Is Christianity the only way to prove GOD?

Originally posted by ahosyney
I did some reading from wikipedia about:

1- Quantum mechanics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

2- Uncertainty principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

After quick reading I found your statement
[b]As I said, in modern physics the exact location of particles and their exact movements are not only unknown but th ...[text shortened]... an 100% predect it (That is what Eineshtine said).

----------------
Any comments?

Einstein.

Now write it out a thousand times, lest ye forget.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Einstein.

Now write it out a thousand times, lest ye forget.

Thanks you for the help,

I know how to write it in Arabic very well, and now you helped me to do it in English.

Do you know how to write it in Arabic? I can help....

-----------------------------

You see, I make a lot of efforts to communicate with you Guys, and I try to translate ideas, and thoughts from one language to another, and you come to comment on a person's name!!!!

Good work man,

Originally posted by ahosyney
Thanks you for the help,

I know how to write it in Arabic very well, and now you helped me to do it in English.

Do you know how to write it in Arabic? I can help....

-----------------------------

You see, I make a lot of efforts to communicate with you Guys, and I try to translate ideas, and thoughts from one language to another, and you come to comment on a person's name!!!!

Good work man,

No, I can't. Japanese, on the other hand, I can.

But, I'm not here to compare lengths.

I'd just seen about every possible misspelling from you and I thought a little correction necessary.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No, I can't. Japanese, on the other hand, I can.

But, I'm not here to compare lengths.

I'd just seen about every possible misspelling from you and I thought a little correction necessary.

I know I have a lot of misspelling, and I said that many times, in different places. This is something I try to solve, but requires a lot of effort.

Forgive me for that if you can...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But, we do know that the laws of physics couldn't have been that much different from what they are now, or the universe wouldn't look the way it does.

Yes, i am aware of this. It has been speculated that this combination of laws might not be the only combination that is capable of remaining stable, though that is speculation.

Consider this, The Universe is a process of creation and destruction. There is nothing to say that the Universe itself is indestructible. Can we really say that these physical laws are unchangeable? Were they to change, then the Universe would surely come to an end. When you consider that everything that has ever existed (to our knowledge) has a beginning and an end, then it stands to reason that the Universe itself must have an end. Change is inevitable.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Please when you discuss cause/effect , universe, physics and science with me assume that I don't know GOD, untill we reach some sort of agreement.

Is that ok with you.

Thats fine with me. I think the problem was a misunderstanding due to English not being your first language.

Originally posted by ahosyney
you say that the phrase [b]"largely unknown" is equal to "It doesn't have a cause" which I don't agree with, they are totally different.[/b]

No, I never made any such claim. You constantly say that I have made that claim when I haven't. It is you that is making the claim that "largely unknown" is equal to it must have a cause which I don't agree with, they are totally different.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Actually what that is all about is that the measurement of any system can't acuratly define the position and momentum and what can get is a predection of them at any moment of time. In other words, we can't at any moment of time say where a specific particle is and what is its momentum but we can give a propability of predection. These properities are high ...[text shortened]... with some other measurment methods we can 100% predect it (That is what Eineshtine said).

Actually it is far more complex than you imply. It is not a case of us being unable to predict the location of a particle, but rather a case of the particle not actually having an exact position. For example a light particle (photon) can travel two different routes simultaneously and interfere with itself. This behavior has been demonstrated with electrons too.

Do you also know that in empty space, a particle can 'pop' into existence? Again, there is no known 'cause' for such behavior.
The universe follows the laws of physics. If something is within the laws of physics - it can happen, it doesn't need a 'cause' in order for it to happen, it just happens. What we observe is actually the sum of all such 'possible happenings'.

My problems with your 'first cause' arguement are:
1. You don't know enough about physics to be making universal claims such as "everything has a cause".
2. You are applying what might be a law of the universe to the universe itself - that is not valid reasoning.
3. You are not applying the same law to the entity you call the 'first cause'.
4. You are making other unfounded assumptions about the universe such as the assumption that time is finite or that the set of all time is a closed set. (You need to know some set theory to understand that bit).

To illustrate point 4:
in set theory if we write (0,1) we mean all points on the real number line between zero and one but not including zero itself or one itself.
Every point in the set (0,1) has a point that it less than it yet every point is also bigger than zero. Zero is called the lower bound. So it may be possible for every point in time in the universe to have a previous point in time even though time may have a lower bound. So every event may be caused by a previous event without ever going back before time t=0. In fact time t=0 may not be included in the universe at all (ie not exist) yet the universe would still appear to have a beginning (lower bound).

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I never made any such claim. You constantly say that I have made that claim when I haven't. It is you that is making the claim that [b]"largely unknown" is equal to it must have a cause which I don't agree with, they are totally different.[/b]

Ok I will ask you a question, and I wish you give me a straight answer:

Does the phrase "the cause of x is largely unknown" logicaly implys "x has no cause" ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually it is far more complex than you imply. It is not a case of us being unable to predict the location of a particle, but rather a case of the particle not actually having an exact position. For example a light particle (photon) can travel two different routes simultaneously and interfere with itself. This behavior has been demonstrated with electron ...[text shortened]... ot exist) yet the universe would still appear to have a beginning (lower bound).

This post is rather long, and requires some thinking because I still see some baseless assumptions (including some about me).

I'm some how busy these days, I will be back to you soon.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Does the phrase "the cause of x is largely unknown" logicaly implys "x has no cause" ?

Straight answer: No it doesn't.

Now my question:
Does the phrase "the cause of x is largely unknown" logically imply "x has a cause" ?

If your answer is yes, you don't understand logic. If your answer is no then your statement "simple science that says all activities result from another cause" is false making your whole first cause argument thus far, an argument based on an unfounded assumption.

I saw a documentary at the weekend which said that Einsteins spent most of his life after he finished his famous theory of General Relativity, trying to prove that the implications of quantum physics. He never succeeded but kept trying until his death because the implications that not everything was caused conflicted with his theist beliefs.