Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Mister Agenda]

We do have testable evidence for ID (not necessarily God). The universe and biological system contain the Hallmarks all other ID systems. These Hallmarks are functional fixed (can not evolve) elements (FFE). The universe has FFE with the constants, and biological systems have FFE with the conserved elements.

With the universe you can start by proving that the constants could have been anything else than what they are. All the possible variants are thought experiments. We don't know why the constants hold the values they do, but it does not follow that they could be anything else. A good case can be made that the values of the universal constants are a necessary consequence of a universe with an energy budget of zero. With the biologicial systems you seem unaware that conserving necessary elements is done by natural selection. Genetic variations that do not possess a necessary function do not survive to reproduce (or, usually, even survive to be born).

These are elements that must remain frozen in place or the system will not function Just as your car engine, PC codes, a bicycle, carnival rides etc.. all have functional elements that are fixed in place and do not evolve.

That's why there's only one kind of car engine, PC code, bicycle, and carnival ride; eh?

And because 100% of ID systems have FFE, we can deduce the conclusion that the universe and biological systems were also ID, from the premise that all ID systems also have FFE.

Unfortunately, 'FFE' is characteristic of what is expected from evolution and is an argument from ignorance regarding the universe.

Stable function is impossible without fixed elements firmly established.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

Even Dawkins admits if evolution is proven false, God is proven true.

Liar.

And elements that do not evolve falsifies the theory that predicts the entire system must evolve, and science has yet to understand (or admit) this.

You're confused about who it is that lacks understanding.

[Cyberman]

I think the cat experiment was actually a parody, to ridicule the idea of quantum superposition. Schrödinger was basically trolling.

[Mister Agenda]

You can posit any number of dimensions you want.....but say you posited 100....that wouldn't be string theory....that would be some other theory.

String theory posits 10 or 11(depending on the flavor of String theory) dimensions. An 11 dimensional universe allows for at least 10^500 different configurations(size, curvature, etc) of those 11 dimensions which means String theory allows for at least 10^500 number of ways the universe could be different(i.e. have different physics).

And you have Bosonic string theory with 26 dimensions. I'm not a physicist, but I'm reiterating what I heard a physicist on youtube say. How do you falsify 10 other dimensions?, its currently impossible. As a theist I believe in other dimensions (spirit world), but I accept them by faith, just as science accepts the 10 dimensions of string theory by faith.

Your misunderstanding of science is extremely profound. Science doesn't 'believe' in or even accept the 10 dimensions of string theory. It's an unproven hypothesis, and will remain so unless data supporting it reaches a level where rejecting it would be perverse. Some scientists may accept it, but there is far from a consensus on the matter. Even if a consensus is arrived at, the status of string theory will be accepted tentatively, barring new information that could discredit it.

---

This is like saying your chances of winning the lottery are 50/50 either you win or you wont.

It discounts all the other possible explanations for everything and reduces them to a binary either or which they aren't

Incorrect, There is a chance that both can happen, there is not a chance that God can both exist and not exist depending on random chance.

Just as your birth mother is your real birth mother, or is not your real birth mother. Its either true or its not true, its not possible for both to be potentially true or false, unlike the lottery

Once the lottery has occurred, whether you won is no longer a matter of chance...but if you expect anyone to believe you won, you better have the winning ticket in your possession or the most reasonable position to take is that you probably didn't win.

[pocaracas]

You have so missed the point of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

The point is to establish the existence of a superposition, the cat is in a state of being both alive and dead at the same time, not one or the other.

MM

I'm sorry if I was taught physics in the wrong school... but that's how I learned it... or how I understood the teaching...

The point was that we can't know in which state the cat is, so we attribute a probability to each of the possible states.... and that (If I remember correctly) is the wave function that goes into the Schrödinger equation.

[Mister Agenda]

The dichotomy exists. But knowledge of any dichotomy of two has three states: A, B, and no knowledge. How many times does it have to be said?

Yet you state no objective morality exists, if God exists, don't you think objective morality would exist?

Doesn't seem you really are all that neutral.

If God existed, morality could be by divine fiat. Then it would still be subjective, a matter of God's whim. For morality to be objective, it must be independent of anyone's will, including God's.

Now, there could be an objective morality in a universe with God where God is still the author of morality, and that is if morality depends on the nature of the universe God created. However in that case, objective morality would be accessible to observation and reason, and would not require divine intervention to discern.

In my opinion, morality is partly subjective (especially sexual mores) and partly objective, but not universal at all. There really are objectively better ways to behave that can be distinguished by results and require only an axiom to which most people would accede: people have value and needless suffering is a bad thing. That will take you a long way.

[Chas]

You have so missed the point of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

The point is to establish the existence of a superposition, the cat is in a state of being both alive and dead at the same time, not one or the other.

MM

I'm sorry if I was taught physics in the wrong school... but that's how I learned it... or how I understood the teaching...

The point was that we can't know in which state the cat is, so we attribute a probability to each of the possible states.... and that (If I remember correctly) is the wave function that goes into the Schrödinger equation.

Schrödinger was satirizing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

[ManMachine]

You have so missed the point of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment.

The point is to establish the existence of a superposition, the cat is in a state of being both alive and dead at the same time, not one or the other.

MM

I'm sorry if I was taught physics in the wrong school... but that's how I learned it... or how I understood the teaching...

The point was that we can't know in which state the cat is, so we attribute a probability to each of the possible states.... and that (If I remember correctly) is the wave function that goes into the Schrödinger equation.

It's a little more subtle than that, Schrodinger is not telling us that we are uncertain about it's state but that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of the state in which Quanta exist.

MM

[Mister Agenda]

Yes I do know what you believe if you adhere to proper definitions, and I can prove it.

The proper definition of atheism is 'the state of not holding a belief in any gods or God'.

Atheism is famous for equating the concept of God with flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, etc.

Atheism doesn't equate anything with anything. Some atheists do.

Now if this comparison holds valid in your own mind, you should be able to positively assert the same thing about God as you do about theses other fictional characters, or anything else you claim you don't believe

1. You don't believe flying spaghetti monsters exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe flying spaghetti monsters do not exist”

Because we know Bobby Henderson invented it as a parody of intelligent design: we know for a fact that it's imaginary.

1. You don't believe invisible pink unicorns exist
2. And you can positively assert "I believe invisible pink unicorns do not exist"

Because the attributes of being both invisible and pink are contradictory, therefore the IPU doesn't exist for the same reasons that married bachelors and Yahweh as depicted in the Bible don't exist.

1. You don't believe the earth is flat
2. And you can positively assert “I believe the earth is not flat”

I can positively assert that I don't believe in God too, but I think you meant that we can assert that the earth is not flat. That's because it's observably not flat.

And this example works in 100% of all other things you claim you “don't believe”. Yet you still can't see what should be blatantly self evident to a honest rational mind.

Because you didn't use a non-falsifiable example like:

1. You don't believe some sort of leprechaun exists
2. And you can positively assert no sort of leprechaun exists

No, I can't. I don't think leprechauns exist, I think they're highly unlikely, but they're poorly defined and magical, which means there is no way I can be sure there's no such thing. Just like a poorly defined and magical god. All I can say is there's no compelling evidence for leprechauns or magic.

Your problem is, you either lie to yourself about Gods existence, or lie about the absurd comparisons to known fictional characters. I believe its the former, you believe God exists, but willfully lie to yourself for convenience sake.

Your problem is that you're too thick to understand a simple point no matter how many ways it's explained.

Rejecting somethings existence equates accepting its non-existence, and vice versa. because the law of non contradiction dictates something can't both exist and not exist at the same time.

And your understanding of semantics is worse, but slightly more excusable because semantics can be tricky. Still, you have to be pretty thick to not get by now that we're not claiming that God both exists and does not exist, we're claiming we don't know whether God exists or does not exist, and we're not going to say we know when we don't.

Therefore according to the law of non contradiction, God can't exist and not exist at the same time, therefore if you don't believe God exists -Just as with spaghetti monsters and invisible unicorns- you must believe God does not exist because the final outcome of your equation equates GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

The final outcome of our equation is that god is so poorly defined and magical that the claim is impossible to falsify or confirm, so the rational thing is to dismiss the claim until that status changes. It doesn't mean the claim isn't true, but it does mean that it's not reasonable to accept that it IS true.

Yes it is my criteria, because the only thing that is needed to prove (the belief in) theism correct and (the belief in) atheism incorrect is an intelligence capable of creating a universe and all life it in, nothing more.

Well, you'd have to prove it actually DID create the universe and all life in it, not just that such a being exists.

And you have given no argument against a God-like intellect from existing, therefore your post is nothing more than arrogant insults with no explanatory value. Angry rhetoric is not competing in a debate.

I can't think of any reason to believe that a 'god-like intellect' is the only qualification needed to be an actual god.

Lets reword that to. "I don't need to provide any positive evidence for other superior life in the universe, but unless you can provide comprehensive evidence that other superior life in the universe does not exist, your position is irrational!"

Look up 'burden of proof'.

Now you should see where your argument falls apart. You don't need positive evidence to believe in other life in the universe, and you don;t need positive evidence to believe in other superior life in the universe.

Yes, we do.

You use logical inferences and mathematical odds to make that leap of faith.

Logical inferences and mathematical odds make it not a leap of faith.

The difference between theists and atheists is, theists don;t irrationally cap intellect and attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, so that it is less than God-like.

I doubt you'll find many theists who agree that advanced aliens are gods.

[Chas]

I'm sorry if I was taught physics in the wrong school... but that's how I learned it... or how I understood the teaching...

The point was that we can't know in which state the cat is, so we attribute a probability to each of the possible states.... and that (If I remember correctly) is the wave function that goes into the Schrödinger equation.

It's a little more subtle than that, Schrodinger is not telling us that we are uncertain about it's state but that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of the state in which Quanta exist.

MM

No, that is not at all what he was saying. He was making fun of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

[pocaracas]

I'm sorry if I was taught physics in the wrong school... but that's how I learned it... or how I understood the teaching...

The point was that we can't know in which state the cat is, so we attribute a probability to each of the possible states.... and that (If I remember correctly) is the wave function that goes into the Schrödinger equation.

It's a little more subtle than that, Schrodinger is not telling us that we are uncertain about it's state but that uncertainty is a fundamental characteristic of the state in which Quanta exist.

MM

Schrödinger was satirizing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

Allow me to mash your two inputs together.
So the Copenhagen interpretation was the one that said that "the cat" was
in a superposition of states... the fundamental uncertainty.
While Schrödinger says that can't be, the cat is either dead or alive, but we don't know and we can't know, until we look in the box. And this "we" may as well just be an unconscious measuring machine.
However, the Copenhagen interpretation is still the most widely accepted one... interesting... I guess the math is same regardless of how you interpret that detail.