Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    ... For most people, yes there is usually no proof they existed. But for someone who was influential they typically do have a lot of proof of existence,
    Message 1 of 59 , Aug 17 1:50 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "richard" <meta@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "bestonnet_00" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      > To: <deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 12:20 PM
      > Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: free will, who's writing your email?
      >
      >
      > > There is ultimately no historical proof that Jesus Christ ever lived
      > > and quite a few reasons to doubt his existence. The very best that a
      > > Christian could hope for would be that he was based upon one of many
      > > deluded people who claimed to be the Jewish messiah around that time.
      >
      > Very seldom is there historical proof.

      For most people, yes there is usually no proof they existed.

      But for someone who was influential they typically do have a lot of
      proof of existence, ancient rulers for example left plenty of evidence
      that they existed and yet what do we have for Jesus?

      A few third hand accounts written a couple of generations after his
      death while no one who lived when he did seemed to even mention him.

      Not to mention the accounts in the bible which require King Herod to
      be both dead and alive at the same time (although maybe a
      fundamentalist could claim it as evidence that the bible predicts
      Quantum mechanics).

      > There is very good historical reason for the probability that Jesus
      > as a man did exist, since there is secondary and inferential
      > evidence.

      We've got better evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.

      There may have been someone called Jesus alive around that time but we
      don't have enough to be able to actually say that there was a
      historical Jesus.

      The Jesus of the bible is probably a composite of many different
      messiahs from around the time the new testament started to be written
      combined with stories passed down orally. One of those supposed
      messiahs may have been named Jesus Christ (or one may have been Jesus
      and another Christ and the two combined) but calling that person the
      Jesus from the bible is a bit of a stretch.

      > That's your first mistake. You second mistake is confusing Jesus
      > with Jesus Christ.

      Well who else is Jesus meant to be but Jesus Christ?
    • bestonnet_00
      ... I m doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don t really know that much more now, however
      Message 59 of 59 , Aug 21 1:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "iamthewayandthetruth111"
        <iamthewayandthetruth111@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, bestonnet_00 <no_reply@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > I'm mentioning it because humans tend to have large quantum
        > > numbers.
        > >
        > I read the basic idea of it. I always thought the same, I saw some
        > of the mathematics behind it but I didn't understand that because
        > I'm not at a high enough level of mathematics, I'm going into
        > pre-cal (11th grade).

        I'm doing a Masters in physics right now. I knew very little about QM
        back when I was in Year 11 myself (and don't really know that much
        more now, however many lectures later).

        > I've actually always been curious about how much the macroscopic
        > world becomes altered over time because of quantum mechanics.

        Compared to classical theory pretty much not at all.

        > If there were two concealed rooms floating in space with a tennis
        > ball bouncing around inside it at say 100 kmph and the room
        > was 10 m^3 and both rooms started out absolutely identical, ~how
        > long would it take a human eye to detect a difference in the
        > location/velocity of the tennis balls? I don't know, but I've been
        > curious.

        If the rooms are absolutely identical and the balls identical and the
        trajectory of the balls identical then I would expect classical
        mechanics to hold just fine at that scale so it'll be a lot longer
        than your lifetime before you notice any difference.

        Doing a full quantum mechanical treatment is going to be very hard
        though, even if you make a lot of approximations it wouldn't be worth
        it for any practical purpose (although classical mechanics holding
        well in the solar system didn't stop people using GR to calculate the
        trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft).

        > > I'd be more inclined to say \Delta x \Delta p >= \hbar / 2 myself.
        > >
        > No disagreement then I take it. I do know how the uncertainty
        > principle works (it makes a lot of sense also) but I haven't learned
        > the mathematics yet (although I have seen them).

        I'm not sure one can know how it works without understanding the
        mathematics behind it (and how it is related to the commutator).

        > > It seems to be more like rambling.
        > >
        > I can't really say much about that but if you are more specific
        > maybe I could come to an understanding.

        The bits that I can make sense of I've probably replied to already so
        I'm not really sure I can be much more specific about the bits where I
        can't figure out what you're saying.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.