for all atheist?

Question

When observing any object/thing within the Universe one can conclude certain facts. Irregardless of whether the object/thing is familiar to the observer or not, these certain facts are still conclusive by the direct sensation and rational thought. These conclusive facts are that the object/thing occupies a certain amount of space/volume/dimension and a certain amount of mass. This is evidently observed in every object/thing within the Universe, even if it is a newly discovered substance or element.
By using the rational thought process one is able to sense that the certain amount of mass and space occupied by an object/thing deems it to be limited. Due to the mass and space being only a certain amount, it is also therefore limited to that amount. For example if we were to observe a rock occupying 5cm3 and weighing 5g, this rock would be occupying a certain amount of mass and space i.e. 5 cm3 and 5g. It is thus conclusive that the rock is limited because it is only 5 cm3 and 5g.

Answer 1

From your statements, I can tell that you were only schooled of 16th century physics from the days of Sir Issac Newton, which means that you probably have had only high school physics. And, it's obvious that you have never heard of quantum mechanics or quantum theory, the bedrock of twentith century physics.

The fundamental tenents of quantum theory is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which basically states that the outcome of even an ideal measurement of a system is not deterministic, but instead is characterized by a probability distribution, and the larger the associated standard deviation is, the more "uncertain" we might say that that characteristic is for the system.

What does that mean? It means that we can NEVER be 100% certain of the characteristics of the objects we observe. This is not a problem with our measurement, or the instruments we use. This is a fundamental nature of the Universe. You simply can NOT know 100%. You can only say what the probability is.

A perfect example is when you try to measure the position and momentum of an electron. As soon as you try to find the position of the electron, the electron will have moved already. An interesting quantum effect is that when you try to confine the electron to smaller and smaller spaces, the more energetic the electron becomes. At some point, the electron becomes so energetic that it breaks free of the confinement, and thus you lose the location of the electron.

In any case, I know that you would argue that this doesn't apply to a rock, or a car, or a person. Actually the physics applies no matter what object, the question is how much. For an electron, the effect is obviously observable, whereas, it is not for a rock. But sometimes, quantum effects are observable at the macroscopic level. Good examples are lasers and superconductivity.

Answer 2

1, OK, to start with it's plural, "atheists" not singular.

2, "objects" and "things" is a tautology, and therefore redundant.

3, It's "regardless", the "ir" prefix is pointless.

4, No need for "the" before "direct"

5, It's certainly true that all "objects" in the universe occupy a measurable volume and have an inherent mass, so what exactly is your point, you are merely stating the obvious and wasting the valuable time of your readers.

6, No need for "the" before "rational"

7, The first sentence of the second paragraph appears to make no sense whatsoever.

8, Ditto the second sentence.

9, A "rock" with volume 5 cm cubed and mass (NOT weight)
5g would have the density of water, not much of a rock, then.

10, Finally, What is your question and why are you "asking" atheists??

Answer 3

Actually the thing (the rock) occupies substancially less than 5 cm-3 as the far greater extent of it's internal bounds is simple empty space. But what the hell are you on about?

Answer 4

Well, if this is an example of not being able to come up with a thought...you make a good case. Doesn't take much to copy and paste something you found on the net.

In any case, I don't see how you quoting math or physics books is going to make an argument against atheists, but hey....to each his own right?

Answer 5

I think the only thing with the dimensions 5cm3 and weighing 5g is to be found in your skull.

Answer 6

Something occupying 5cc, and weighing 5gm sounds a lot more like water than a rock. Otherwise, I haven't a clue what you are on about (and I'm a theist).

Answer 7

What does any of this have to do with atheism?

By the way, if something is 5cm3 and 5g, then it is the same density as water.

Answer 8

out of interest, what has any of this got to do with atheism? because it doesn't seem to be anything to do with religion
what is the question supposedto be? did you miss a bit out?

Answer 9

Irregardless is not a word.

Answer 10

I'm not a physicist. There is no question here.