The final and ultimate proof for the truth of Christianity

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
My understanding is physical systems are based on math and logic, not the other way around. That's why you use math to approximate physical systems and not use physical systems to approximate math. This shows that math is more fundamental.

Physical systems are not based on math and logic. Our models of physical systems are based on math (which is based on logic) because they seem to be useful in describing physical systems. Math is simply the language of chice, and logic is its grammar.

On the other hand, we don't use math to describe human relationships, for example, because as a language it would be either insufficient or overburdeningly complex. If at some point in the future we find that physical systems are no longer adequately portrayed in the language of math, physicists will abandon using math.

If a physical system is changed, maybe new math needs to be invented to describe it, like new words in English need to be created to describe new things.

That would be the first choice we would make, to expand the language.

[Japher]

If a physical system is changed, maybe new math needs to be invented to describe it, like new words in English need to be created to describe new things.

Exactly, and it happens.

Our models of physical systems are based on math (which is based on logic) because they seem to be useful in describing physical systems. Math is simply the language of chice, and logic is its grammar.

Well put.

Wave/Particle duality is a prime example of both these statements. We use math to describe observed events. If an observation is made that is contradictory to the initial hypothesis we reinvent the system.

What happens if the initial hyopthesis is the core issues of physics? Ask Einstein...

The Wave/Particle duality is used to describe the reactions of waves when subjected to certain conditions. In one aspect it acts as a wave in another it acts a particle. It's all relative. Which brings up another case in point; Was physics "redefined" by the theories of relativity, or was physics "stretched" to incompass relativity?

Do you believe, as Jung, that human behavior can be defined within the confines of science? That a behavior can be spoken with the language of math?

I think mob science and group behavior can, but I don't know about the rest.

How does a belief system tie into this human behavior? Do belief's guide behavior? How about emotions?

If math could be imployed to account for human behavior/emotions and these reactions are in some part a result of a belief system, would man be defining a god? Would science and religion be more a like? Could they eventually become indistinguishable?

In science the elements went from Earth, Air, Fire, and Water to a table of over 109 elements, with more being created everyday. Is mob science and group behavior the initial elements of behavior? Could they be the Earth, Air, Fire, and Water of religion as science would see it?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Ramo
But mathematical (and therefore logical) systems and conventions are often directly based upon corresponding systems in the physical world. Math is often intended to approximate physical systems. My point is that if you change the rules of physics, you'd probably have to change the rules of some math. The wave/particle duality is an interesting example of the physical world contradicting the fundamental mathematical assumption of non-contradiction in logically valid systems. If such exceptions were more prominent/obvious, you have to wonder how math would develop differently. Which brings me to the issue of whether non-contradiction in logically valid systems is an absolutely good assumption.

I think you have confused the concept of non-contradiction (a phenomenon that is purely particulate in nature is not purely wave-like in nature) with the concept of limited range (all phenomena of energy transferance are wither purely particulate or purely wave-like). The particle/wave duality was insufficient as a model of reality, because there were phenomena of energy transference (EM radiation) that had behaviors of both. It acted in some ways like a particle and in other ways like a wave. This required an expansion in range in the model. It did not nullify the concept of non-contradiciton, since the EM radiation did behave like both a wave and a particle on the *same* charateristic test. For example, EM radiation transfer mass like a particle stream, but not like a wave. It gives diffraction grids like a wave, not like a particle. On no characteristic test does it give both wave and particle results. Thus, non-contradicition is not brought into play.

[Ramo]

I think you have confused the concept of non-contradiction (a phenomenon that is purely particulate in nature is not purely wave-like in nature) with the concept of limited range (all phenomena of energy transferance are wither purely particulate or purely wave-like). The particle/wave duality was insufficient as a model of reality, because there were phenomena of energy transference (EM radiation) that had behaviors of both. It acted in some ways like a particle and in other ways like a wave. This required an expansion in range in the model. It did not nullify the concept of non-contradiciton, since the EM radiation did behave like both a wave and a particle on the *same* charateristic test. For example, EM radiation transfer mass like a particle stream, but not like a wave. It gives diffraction grids like a wave, not like a particle. On no characteristic test does it give both wave and particle results. Thus, non-contradicition is not brought into play.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by diffraction patterns wrt radiative transfer (radiative transfer specifically deals with how the intensity of e-m radiation changes with distance based on the source, opacity, and atmospheric density)... Could you elaborate?

2. AFAIK, current theories on QED have not well-defined the middle ground between particle and wave. Naively, these are contradictory ideas. Of course, that just means we don't know the whole story, but according to our current theories, we have a contradiction. All we know is that when the wave-length of what we're observing becomes comparable to its size, wave-like characteristics grow dominant.

If a physical system is changed, maybe new math needs to be invented to describe it, like new words in English need to be created to describe new things.

That's what I'm getting at. Or certain English words might need to be better defined.

I don't see that as any contradiction per se. Previously, wave and particle were thought to be mutually exclusive based on past observations. What this says is what we saw was incomplete.

Yep, that's indeed one conclusion, but it's not the only conclusion. In fact, due to the ambiguously defined realm of quantum theories in physical terms, this idea is naively physically contradictory. As I explained earlier, you could also come up with some modification to the classical theories to explain the black body radiation spectrum, etc. without resorting to quantizing e-m radiation, but it would be hopelessly complex. Similarly, I don't see why you absolutely can't resort to modifying other more fundamental mathematical assumptions.

Well, what suggestions do you have?

I suggest that there are no absolutely valid assumptions.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Ramo


1. I'm not sure what you mean by diffraction patterns wrt radiative transfer (radiative transfer specifically deals with how the intensity of e-m radiation changes with distance based on the source, opacity, and atmospheric density)... Could you elaborate?

Sure. I was refering to two differet characteristic tests that were used to attampt to determine whether EM radiation is wavish or particulate in nature.

The first test was energy-momentum transfer. Have you seen those toys that have a spinner inside a vacuum, with paddles that are white on one side and black on the other. If you shine a bright light on them, they spin. Thus, light transfers energy and momentum into ojects it strikes. This is characterisic of particulate radiation (that is, particle raiation behaves this way, wave radiation does not). In sufficiently sensitive tests, light always behaves as a particle in this fashion.

The second test was passing though a diffraction grid. Waves passing through a diffraction grid whose openings are of the appropriate size will develop nodes ater passing through the grid, which show up in a diffraction grid. Particle radiation does not exhbit this phenomenom. On this test, light acts lik a wave, and always acts like a wave.

2. AFAIK, current theories on QED have not well-defined the middle ground between particle and wave. Naively, these are contradictory ideas. Of course, that just means we don't know the whole story, but according to our current theories, we have a contradiction. All we know is that when the wave-length of what we're observing becomes comparable to its size, wave-like characteristics grow dominant.

"Wave" and "particle" are not contradictory, because they are not statements. Only statements can be contradictory. "EM radiation is a wave" and "EM radiaion is particulate" contradict each other, but both are wrong, so that's not really an issue. "Wave" and "particle" are mutual exclusive states f being, ut not contradictory concepts.

[Ramo]

The second test was passing though a diffraction grid. Waves passing through a diffraction grid whose openings are of the appropriate size will develop nodes ater passing through the grid, which show up in a diffraction grid.

Gotcha. I had a specific mental picture of radiative transfer that was confusing me (I wasn't associating the changes in intensity with light and dark diffraction rings).

Particle radiation does not exhbit this phenomenom.

That's not exactly true. It's been experimentally verified that electrons and neutrons diffract given the appropriate circumstances (in fact, I've personally verified the former).

"Wave" and "particle" are not contradictory, because they are not statements. Only statements can be contradictory. "EM radiation is a wave" and "EM radiaion is particulate" contradict each other, but both are wrong, so that's not really an issue. "Wave" and "particle" are mutual exclusive states f being, ut not contradictory concepts.

But the idea that something can act as either a particle or a wave has no real physical meaning. The theory is not consistent from a directly physical point of view. Hence, there's naively a contradiction.

[JohnM2433]

Do current theories in quantum mechanics and particle physics make contradictory predictions, or are you saying they're contradictory in another way? If the former, could you give an example? If the latter, what do you mean?

[Ramo]

No, the purely physical concept of something acting as a wave when you're looking at things on the order of its wavelength and otherwise acting as a particle, I don't consider a truly consistent picture. Without making speculations not based on scientific evidence, i.e. naively, I think there's a contradiction.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Ramo

Particle radiation does not exhbit this phenomenom

That's not exactly true. It's been experimentally verified that electrons and neutrons diffract given the appropriate circumstances (in fact, I've personally verified the former).

Last time I heard, and it's been a while. neither electrone nor neutrons were considered to be purely particulate in nature. In fact, I recall the electron orbits being described as regions of probability for an electron cloud, or something along those lines.

If you take it to a larger level, such as ping-pong balls, you see no diffraction nodes.

But the idea that something can act as either a particle or a wave has no real physical meaning. The theory is not consistent from a directly physical point of view. Hence, there's naively a contradiction.

Again, this seems to be confusing the concept of contradiction with the concept of limited range of classification. Exhibiting properties that defy standard classifications ("wave" vs. "particle") is not contradictory, and it is simply wrong to say that it is contradictory.

[Rogan Josh]

must resist posting... must resist....

Aghh.....

Ok then. Let me try and clear up the particle-wave duality bit. It is really not a duality and is not contradictory. It is really just a language/experience problem (ie. we don't have the correct words in our language because we have never had to deal with these things).

The photon (I will use the photon since it is really the most fundamental) is not a 'particle' in the traditional sense of the word. We normally think of the word particle as describing a point-like object localised in space. However, if you measure the photon's momentum it will then not be in only one place - it will be a superposition of photons in lots of different places. In technical terms this is a momentum eigenstate made up of a plane wave superposition of position eigenstates.

Only if you measure the photons position will it have a definite position afterwards. It will them be point-like in position space but it will have a range of momenta. Just like before, it will be a superposition of eigenstates - this time momentum eigenstates.

In other words, since momentum and position are conjugate to each other, if it is a 'particle' in momentum space it will be a 'wave ' in position space and vice versa. However, these definitions of 'particle' and 'wave' are only rather tenuously connected to our everyday definitions.

By 'particle' we mean 'has a definite position in space', whereas 'wave' means 'does not have a definite position in space'. Obviously it cannot be both at once - it is only that it can be one or the other depending on what we do to it (which isn't really so strange after all).

[Wernazuma III]

Something completely unrelated. Yesterday an Ethnologist from Germany was talking about the Tarahumara Indians in north Mexico. They're only partially christianized, or say, they're mainly very heterodox catholics, which is more or less accepted by the church.
Every now and then, jesuits come to visit them and they enjoy it, because they're talking about their everyday problems and not necessarily abouth faith. Jesuits are welcome visitors.
Every now and then, Protestant missionaries from the US come there and don't stop talking about God and sin and virtues and moral etc., so they are always happy when they're gone. -
They call them "Los Hallelujah", I think I'll integrate this term into my vocabulary.

I told you that this was unrelated.

[JohnM2433]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It is really just a language/experience problem (ie. we don't have the correct words in our language because we have never had to deal with these things).

I've heard that said of/by people who have had near-death experiences. Almost all, at some point in describing their experience, profess difficulty in communicating what they would like to say. I recall that one man said "They don't make adjectives that describe what I saw."

It is also notable that the accounts given by such individuals are usually remarkably similar. Or so I've heard.

Regarding physics, if theories don't make contradictory predictions, I don't see that anything really needs reconciling, except for purposes of simplicity or aesthetics. After all... it's only a model. (Monty Python fans, insert your own Holy Grail joke here. )

[Trevman]

I just want to add to this discussion that there is a common misconception that when you enter a church, your mind separates from you body. However, this cannot be further from the truth. Most, but not all of course, Christians, and probably some other faiths, worship fully with their intellects as well as their hearts.

[Ben Kenobi]

This thread is better billed then answered.

"I try not to be so close-minded. If you can show me God, I'll believe. The difficulty is that religion relies on faith, which does not need proof. Sadly I cannot act without proof."
-Lorizael

"Suppose that there is a deity or a group of deities, what makes it that Christianity is the correct religion?"
-Urban Ranger

"Why would a perfect being have created our clearly imperfect universe?"
-Jack the Bodiless

I lump these together, because in answering one question, I answer several.

Lorizael- people have minds, God does not expect us to believe in him on faith alone. He provides evidence in abundance that proclaim his existence. If it were not so, how could any of us come to know God?

Part of his testimony is the universe itself, including the delicate features required to sustain life on Earth. Jack, what makes the universe imperfect? How is the universe flawed?

Man has done terrible things, and continues to do terrible things throughout his existence here on Earth. Can we blame God for our own troubles? For the messes He has allowed us to create? This is part of free will- if we are allowed to choose for ourselves, we must also be allowed to make our own mistakes.

If man is the source of imperfection in the universe, what must this mean to a perfect God? God grieves sin in all forms, especially from man. Genesis says that he hated sin so much that he cleansed the world except for one family.

When Man continued to be stubborn, God had several options. Not even the mosaic laws properly dealt with man's sin. From John we read that God sent his only son in order to deal with the problem of sin in the world, that he would serve as a ransom for many.

Christianity is the only religion that teaches that Jesus Christ is the son of God. In no other religion does God love man and hate sin so much that he would put his Son through such suffering.

So what evidence did the first Christians, the apostles use to defend their claim that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? What did it take to convince his followers to follow him after their hopes were crushed by Jesus' death on a cross?

To make it simple- if Christ is dead than Christians are mistaken. If Christ remained in his tomb than he is not the Son of God. Therefore, in order to prove Christ is the son of God, one must first prove the resurrection.

The first point is the empty tomb. The Jews never argued that Jesus's body lay in the tomb, rather, they accused the Christians of stealing the body. All the Jews had to do was produce the body, and quash the Christian heretics. Yet they could not.

Secondly, could the apostles have stolen the body of Christ? The Jews posted guards to prevent people tampering with the tomb. The Jews did not argue that the guards were not there, but that the guards were asleep.

Also, a large rock sealed the tomb. This rock could not have been moved without disturbing the guards. It is implausible given the large rock and posted guards, that they would not notice the stone rolling away, even if they were asleep.

If the apostles did not steal the body, and the body was not in the tomb, what happened to the body? The apostle peter recounts that when they examined the tomb, he saw Jesus' wrapped tunic and headpiece conformed to their original shape, as if the body was still there. No one could have taken off the clothes without unwrapping the body.

To confirm that Jesus had risen from the dead, he appeared to the apostles shortly after Easter. Paul, in Corinthians remarked that Christ appeared to 500 brethren at the same time, and challenged doubters to ask the brethren. Paul himself, met the risen Christ in spirit form on the Damascus Road. How else can one explain a well-off Pharisee becoming a poor, persecuted Christian?

The body had to go somewhere. Bodies don't just evaporate into thin air.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Lorizael- people have minds, God does not expect us to believe in him on faith alone. He provides evidence in abundance that proclaim his existence. If it were not so, how could any of us come to know God?

Maybe because some WANT to know him? That's what faith is all about... Lately I've heard some creationist guy who said the reason why dinosaur bones seem to be so old is due to the fact that God wants to obscure his existance to those who don't REALLY believe (makes it harder I guess...). Morevoer, if this argument applied, this would say nothing about Christianity, rahter makes a point that our universe has some inherent "sense" and a creator/creators.

Part of his testimony is the universe itself, including the delicate features required to sustain life on Earth. Jack, what makes the universe imperfect? How is the universe flawed? Man has done terrible things, and continues to do terrible things throughout his existence here on Earth. Can we blame God for our own troubles? For the messes He has allowed us to create? This is part of free will- if we are allowed to choose for ourselves, we must also be allowed to make our own mistakes.

If man is the source of imperfection in the universe, what must this mean to a perfect God? God grieves sin in all forms, especially from man. Genesis says that he hated sin so much that he cleansed the world except for one family.

Dying babies? (Just ONE example)
If God hates sin so much, why would he allow us to do it? Just to get off when punisheing us or sweeping us away? Why he'd get angry? - He knew this had to happen right when he created us - HE made us this way so we would sin, he should rather get annoyed about himself.


[quotre]When Man continued to be stubborn, God had several options. Not even the mosaic laws properly dealt with man's sin. From John we read that God sent his only son in order to deal with the problem of sin in the world, that he would serve as a ransom for many. [/quote]
God must have had right in the beginning this plan for the whole history of salvation if he's omnipotent. He stands above time. He didn't stop at some time and say: "Heck, I really thought these laws would help, but it seems that I got to play my final joker. Hey, Jesus, here's the tactics:..."

Christianity is the only religion that teaches that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

In no other religion does God love man and hate sin so much that he would put his Son through such suffering.

At first, Allah seems to hate sin as much as your God does. And most religion claims that their God loves men more than anything. Great God anyway, who knowingly creates us as sinners, then angry at us, punishes us (killing almost everyone) and then tells us that he loves us...
Compare it to this situation: I tell my wife that she's free to sleep with another guy, find her with her lover, get angry, beat the intestines outa her and then tell her that I only did it because I loved her so much. Finally I slaughter my son and tell her that he died for her sins

Why did God have to enact this Jesus-thing so dramatically? I mean, he is OMNIPOTENT. He could have just said: "OK, all your sins are forgiven, if you believe in me." He didn't need to cruzifice his "son"/himself.