God & Particles (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by romansh , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:42 (3819 days ago) @ GateKeeper

I am not sure who this is aimed at? 
> yes, sorry about that. I was confused. Your take is fine.
> 
> I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light".-I did not use the phrase pure light, not sure what an impure light would be.
> My slant is a little different than yours. I use don't use the word "pure energy" as you are here. but if it is good enough for you guys, then so be it. 
What is impure energy? 
> I also don't use radioactivity in the manor you do. Stored "big bang" stuff is cool. that is as far as I will go. It does not show the universe was "created".
This must be aimed at David? 
> You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. 
Outside of the universe .... ????? 
> 
> The qm model is based on probability and waving. So how is this creator working in that environment?
> 
> I use the word god because of the baggage. If we reject a stance because we don't like a word. We may just have to step back and think about what we are rejecting. Thae data? or the "something else". Like I have to do with the word "science".