Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
You never responded to this point of mine...
Btw., the accusation that the zero sum universe was merely invented as atheist propaganda, is silly. This fact comes out of the mahematical description of gravity e.g. in the predictions for inflation.
(November 3, 2014 at 10:47 pm)Alex K Wrote:
(November 3, 2014 at 10:16 pm)IDScience Wrote: Why would I state that at that point?. I would state, I observe an ever increasing intellectual capacity/ varying degrees of intelligence here on earth, then extend that to its logical conclusion. And to me that logical conclusion stops only at the point in which everything that can be known is known -if knowledge is limited-. Or intelligence levels continue to grow/evolve for all of eternity. When I extend the theory of "evolution of intelligence" as far as critical thought will take it, God then becomes a logical possibility.
This brings up another topic. I believe God "evolved" (via self direction) before the singularity and before the 2nd law of thermodynamics existed. The first law is never violated, therefore we must believe energy in some form existed for all of eternity in the past. And because entropy can not be eternal, usable energy must have existed forever in the past. Therefore this eternal usable energy had literally forever to become aware of its self, i.e. “I think therefore I am” (abiogenesis of God).
And any life form that exists in a place in which entropy does not exist, can never die, and any life form that can never die must eventually become/evolve into an all knowing all powerful being, no matter how painstakingly long it may take.
Therefore if the eternal "something" exists, the chances of it becoming a sentient all knowing being is 1/1 (100%) because it has literally all of eternity for it to happen. Thus if the eternal something exists, God must also exist. And atheistic science knows this very well, this is why they need an illogical "something from nothing" hypothesis to reject God from existing.
Your idea of a lifeform independent of entropy which becomes aware and persists, tied to energy only, as a self-aware structure of some sort no matter what happens to entropy, does seem very problematic to me. First of all, entropy basically is what gives us our arrow of time, where more likely macroscopic states are later than less likely ones (to criminally simplify a bit). Without it, there is no real notion of cause and effect. The idea that an intelligence persists and evolves throughout time independently of entropy requires some serious theoretical effort to bridge this gap, by default it just looks wrong.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that you manage to construct such a thing and show that it is in the least bit plauaible, you still are stuck with the problems that there is no evidence for a plane of reality (in the form of physical degrees if freedom) in which such a being would be realized *and* has some form of administrator rights for access to our reality, such that the name "God" would at all be justified. This is not something you can just claim to be obvious. What's more, for your argument to hold, you need to show that this unusual physical proposal is not just a vague possibility, but rather a necessity. Until then, you simply have no case.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
(November 4, 2014 at 5:26 am)pocaracas Wrote: I think you're mixing belief with reality. Yes, in reality either the cake exists or it doesn't.
However, my belief over the existence of the cake has more than two states.
I'll give you an example straight out of Quantum mechanics.
This gives rise to the many worlds hypothesis to prevent the violation of the 1st law. Most quantum physicists believe when the wave function collapses into what we observe, all other possible variations also collapse into a definite reality in another quantum world. So every superposition is a reality waiting to be observed. Not just a possibility
You either believe there is an invisible pink unicorn in the box with schrodinger's cat or you don't believe it. If you don't believe there is a invisible pink unicorn in the box, you must believe (not know) there is not a invisible pink unicorn in the box with the cat
Remember, we are not taking about what we know reality is, or what will eventually be proven reality, we are talking about what you believe reality is
And if you don't believe reality is X, you must believe (not know) reality is not X. If you believe there is any chance God could be a reality, then being an atheist is illogical, your better off remaining undecided (or agnostic). If you do not believe God exists, then have some intestinal fortitude and admit you believe God does not exist because that is the logical extension what your position is
I feel like I've wasted half an hour of typing...
And here go a few more minutes...
There is a box.
1.
The claim (made by whoever) is: There is a pink unicorn inside the box.
I know nothing about this box.
I know the claimant knows nothing about the box as well.
Why should I believe the claim?
Why should I believe that there's no pink unicorn in the box?
2.
The claim is: There is no pink unicorn inside the box.
I know nothing about this box.
I know the claimant knows nothing about the box as well.
Why should I believe the claim?
Why should I believe that there's a pink unicorn in the box?
Remember, my disbelief is in the claim of the existence of a god. A claim made by the believers, who learned of it from other believers, who, in turn, learned of it from other believers... who... in turn.... ah, you know... it's a near endless cycle of indoctrinations... the claim has a few variations through time, that's one of the reasons why we see several religions.
Some of us either don't get indoctrinated, or manage to shake it off...
The claim.
The belief in the existence of the god itself comes after you believe in the claim. You'll require a very active imagination to come up with the concept of a god by yourself, without having been presented with the claim first... sadly, the claim is almost omnipresent on this planet and there very few places where you can find humans who haven't been presented that claim.
There is... was... a tribe in the Amazon that qualified... the piraha.
On the other hand, the disbelief in the claim necessarily leads to the disbelief in the existence of the god.
November 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm (This post was last modified: November 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm by Chas.)
(November 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm)ManMachine Wrote:
(November 5, 2014 at 1:07 pm)Chas Wrote: No, that is not at all what he was saying. He was making fun of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The problem with invoking the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' is that it is not a neat, well defined set of principles but a loose collection of views developed by physicists and philosophers throughout the early part of the 20th Century. Your statement is very slippery and obfuscatory, while technically not wrong, it is vague enough as to be largely irrelevant to my point.
It would be impossible and meaningless to have any discussion about Quantum Physics and ignore or exclude an expression of the mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain complementary variables can be known simultaneously, in other words, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
I'd also suggest that 'making fun' is a broad interpretation, he certainly intended it as a discussion of what he saw as the problems inherent in the strange nature of quantum superpositions as discussed in the EPR article and it took shape in letters exchanged between Einstein and Schrodinger.
MM
I am not invoking it, Schrödinger was very clearly satirizing the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Wikipedia Wrote:Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be both alive and dead, this state being tied to an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications.[citation needed] The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
(November 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote: I feel like I've wasted half an hour of typing...
You did. IDscience is a creationist, which means he is, and has been for quite a while, immune to facts. You'll never get him to backtrack on any point because it seems that the certainty with which you issue a proposition means more to him than the factual accuracy of that proposition. That's why we have him still insisting that atheists believe a certain thing, despite the numerous atheists that have told him flat out that no, in fact they don't.
In the common parlance, continuing to do this would be called lying, but for a creationist it pretty much composes the entirety of their communications.
For example:
IDscience Wrote:You either believe there is an invisible pink unicorn in the box with schrodinger's cat or you don't believe it. If you don't believe there is a invisible pink unicorn in the box, you must believe (not know) there is not a invisible pink unicorn in the box with the cat
Or you could act like an adult and not feel the need to take any position on what's in the box until the box is opened and you have more information. Why are you so desperate for everyone to have declarative positions about everything? Is the idea that you might be seen not to know absolutely everything scare you that much? Are you uncomfortable that other people aren't similarly burdened by this fear of having their ego bruised?
Not forming an opinion before you can form an informed one is not a weakness, IDscience.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
(November 5, 2014 at 5:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Y'know, when MrA has issued a bitchslap, a bitch really gets slapped.
You also know he really had it coming.
Well, yeah. He's being a bitch, after all.
Seriously, watching a solid argument unfold is a pleasure, because it involves not just thought, but presentation. There's an art to carving the turkey, y'know?
(November 5, 2014 at 7:21 pm)ManMachine Wrote: The problem with invoking the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' is that it is not a neat, well defined set of principles but a loose collection of views developed by physicists and philosophers throughout the early part of the 20th Century. Your statement is very slippery and obfuscatory, while technically not wrong, it is vague enough as to be largely irrelevant to my point.
It would be impossible and meaningless to have any discussion about Quantum Physics and ignore or exclude an expression of the mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain complementary variables can be known simultaneously, in other words, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
I'd also suggest that 'making fun' is a broad interpretation, he certainly intended it as a discussion of what he saw as the problems inherent in the strange nature of quantum superpositions as discussed in the EPR article and it took shape in letters exchanged between Einstein and Schrodinger.
MM
I am not invoking it, Schrödinger was very clearly satirizing the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Wikipedia Wrote:Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be both alive and dead, this state being tied to an earlier random event. Although the original "experiment" was imaginary, similar principles have been researched and used in practical applications.[citation needed] The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the course of developing this experiment, Schrödinger coined the term Verschränkung (entanglement).
Why make a point about what you believe is the 'satire' of the thought experiment then post a quote from Wiki that mentions nothing of the sort?
You're just being argumentative for the sake of it.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
