The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[comet]

You think of the world as you deem it ought to be, not what is shown to be there and what can not be shown to be there.

When you ask “how is it that you do not understand why it is important”, the right question is “based on what do you assert it is more important than I think?”

actually no.  The correct answer is what i said.  space/time is the name that they give the fabric of space itself.   They know its something they just don't know what it is.  gravity waves and NASA's experiments show that.

so the statement that I do not understand how someone doesn't see how the fabric of space is important stands as is.

---

What exactly is the meaning of “mechanism”?

It seems to me a non-causal, non-local mechanism requires mechanism to describe not a “thing”, but the mere notion of a reason why things occur that remains when all specifics ways by which occurrences are shown not have been made to occur are excluded, so by definition “nothing” is a mechanism, so everything has a mechanism, just so the aesthetic sensibility that demands everything to have a mechanism is satisfied.

---

this is true. for sure.  All i did was give reason as to why I lean toward QM having some mechanism.  lmao, Yes, the QM model is woefully incomplete.  Many people do not understand that. 

thanks for the link.

---

well, you calling rubbish is the red flag.  but lets compare your claim to them side by side.  Also my conviction is exactly the same as your conviction.  I think it looks like there is a mechanism.  when I see dta that doesn't suggest one I will change my opinion.  I don't really care if there is a mechanism or not, I only think it looks like there is one.  thats all.

The claims.  

mine: I think QM has a mechanism 
your claim: QM doesn't have a mechanism.

My evidence: due to the math model making predictions and (modified to remove absolutes) everything we understand has a mechanism I lean toward a possible mechanism over no mechanism.

Your evidence to why there is no mechanism: math is not founded on the fact that the empirical math describes observation at this level very well. It is founded on the fact that observation shows occurrences at this level defied any possible framework of causation. And You also stated that not everything we see has a mechanism you pointed to QM.

we can see that your statement(s) is very accurate and true.  we also see that it is not actually a piece of evidence that says there is no mechanism.  let me explain:

a) You stated "QM defies any reasonable explanation."  thats true.  Its just not evidence for no mechanism.
b) The part about me sayig "everything we see has a mechanism" is wrong is ok.  I change it to "the standard model is based on mechanisms so i think QM has a mechanism."  be that as it may ..  QM not having a mechanism is not evidence, thats what we are talking about and isn't evidence.

conclusion, until you offer evidence to why you don't think there is no mechanism  I still lean (thats lean toward) QM having a mechanism.

Do you have any other piece of evidence to offer?

I see many red flags in the content, not just the tone of your posts.   But no matter. 

What is the basic criteria that must first be fulfilled before you might consider something to be the mechanism of something else?

the bottom line is this.  For some reason you are hot on no mechanism.  Me, I don't care.  I gave my reasons and explanations for minimum requirements for what I mean by mechanisms. Recall: "how small is it 05" and my example. 

My claim stands and now we need to address your claim.

what is your evidence that how things operate are based on no mechanism or no process for behaving why they do?   You gave "bell's inequality".  thats one.  Do you have others? 

I will point out that "bell's inequality" doesn't really mean there isn't a process that is causing those observations.  But I will take it.

whats another piece of data?