RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
October 9, 2018 at 5:21 pm
(This post was last modified: October 9, 2018 at 5:26 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 9, 2018 at 4:30 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: The whole quantum thingie is basically the nail in the coffin of all those who try to argue or define their pet god into existence based on the "classic" view on reality as we know it since man was able to think, although it seems to be so intuitive and tempting to use arguments based on such a view.
Once they understand that the fundamental nature of reality (on a very small scale) revolves around waves of probabilities and them collapsing into actual reality when under observation (and we yet even arent sure how to interpret all of this, Kopenhagen is just one interpretation), its game over, and no classic philosopher will get you back into the game. Once again i find it fascinating and ironic that nature seems to be more "strange" than humans can possibly imagine, now or 3000y ago, and i wouldnt like to bet my € on the next 3000.
Pretty much sums it up.
Quote:All fools like RR79 or Steve can do, is borrow from what science discovers and adapt their silly word games and re-define their pet gods accordingly to either fit them into remaining gaps or put them in line with what we already knew.
A perfect example of leading the evidence to fit their existing beliefs, instead of following the evidence where it leads.
And it sure doesn't lead to any of the gods defined by humanity.
I'd love to see a study done to show how many people became theists based on: ontological, cosmological, teleological and/or presup arguments. I'll bet it is a fraction of a percent. Instead, these arguments are used to shore up their already existing, irrational beliefs, with a veneer of rationality.
Quote:Edit:
The big difference between those great minds who were involved in QM (relativity too) in the early 20th century on one hand and dishonest and ignorant fools is: When they calculated and observed and finally had to conclude that either they were wrong or that their view on reality was fundamentally flawed, they decided to adapt their view on reality, no matter how absurd it seemed to be. Evidence trumps intuition and conjecture.
The difference between intellectual honesty, and the intellectual dishonesty of apologists (I'm pointing at you William Lane Craig!).
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
