.

Dear George,

.

You wrote:

"... I am not sure what could play the role of mathematics on which all religions would hinge ..."

I uderstand it is fear that underpins the supernatural and that it is Abraham's tale about the large idol smashing all the other idols in his father's shop during his absence, that underpins the existence of just one god.

The supernatural, in turn, appears to be the raw material drom which religions are produced.

Religions continue to irrigate the social structure of most communities, with the complicity and encouragement of the political leaders, both as an infliential element of social cohesion and harmony as well as an independent provider of essential health, education and welfare services.

In addition, as indicated in previous posts, religions assist the individual to support his (or her) "earthly woes" with the promise of "heavenly bliss" which, of course, is an additional servce that most political leaders find quite appreciable (the opium of the people).

Indeed, for the large majority of mankind, life is quite unsupportable without its daily dose of "opium". Others manage to abstain, at least until they reach their death beds.

.

Dear George,

When I compared religion and QM, I did so with insufficent clarity. I was referring to supra-realty. There is a point where beyond which classical physics doesn't work. Yet, QM effects can be measured, god cannot. Even as a skeptic, I will consider the supra-real. QM I see as the supra-real realm of the very tiny. Religion, on the hand, I see as cultural, wherein, the supra-real is devised, rather than measured.

McFadden also suggested that in the early decades of QM the Copenhagen interpretation limited (manifest) phenonmena to the real world and "anythig other than phenonmena is a philosophy or theology". I think that entanglement might take us beyond that limitation. Herein, it is at least feasible to construct a quantum computer (repetition) but not possibe to create a god (cannot be tested. In the former case, we can import (for want of a better word) from the supra-real to the tangible, yet, god is not malliable.

The collapse of the wave function is curious. As you would know, physicists usefully describe the action as a "coupling" between the meaurement devise and superposition. Yet, it is not clear where the collapse takes place given that measuring devise itself also embedded in the QM realm. In my primitive visualisation, I see magnitude cum observation, as a catalyst, after-which reality comes about. The problem with nailing things down is instability/fluctuations on the border.

While my understading is (counter intutively) that a finite outcome can occasion a finite result, thus, suggesting an infinitely complex entity could be a single entity; the existence of god leveraged on a cultural premiss does not seem substantial and does explain how god exists. As with finding the dividing line between manifest reality and the quantum realm, the determination of the first caused (god or else)is elusive. On the other hand,the possibility of a closed creation having underlying QM properties would seem closer than understanding the relationship between an alledged god and reality. Can we measure/know of our entanglement with god?

Dear George,

"does not seem substantial and does NOT explain how god exists."

Also, as a skeptic, I consider the multiverse explanation, as a convenient transient construct until something else comes along. I mention this, because I wish to point out, that I view scientific endeavours critically too, not just religion. Herein, I try to be consistent and fair.

Dear George,

The above is a correction. Cheers, O.

George,

Another correction: “… While my understanding is (counter intuitively) that an INfinite outcome (sum) can occasion a finite result.”

Sorry, to be so muddled today.

George,

<<Let me hasten to add, that I am aware that this paragraph does not make sense to an atheist.>>

Why would that not make sense to an atheist? To me, that paragraph was made perfect sense and I suspect it would to anyone who understands what gods or religions are.

One mistake I often see you make, is that you confuse the rejection of an idea/concept with the inability to understand it.

Theists are humans just like atheists, and therefore do not possess an additional sense that enables them to connect with something that atheists cannot. We do, however, all possess emotions. Yet not all who possess emotions possess the ability to discern them from knowledge or some alleged deeper connection.

On another note, I often avoid using the term “sophistry” to describe your arguments since you have shown yourself in the past to react badly to this charge whether or not someone has a point. But unfortunately, the following paragraph is such a blatant case of it, you leave me no choice...

<<Fact, in my dictionary, is a “thing that is indisputably the case”.>>

Which dictionary would this be?

I’ve checked different sources for definitions of “fact” I and cannot find one that makes the term seem so subjective. Most the definitions I can find refer to “facts” as being verifiable (objective) knowledge...

-A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred;
-A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened;
-A concept whose truth can be proved;
-Something that actually exists; reality; truth.

(http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define:fact&aq=f&aqi=g1g-s1g8&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact)

<<This indisputability depends on those who do not see a need to dispute it.>>

Here you are confusing the ability to dispute with the desire to dispute. Whether or not something is a ‘fact’ does not rely on the individual or their inclinations. By your logic here, the universe would not be here if we were not around to know it was here.

As much as theists may hate it, we cannot invent our own facts, I’m afraid.

Continued...