Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Chas]

I am not invoking it, Schrödinger was very clearly satirizing the Copenhagen Interpretation.

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

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

---

I am not invoking it, Schrödinger was very clearly satirizing the Copenhagen Interpretation.

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

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

[comet]

Let me first define true atheism

Atheism is a complete and total rejection of all theistic claims. If theists assert God (creator of the universe and all life in it) does exist, atheists must assert the contrary , i.e. God does not exist. The only middle ground in this true dichotomy is agnosticism (undecided), which is not true atheism.

The Incremental Intelligence Theorem

A.We have observable empirical evidence of a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes, existing here on earth

B.Therefore a wide range of sentient life, all with varying degrees of intelligence/attributes existing elsewhere in the universe, including other possible dimensions, is a logical possibility and can not be ruled out

Therefore If A is true then B is logically possible and can not be rejected

Atheists will easily accept the existence of a sentient life form (lets call it life form 1.1) that is 1% superior in intelligence to humans, and they will accept this possibility by blind faith using nothing more than logical inferences. So then we must assume life form 1.1 could exist, therefore can not be ruled out of existence. And life form 1.1 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.2., and life form 1.2 would also logically assume the possible existence of life form 1.3 etc. etc.

And at every step along the way an intelligent life form that is 1% superior in intelligence/attributes can logically & rationally exist from the perspective of the life form that is 1% inferior, and at no point along the way does this chain of slightly superior life forms become an irrational concept (i.e flying spaghetti monsters) from the perspective of the preceding slightly less intelligent life form. Therefore in this chain of logically possible life forms, the existence of life form 100000^100000 (i.e creator of the universe, thus God) becomes as logical a concept as life form 1.1 is.

The concept of a God-like intelligence is only rejected by narrow minded subjective atheists that are incapable of mentally grasping the existence of BIG LIFE, when in fact there is no rational, logical or mathematical basis to reject a God-like intelligence from existing. Just as single celled organisms and trillion celled organisms have the same mathematical chances of existing , humans and a God-like sentience also have the same mathematical chances of existing

Understand, the "SIZE OF INTELLIGENCE" has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the potential existence of a sentient life form. Therefore unimaginably small life has the exact same chances of existing as unimaginably big life does as far as logic is concerned, and the IIT proves it at every incremental step.

Once the atheist opens the door of possibility to the existence of life form 1.1, he then must produce a reason to stop this incremental intelligence from reaching Godhood in a stepwise fashion. And the atheist can never produce a valid reason to stop the progression of this incremental intelligence other than he can't mentally comprehend a God-like intelligence existing. Therefore the atheist is forced to compare the concept of God to absurd concepts like flying spaghetti monsters to justify his reasoning in what should be a perfectly logical concept.

Atheists illogically and irrationally put a cap on the intelligence/attribute levels of all life that can possibly exist, and do so without ever giving an explanation why a God-like intelligence can not exist or is highly unlikely to exist. In fact the only logical reason someone has to put a cap on the intelligence levels in the universe, is if a life form knows all that can be possibly be known, thus is all knowing and can't know any more

Therefore true atheism (not agnosticism) is an illogical concept

depends on how you define this atheistic. If you just stick to the definition then it is not illogical to say that someone is pushing off a belief that has little observational data that can be regularly repeated by people that don't "like" us.

[robvalue]

Does this mean we can define what "true theism" is?

[ManMachine]

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

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

---

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

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

I know what you are saying, what I am saying is Erwin Schrodinger never intended his thought experiment to be satirical.

MM

[Chas]

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

---

Oh, for fuck's sake. The thought experiment is the satire.

I know what you are saying, what I am saying is Erwin Schrodinger never intended his thought experiment to be satirical.

MM

Yes, he did.

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

-THE PRESENT SITUATION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS: A TRANSLATION OF SCHRÖDINGER'S "CAT PARADOX PAPER"
Erwin Schrödinger
Translator: John D. Trimmer

[ManMachine]

I know what you are saying, what I am saying is Erwin Schrodinger never intended his thought experiment to be satirical.

MM

Yes, he did.

According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics.

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

-THE PRESENT SITUATION IN QUANTUM MECHANICS: A TRANSLATION OF SCHRÖDINGER'S "CAT PARADOX PAPER"
Erwin Schrödinger
Translator: John D. Trimmer

There are many things and people I find absurd and I express that sense of absurdity, sometime indirectly, but that does not make my comments satirical.

MM

[pocaracas]

I know I started this, but...

[Esquilax]

I'm just kinda wondering why the OP called this thread "Systematically Dismantling Atheism" if they had exactly one argument to make. Presenting one thing can hardly be called "systematic" now can it? Nor is it dismantling if you're only taking one part out, even if we took the argument seriously.

So apparently the OP doesn't know what words mean, but expected us to just be totally cool with him starting out by defining atheism.

[comet]

Does this mean we can define what "true theism" is?

no more than a true American, football fan, or liberal.

[IDScience]

At note to everyone I have yet to respond to. This is a very busy time of year for me and I don't have a lot of free time now. But Ill eventually respond to all of your arguments

It's laughably ridiculous now. The resemblance between an atom and a solar system is so superficial that it's very close to being entirely false. Clue: atoms don't really look like that, it's a gross oversimplification for the benefit of minds still in grade school.

http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st15
Focus:"A tiny solar system after all"

http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/01/sc...s_mode.php
Experiment shows how giant atoms act just like tiny solar systems

I did not say the comparison was identical, only that it proves fractals exist on every level we have observed, big and small. So the argument being made, which is size has no relevance to the potential existence of anything (including life) is still valid.

====

Your problem is that your mental scope is too narrow and limited in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation.

Your analogy is backwards. It should read

"Your problem is that your mental scope is "too wide and broad" in its ability to comprehend the vast gulf between what could possibly be true and what actually IS true. That gulf is bridged with evidence, not speculation."

OK, so what your saying is you do not believe anything unless its "actually true" (verified by observation and testing), and anything that is speculation (has no observable empirical evidence) you reject.?. Therefore you must reject the use of logical inferences in science because inference is only evidence of a logical possibility and not empirically verified to be true.

I will refrain at this point from posting everything you believe -or must believe as an atheist/evolutionist- that has no actual testable evidence, until you affirm this position you claim. Then I will show you your hypocrisy.

====

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.

Therefore, no evidence is needed for the contrary claim to be rational.

That statement is not rational. If one of X is proven to exist, its irrational to claim no more than one of X can exist. And if varying degrees of X do exist, its irrational to claim even more variations of X can not also exist.

If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing. And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level

Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical. So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist. And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.

And the only person on this board that has even attempted to do this is Jenny A, and her argument (laws of physics) completely failed to prove a God-like I.Q. is logically impossible

Claiming there is no evidence for this God-like I.Q. it is identical to claiming there is no evidence for any intellectual superior life. You accept the alien possibility by faith through inference, yet you irrationally reject a God-like I.Q. on no other basis other than faith it does not exist/lack of faith it does exist.

===

Just as the multiverse of inflationary cosmology and the “many worlds” of quantum physics do not need evidence of their existence to be a rational concept.

The former definitely has evidence, which is the cause of it being accepted. The latter remains hypothetical pending evidence one way or another.

Please show me the evidence for other universes with different laws of physics, or other unseen dimensions of reality, I would love to see this evidence. And if you can't produce the empirical scientific evidence for either of them, which I know for a fact you cant, then admit you lied or believed misinformation before you studied it.

Note. I also believe in other dimensions, but I also fully understand I believe it by faith alone without any testable evidence

====

If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.

The vast majority of things that can logically exist, don't.

Name them.

If something can logically exist, but does not exist, you must be able to empirically prove these logically possible things do not exist. This means you must have testable evidence for the "vast majority" of things that can logically exist, and also have evidence that they don't actually exist, for your statement to be valid

=====

Life exists here, therefore life can exist elsewhere.

That's true.

Now we enter the slippery slope of my incremental intelligence theorem

====

Varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects exist here, therefore varying degrees of life with varying degrees of attributes and intellects is a logical possibility and can't be ruled out of existence

Which is why we don't rule them out of existence.

To the contrary, you do artificially apply limitations on the potential life forms that don't fit into you preconceived belief of atheism/lack of belief in theism. So you are lying, you do rule them out if they come too close to appearing God-like. And you do this for no other reason other than your atheistic philosophy forces you to apply these arbitrary limitations on universal I.Q. levels

===

If we find an statue of an elephant on mars, do I need observable evidence of the potential designer or the design process to assume a designer could exist?. No I do not.

You should at least eliminate erosion as an explanation. Tool marks would be a good thing to have before you conclude design. You like logical possibilities so much, you should know that erosion resulting in something looking like a statue of an elephant is a logical possibility. It's a possibility that could probably be eliminated if the statue really is an artifact of intelligence.

And what are the chances that erosion would create a statue of an elephant, vs the chances it was designed by an intelligence?. This is the problem with the skeptical mind (atheist Popper was a skeptic, and he established falsification as a rule). The skeptical mind looks for reasons to reject the logically obvious (logical positivism) in order to be able to prove it false, instead of accepting the duck might actually be what it appears to be. And if it isn't capable of being proven false, it is (supposed to be) rejected by science, which is illogical at its core because unfalsifiable things can be true

All of quantum physics would have been rejected 200 years ago based on the falsifiability criteria

======

And proving the existence of the elephants designer is unfalsifiable, yet ID is not rejected based on logical inferences of design.

If there are tool marks, the nonID hypothesis will have been falsified.

Incorrect, erosion could have created marks to look like tool marks, just as you believe random mutations and selection created molecular machines to look like our machines. And how do you know what tools were even used?, they could have been water blasting tools and gave the appearance of erosion.

The only thing that can falsify ID of the elephant statue is to prove a designer does not exist, or has never existed in the past, which is impossible to do (Just like God) . Maybe this will open your mind to the absurdity of falsification as an all encompassing rule

Did I say that?. No. I said because its logically possible, it can't be rejected as atheism does.

That's not what atheism does. Atheism doesn't do anything. It's the state of not holding any beliefs that any gods are real.

Therefore atheism holds a belief that Gods are not real, so atheism does do something. You still cant understand, by not holding a belief X,Y&Z are real, you hold the belief X,Y&Z are not real

I don't believe a monster is under the bridge, also means I believe there is not a monster under the bridge. This does not mean there could not be a monster under the bridge, only that I have fully evaluated the proposition being made, and have concluded

A. I believe (not know) there is not a monster under the bridge

B.Do not believe there is a monster under the bridge.

Both statements come to the exact same conclusion hence are indistinguishable in meaning

And because this analogy works in 100% of all other true dichotomies (Spaghetti monsters, multiverse, etc.) this proves the atheist mind is different from all other minds, because I have found its only the atheist that does not understand or admit the semantics of this true dichotomy of Gods existence/non-existence, and this maybe contributing to why they are atheists.

Virtually all atheist I have debated are confused on understanding belief vs knowledge when it comes to the dichotomy of "does God exist or not exist"

=====

It's logically possible that there is no God. By your reasoning that means it is illogical to reject that proposition. The problem isn't with logic itself though, but your misuse of it.

No its not "logically possible", logic cant reject superior God-like life from existing. Rejecting God is philosophically possible (via your imagination), but not logically possible. Many philosophers don't use logic and critical thought as a framework for their philosophical arguments.

For example the atheist philosophers in science have established cell evolution in a primordial soup is true, not based on the evidence for it, but based on a lack of evidence for a designers existence, even though they admit the blatant appearance of design (via logical positivism). So I have little respect for philosophy without the rules of logic as a framework

===

A god-like intelligence? It's theoretically possible, which doesn't mean that it's actually possible. I expect it is, though. It's not within the normal bounds of theism, you'll be hard-pressed to find another theist who considers advanced aliens to be gods.

It appears you have adopted the Hollywood interpretation of alien. An alien is any life form not indigenous to planet earth. An alien does not define form, size, intellect, attributes etc.., it only defines where you have not originated from. i.e. earth.

So if the existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically possible (possibly true) , this also means the non-existence of a God-like intelligence is theoretically impossible (possibly false), which renders atheism an arbitrary philosophical position that rejects a logical possibility based on what is not known rather than what is known, thus renders atheists subjective philosophers and not objective critical thinkers

====

A wide range CAN exist and probably does. A superhuman intelligence might exist. That wouldn't make it God. We'll probably have superhuman intelligences at our beck and call in thirty years (unless that goes horribly wrong). Mere intelligence doesn't make something worthy of worship.

Back to the slippery slope we go.

Now I want you to explain at what point does an intelligence become "a God"?. If an intellect capable of creating a universe and all life in it existed, but was found to have limitations (albeit limitations beyond your comprehension) would you reject him as God because he was not infinitely intelligent?

To qualify as God only means a life form must be capable of creating the universe with the proprieties to sustain life, and create all life in the universe. If that being does exists, he is in fact God under the proper definition.

But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying

The creator (if he exited) deserves worship not because he is infinite and unlimited in power, but because all pleasures in life can not possibly exist without him, thus proper homage is due for your own existence because you would not exist without him. And because you have no inherit right to exist in the first place, in order to continue to exist you must follow the rules of the creator, like them or not.

Just as you hold the right to reject worshiping and obeying your creator, your creator also holds the right to reject your eternal life. The choice is yours to make

====

Merely creating a universe doesn't either, btw. Here's a couple of scenarios for a non-god intelligent creator: a technician at a supercollider creates a universe by accident. A physicist at a supercollider creates a universe on purpose. A programmer presses the 'simulate universe' app on a smart phone 300 years from now. It's hard to think of any being that creates a universe using a apparatus as a god in the sense meant by deists and theists.

They are not actually creating a universe ex nihilo, they are reproducing a universe from a copy that already exists, not the same thing. I believe my creator is incomprehensibly superior to me, but even if his superiority was comprehensible, I would still worship him because I do not exist without him, thus he deserves proper respect for everything I enjoy in life. My very existence relies on his existence