you know, i was totally agreeing with you right up until the that qm bit.to quote the princess bride, "i do not think it means what you think it means."

---

becuase using a misunderstanding of qm as an excuse for any crazed idea regarding religion or post-modern pseudophilosophy about our inability to understand the universe is just bad, bad mental masturbation.yes, in science we DO in fact see direct effects of our inward states on reality. it's called "observer bias." and we try to eliminate it because it invalidates tests.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-25-2006 09:51 PM

---

yeah, no. try 19th century psychology and electromagnetism.it helps to actually have some education in science before you go off willy nilly about whatever the latest pseudo-scientific fad is. btw, the physics community is now past qm, and string theory. try to keep up before you call someone else ignorant.

---

don't mistake the faithful for the gullible. we're not all suckers.while many people are drawn in by con artists and hucksters preying on their need for meaning, some have no such need. i do not need to believe in a god, or any form of supernatural anything. i got on just fine as an athiest, and could continue to do so. i believe because i choose to; because it feels like the right choice. i believe in god because i think he's real, not because i'm empty inside.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 02-25-2006 10:48 PM

---

no, that's not faith. that's logic. generally not, no. i tend to be on the skeptical side (and i've found paul exceptionally wanting) maybe. dunno.

---

i'm on my own side.

---

funny, you argue against evolution which has a history of twice the length. but yes, since you asked, try looking into string theory (which revolutionized quantum mechanics) and m-theory (which revolutionized string theory). evidently, you are the one who doesn't understand it. your misapplication of it to faith demonstrates that pretty clearly. emphasis mine. no, randman. you're making shit up again. stop it. qm has nothing to do with faith. period. uncertainty has nothing to do with faith. you're diving head-first into the choppy waters of bullshit pseudoscience.the idea that the presence of an observer interferes with the thing being observed is neither anything new, nor is it a "direct connection between conciousness ... and events in the real observed world." and the "faith perspective" is something that's been made up, post-hoc, by modern fundamentalists to further blur the boundries between real scientific thought, psuedoscience, and religion.admins -- i'm only replying because randman seems to think this is on topic, and that this drivel has something to do with faith. This message has been edited by AdminPD, 02-27-2006 08:23 AM

---

the only argument for intelligent design that i actually respect.

or rather, anyone who doubts or questions.ask, and it shall be given to you. seek, and you will find.

---

i still like mine better. i think the problem with thomas, in christianity, is the questioning and the doubting. afterall, he is "doubting thomas" and not "rigorous thomas." one could say that it is an application of rigor, sure, but i think the DOUBT is more fundamental to the issue.

---