Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Architect Of Fate]

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.


God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.


I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how everyone here doesn't understand a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the need of a creator. How stupid.


Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that .

Yeah, I posted this before in this thread and you never replied to it, but, most scientists are atheistic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

As are most philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

But, you know more than anyone else, apparently?

And even deeper rationalization but... but... atheists are more recent ... but ..but there were lots of Jews and Deists. It's sad really 


He's breathing it in deep

[The Grand Nudger]

- and there we go. From science proves your god, to science is dumb. Exactly as predicted.

It was always going to end that way. Makes all your argument and insistence that you didn’t get anything wrong pointless. Makes the invocation of science to prove your god equally pointless.

Why did you waste your own time, never mind anyone else’s?

Meanwhile, back in mere reality- the world has to be a certain way - according to you, for your god to exist. The world doesn’t actually seem to be that way. What are the logical consequences for the god you bound in your own ignorance?

Are you a heretic? Are you blaspheming god?

[Deesse23]

As I stated before, you can't rule out hidden determinism.

You cant rule out pink pixies as well.
Did that convert you to pixianism? No?! See, thats why your fallacious reasoning is so utterly unconvincing.

For ages it is sais that with the advance of science, the theistics god(s) is pushed further and further "away" into the (yet) unexplored niches of reality. Then there is Kloro, the poster boy for this sterotype, arguing that "causation, therefore god".

If you dig down deep, and deeper, all you find is an "argument from ignorance".

[polymath257]

With me at least, you are pounding on open doors.  Your beliefs may be absolutely true, but, per the principle of parsimony, I reject all of them.  Planets and stars may move due to invisible angels who are pushing them, with the equations of Einstein and Newton being their "rulebook" with the subtle chaotic behavior in all celestial motion being postulated as evidence of "angelic consciousness".  Even if such is true, it's unnecessary to believe, as such a proposition is one of an infinite number of nonverifiable,  nonfalsifiable beliefs.

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.

OK

If God exists, let him/her/it spontaneously heal an adult amputee on live television under controlled conditions; that will grab my attention, rather quickly.

God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Isn't that convenient!

No need to give evidence or proof of your claims. Just say that God doesn't have to pass any tests (even for existence).

Which makes it perfectly reasonable to reject the claims of existence.

[/quote]

Until then, you'll have to do better as opposed to your ad nauseam repetitions.  After all, you've been at it now for nearly 3 month's, and you've convinced no one here

I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how nobody here understands a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the necessity of a creator. How stupid.

I am both somewhat amused and certainly enlightened by Polymath's trashing of your understanding of modern physics.

Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that . [/quote]

Uh huh. And how many times have you been wrong?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.

OK

God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Isn't that convenient!

No need to give evidence or proof of your claims. Just say that God doesn't have to pass any tests (even for existence).

Which makes it perfectly reasonable to reject the claims of existence.

Until then, you'll have to do better as opposed to your ad nauseam repetitions.  After all, you've been at it now for nearly 3 month's, and you've convinced no one here

I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how nobody here understands a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the necessity of a creator. How stupid.

I am both somewhat amused and certainly enlightened by Polymath's trashing of your understanding of modern physics.

Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that . [/quote]

Uh huh. And how many times have you been wrong?
[/quote]

He thinks you been proven wrong 

---

In every way, imaginable Klor has had his ass kicked by Poly. The sheer delusion of thinking otherwise is amazing 

---

God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

The words of a con man 

[LadyForCamus]

@Klorophyll You haven’t argued for a god. Not once, in the three month life span of this thread, have you made an argument for a god.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess the only person whose demands a god must meet is Kloro.

: shrugs :

[HappySkeptic]

By that I mean that individual events are random, 

You probably should've mentioned that this is only one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. John Bell showed that, in theory, there can be hidden determinism behind the curtains, that sets up how things should play out, giving room to manoeuvre for the theist. It's only when the hidden variables are local that they conflict with the predictions of QM.

Polymath has spoken to this already.  From Wikipedia:

For a hidden-variable theory, if Bell's conditions are correct, the results that agree with quantum mechanical theory either (a) appear to indicate superluminal (faster-than-light) effects, in contradiction to relativistic physics, or they (b) require superdeterminism. (Or, technically, a combination of both, though no known example of this exists.)

In superdeterminism, the observer becomes part of the experiment, and free-will is impossible.  For non-local hidden variable theories -- they involve far more complexity than normal Quantum Mechanics.  An arbitrary high-dimension Hilbert space is used to describe something that can never be measured.  It is the ultimate fudge-factor.

As for your problem with there being no quantum realism - I don't have an issue with it.  Realism is an emergent property, not a fundamental one.  There is a "measurement problem" in QM that we sidestep when we talk about the emergence of real histories.

[Angrboda]

You probably should've mentioned that this is only one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. John Bell showed that, in theory, there can be hidden determinism behind the curtains, that sets up how things should play out, giving room to manoeuvre for the theist. It's only when the hidden variables are local that they conflict with the predictions of QM.

Polymath has spoken to this already.  From Wikipedia:

For a hidden-variable theory, if Bell's conditions are correct, the results that agree with quantum mechanical theory either (a) appear to indicate superluminal (faster-than-light) effects, in contradiction to relativistic physics, or they (b) require superdeterminism. (Or, technically, a combination of both, though no known example of this exists.)

In superdeterminism, the observer becomes part of the experiment, and free-will is impossible.  For non-local hidden variable theories -- they involve far more complexity than normal Quantum Mechanics.  An arbitrary high-dimension Hilbert space is used to describe something that can never be measured.  It is the ultimate fudge-factor.

As for your problem with there being no quantum realism - I don't have an issue with it.  Realism is an emergent property, not a fundamental one.  There is a "measurement problem" in QM that we sidestep when we talk about the emergence of real histories.

Tsk, tsk, HP. You're questioning the wisdom of an expert at quoting others both in and out of context. Clearly his expertise in cherry-picking quotes exceeds yours?

[polymath257]

You probably should've mentioned that this is only one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. John Bell showed that, in theory, there can be hidden determinism behind the curtains, that sets up how things should play out, giving room to manoeuvre for the theist. It's only when the hidden variables are local that they conflict with the predictions of QM.

Polymath has spoken to this already.  From Wikipedia:

For a hidden-variable theory, if Bell's conditions are correct, the results that agree with quantum mechanical theory either (a) appear to indicate superluminal (faster-than-light) effects, in contradiction to relativistic physics, or they (b) require superdeterminism. (Or, technically, a combination of both, though no known example of this exists.)

In superdeterminism, the observer becomes part of the experiment, and free-will is impossible.  For non-local hidden variable theories -- they involve far more complexity than normal Quantum Mechanics.  An arbitrary high-dimension Hilbert space is used to describe something that can never be measured.  It is the ultimate fudge-factor.

As for your problem with there being no quantum realism - I don't have an issue with it.  Realism is an emergent property, not a fundamental one.  There is a "measurement problem" in QM that we sidestep when we talk about the emergence of real histories.

The Bohmian interpretation gives a non-local and deterministic version of QM that works in a classical setting (non-relativistic). It is, however, significantly more complicated than standard QM and almost no working physicist uses it. Philosophers seem to like it, though.

One big problem with it, though, is that it doesn't have a nice relativistic formulation. So, QCD is a quantum field theory that has both positrons and electrons interacting with photons. Crucially, it deals with the spin of the particles (which is (mostly) a relativistic effect) and particle-antiparticle annihilation. There is no generalization of Bohmian mechanics that can handle those two facts of life. Things get even worse for Bohmian mechanics when things like isospin and the strong and weak force come into play.

The upshot is that there is no known relativistic version of QM that is also deterministic. In that sense, Bell's comments about *old* QM are simply out of date.