I have a technical education in that field. The article rightly pointed out that quantum mechanics showed that QM destroyed the objective view of reality, scientist and philosophers had to adjust to this. And it also rightly said that in light of QM we need to develop a new metaphysical ontology. But then out of nowhere it says therefore, God must exist. This is funny because almost all of the people whom he quoted are atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The person who wrote this article shot himself in the foot the moment he said "</span><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 10px">objective world is an illusion". Quantum non locality ensures that there can be no independent objective reality. Thus there can be no supreme objective existence, God cannot exist in the QM reality. Furthermore, you cannot be omniscient or omnipotent in QM reality. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle excluded that possibility.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 10px">As for the rest of the articles, I am going to assume that they are similar festering piles of viscous pig shit.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Arial'"><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mononoke, post: 5582281, member: 238323"] [SIZE=2]What bull shit is this. I read the quantum mechanics article because I have a technical education in that field. The article rightly pointed out that quantum mechanics showed that QM destroyed the objective view of reality, scientist and philosophers had to adjust to this. And it also rightly said that in light of QM we need to develop a new metaphysical ontology. But then out of nowhere it says therefore, God must exist. This is funny because almost all of the people whom he quoted are atheists, agnostics, or Buddhists. The person who wrote this article shot himself in the foot the moment he said "[/SIZE][FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]objective world is an illusion". Quantum non locality ensures that there can be no independent objective reality. Thus there can be no supreme objective existence, God cannot exist in the QM reality. Furthermore, you cannot be omniscient or omnipotent in QM reality. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle excluded that possibility. As for the rest of the articles, I am going to assume that they are similar festering piles of viscous pig shit. [/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Hath warak paha keeyada? (hatha wadikireema paha)
Post reply
Top
Bottom