Quantum Physics and Baha'u'llah

[logicalreason]

If it is not a violation of the board rules, your criticism (counter arguments) of the following article is appreciated:

http://wp.me/p4LXdk-5a

[FatAndFaithless]

Quantum mechanics and quantum physics are two of the most complex and impenetrable fields in physics, so much so that the vast majority of scientists even have trouble understanding it (I like the Feinman quote "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics"). Various quacks and woo-doctors and religious figureheads have tried to appropriate the terminology and complexity of quantum mechanics and slap it on their own pre-drawn religious views. The second half of that "article" is just a Depak Chopra-esque word salad with a handful of quantum terms thrown in to correlate a completely a-religious scientific theory with an already existing religious set of ideas. I don't see anything of valuable content in that paragrpah at all.

[Baqal]

The sentence "see with your ears, hear with your eyes" is confusing, and it seems that it exists for the sole purpose of being confusing. An illogical word salad that may sound smart on lower levels.

[FatAndFaithless]

The sentence "see with your ears, hear with your eyes" is confusing, and it seems that it exists for the sole purpose of being confusing. Illogical word salad that may sound smart on lower levels.

Yup. Throwing in scientific theory with spiritual word gumbo.

[logicalreason]

Good point.

---

Reference to eyes and ears and "god" removed.

---

Is the Question "What is before time" kind of like dividing by zero?

[JesusHChrist]

From my layman's point of view, I think the math required to really understand QM is beyond the reach of all but a tiny fraction of the population. Even those folks with a deep math background. It's just that difficult to fully comprehend.

Analogies that God is like QM are meaningless.

I'm not sure the analogy referring "before time" and dividing by zero is apt either. Sorta, kinda I suppose. Even in the divide by zero case or taking the square root of negative one, math has tools: limits and imaginary numbers, respectively.

[Baqal]

@logicalreason
-Is the Question "What is before time" kind of like dividing by zero?
I think that you are trying to say that there was nothing before time, but that means that you contradicted yourself when you stated that there is no such thing as "before time". You can not compare mathematics with an area like this, because mathematics always has some kind of result in the end. I think that you do not know anything about the division by zero besides that it is a fallacy and a mathematic impossibility. Further points to that you are using terms you do not understand in order to sound more convincing.
Awkward.

[Cato]

Baha’u’llah says His greatest proof is His Own Self. This declaration is similar to Quantum Physics, that it came about due to its own self (Quantum Fluctuations).

This argument is severely flawed. Quantum phenomenon can be observed through measurement. The same cannot be said for any god.

[logicalreason]

Baqal, Well I removed some references that were objectionable already. What is left that is objectionable now?

---

Baha’u’llah says His greatest proof is His Own Self. This declaration is similar to Quantum Physics, that it came about due to its own self (Quantum Fluctuations).

This argument is severely flawed. Quantum phenomenon can be observed through measurement. The same cannot be said for any god.

Hi Cato,

Baha'u'llah himself puts forward the claim that his greatest proof is his own self, much like Quantum Physics which states that the universe came about by itself. What is the flaw here.

Thanks.

[Cato]

Baha'u'llah himself puts forward the claim that his greatest proof is his own self, much like Quantum Physics which states that the universe came about by itself. What is the flaw here.

Krauss style creation by quantum fluctuation is highly speculative, but it is based on known science; observed and tested QM. Where is the same mechanism used to support the idea of god? It's okay to admit, we all know there isn't one which is why people are forced to define god into existence rather than demonstrate god.

Bahai, like all revealed religions, suffers because we are all required to accept claims simply because the revelator said so. Saying god is the cause of his own creation is just an arbitrary assertion designed to dismiss the real problem of an infinite causal chain.