***H: "Beaten. Defeated. He was a sore loser and took his ball elsewhere to play." P: By who? What were they talking about?***
Alex lost a few key debates. I think he left in shame. The debates that I think embarrassed him was his loses in the physics debates. He lost debates with Bruce, Dick, Paul, Yanniru, Luis, and even myself. For example, he didn't know anything about virtual particles of QED (and since that time has corrected his poor understanding). One time he even called a dolphin a fish! Of course, this is all opinion, but Alex was a very proud 'Russian physicist' who especially didn't want to be made to look like he didn't know what he was talking about. Once he lost that credibility, I figure that he didn't want to stick around any longer. I've noticed that even today he becomes quiet when he loses a debate on other forums, and then gathers himself and then goes right back at it.
***H: "Quantum mechanics forbids the notion that an atom 'hits' another in any classical sense of the word. The 'hitting' is all probablistic, and there is no actual touching." P: I know, and knew, that. I meant that only as an example, so as to avoid a lengthy explaination, which would have been OFF-TOPIC. Once I have said enough for you to get 'the jist' of what I am saying, I leave it at that. It wasn't meant to be perfect, right... just enough for you to get the picture so that we could go on with the discussion without boring, pointless explainations of information not pertinent to the main idea of the passage. Why do you do this?
My best guess:***
Try (2): Your response in no way was appropriate for a world apparently ruled by quantum mechanics. If you understand QM, then your answer should be applicable to QM and not classical mechanics.
***If patronizing insignificant phrases is your only reply, say that that is the only reason. Do not try to pass it off as a valid reply, there is no need for irrationality. Address the idea, the entire idea, but not necessarily all at once. Picking an arguement apart is ok, so long as it retains its original meaning.***
I reply to the arguments as I see them. Your argument was a fallacious for the reasons given. If you had something else in mind, then clarify it. And, don't go off accusing others of patronizing and irrational remarks.
*** I didn't say that science was proven, just that until any of the laws necessary for the Universe to function are disproven, God cannot be proven. We do not know***
I thought I was clear. There are no known 'laws' in physics other than what is known to be observed regularities which are thought to be only theoretical approximations. There is no reason known that answers the question why the universe continues to operate as it has in the past. If you insist that there is, then you should substantiate that with evidence. We don't have to disprove these 'laws' in order to prove that something prevents the universe's 'laws' from changing course. Science doesn't know what sustains the universe, so we cannot assume (as Mario's statement assumed) that the universe operates without God. This is an unfounded assumption, and I still don't know why you took exception to my objection to that assumption.