Well, as much as I want to agree with that, its flawed. There is a fourth demension known as time.Riciardos said:
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Does God really exist?
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
- Status
snex
Smash Master
actually there may be even more dimensions. according to string theory, which has yet to produce any experimental evidence, but which does seem to hold mathematically, the universe has 11 dimensions.
and actually, omniscience not involving knowledge of the future would render my argument invalid. although there are many other arguments i could put forth which put gods other qualities in conflict though, i will defend the idea that omniscience does indeed entail knowledge of the future.
when i hold an object at arms length, and i drop it, i have future knowledge that the object is going to fall. presumably, god has the same knowledge, only better. he knows where it will fall, how it will land, etc, because he has perfect knowledge of the forces that will act on it. like god, if we had perfect knowledge of the starting conditions before we flipped a coin, and an ability to apply it correctly, we could predict the coin's outcome every time. there is no reason to suspect that god could not do the same thing to the electrical signals in our brains.
what about quantum mechanics though, which is inherently unpredictable? well this brings up a further problem. another quality of god is that he created the universe. the question then arises, "can god create a truly random process that even he cannot predict?" this is similar to the question asking whether or not god can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. it is bound to go round and round in circles with no end in sight. again the most parsimonous solution is to simply abandon the god idea altogether.
and actually, omniscience not involving knowledge of the future would render my argument invalid. although there are many other arguments i could put forth which put gods other qualities in conflict though, i will defend the idea that omniscience does indeed entail knowledge of the future.
when i hold an object at arms length, and i drop it, i have future knowledge that the object is going to fall. presumably, god has the same knowledge, only better. he knows where it will fall, how it will land, etc, because he has perfect knowledge of the forces that will act on it. like god, if we had perfect knowledge of the starting conditions before we flipped a coin, and an ability to apply it correctly, we could predict the coin's outcome every time. there is no reason to suspect that god could not do the same thing to the electrical signals in our brains.
what about quantum mechanics though, which is inherently unpredictable? well this brings up a further problem. another quality of god is that he created the universe. the question then arises, "can god create a truly random process that even he cannot predict?" this is similar to the question asking whether or not god can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. it is bound to go round and round in circles with no end in sight. again the most parsimonous solution is to simply abandon the god idea altogether.
Could God make a burrito so hot that he couldn't take it? And many other things. I don't think that God is perfect, or could do anything, although I do believe there is a God. Why does he need to be perfect(what doesn't excist)? I also think that some people take the bible too serious. To quote Captain Blackbeard in Pirates of the Caribean:"It aren't the actual rules, I think of them more as guidelines"
snex
Smash Master
riciardos you might have a coherent god concept going for you, but it certainly isnt the god of any popular religion, and i think it needs more explicit defining before one can say for sure.
however, i am specifically arguing against the classical omnimax god of judeo-christian-islamic religion. with regards to coherent gods, i am a weak atheist (meaning i lack belief rather than deny the god) since no evidence exists for them. until such evidence is presented, i think a debate upon such gods is impossible.
however, i am specifically arguing against the classical omnimax god of judeo-christian-islamic religion. with regards to coherent gods, i am a weak atheist (meaning i lack belief rather than deny the god) since no evidence exists for them. until such evidence is presented, i think a debate upon such gods is impossible.
Here is your flaw. You claim simultaneously that logic is abstract and does not apply to reality, and that God can be disproved by logic. That doesn't work. If logic cannot be extended to governing everything, then it cannot be used to disprove God. We are debating the existence of God afterall, not if quantum mechanics destroys logic.
Well basically, if I didn't say that, you guys would have dismissed me as someone who knew absolutely nothing and I would have been trounced by attacks to my intellect. I'm going against the prevailing ideas of this board, so I need people to know that I'm not an idiot. There are other people from MIT on this board, a good deal in fact. And normally, I would not have said anything. In fact, most people from MIT wouldn't say anything, we're usually down to earth people. However, I just couldn't watch snex continue
snex
Smash Master
you are still not listening. i never said that abstract logic cannot be applied to reality. i said that it has nothing to do with reality itself. just because we can apply mathematical equations to determine how a thrown object moves does not mean math has anything at all to do with throwing objects. math is used to model the object, and if an object (like a helium balloon) does not follow our mathematical models for thrown objects, it means that our model is wrong and we must find a new one. math itself isnt wrong because thrown helium balloons dont follow parabolic curves.
if god is proclaimed to have two qualities that are mutually exclusive, then that god does not exist. its as simple as that.
if god is proclaimed to have two qualities that are mutually exclusive, then that god does not exist. its as simple as that.
I see your point. Well, I see that you're right then. The classical god of those religions would be perfect. To me , perfect doesn't excist because it can always be better, just like a circle, it could always get a bit more round.snex said:
blazedaces
Smash Lord
You're right, we would have dismissed you as someone who knew absolutely nothing. Now we dismiss you as someone from MIT who knows absolutely nothing. You're still trying to disprove logic, which you have to use in order to do that. This entire concept is ridiculous. I don't care if other people from MIT are on this board. I'm not in any way insulted the institution, but I don't care where you're from or what college you go to, I only want to hear what you have to say here and nothing else. So far that has shown enough for me. If you want to change my mind don't mention unrelated information, but rather show me some intellectual posts of your own.ManaScrew said:Well basically, if I didn't say that, you guys would have dismissed me as someone who knew absolutely nothing and I would have been trounced by attacks to my intellect. I'm going against the prevailing ideas of this board, so I need people to know that I'm not an idiot. There are other people from MIT on this board, a good deal in fact. And normally, I would not have said anything. In fact, most people from MIT wouldn't say anything, we're usually down to earth people. However, I just couldn't watch snex continue
Edit: Sorry that I seemed harsh in my post, I didn't mean to be. It's only that I strongly despise the ego you showed by bringing up that you go to MIT. I believe you brought valuable information and debate to this thread and appreciate it. I would just like to see more posts like that and less stubborn, conceited ones.
Panik
Smash Journeyman
1st debate hall post!
I think the main thing that no one has hit on, is that God is based in faith. The main reason we can't just accept the fact that it exists, is because we have obtained knowledge. Now if this is true, saints must be morons, or Forest Gump type people. The more knowledge we gain, the harder it is to accept a mystical concept. Facts are based upon truth, or supposed truth right? Well, since this is true then earthly concepts are what is keeping us from being spiritual people. I don't agree with hippies or transcendentalists like Thoreau, but they do have a very good point. I think what we all hate, including me, is that organized religion is VERY corrupt and cannot be changed. This is an undeniable fact. People that cannot see this, cannot see this because THEY DO NOT WANT TO. With all this said though, believing in God is a personal matter and has to do with your relationship with a supposed magical being. The truth is that you can't just rely on the bible. As it was passed down and more and more translations were made, I'm sure the story was skewed. It still has the same objective though, and that is to show us that if we believe then everything is okay. What is to keep us from all killing ourselves? Nothing. This is why we need a belief. It may not be God, it may be punk or fashion. Whatever it is doesn't matter. Each one will argue that he or she is happy. But punk or fashion doesn't promise you eternal life. This usually makes people in these settings unhappy and suicidal. But who cares as long as we can self medicate with whatever we get our hands on? Even if this self medication never medicates at all, but instead drags us down further. I guess my main point is that everyone needs a belief system, and God is just as good as any. There is no real proof through science that God exists, so I think we should stop arguing that point completely. The main thing, that any true believer will argue, is that the belief system relies on complete faith. It sounds so easy just to turn your life over to a supreme being, yet in reality, it is so hard. Whether God exists or not is an open and neverending argument, but there are only two sides. Faith and Science. Choose.
I think the main thing that no one has hit on, is that God is based in faith. The main reason we can't just accept the fact that it exists, is because we have obtained knowledge. Now if this is true, saints must be morons, or Forest Gump type people. The more knowledge we gain, the harder it is to accept a mystical concept. Facts are based upon truth, or supposed truth right? Well, since this is true then earthly concepts are what is keeping us from being spiritual people. I don't agree with hippies or transcendentalists like Thoreau, but they do have a very good point. I think what we all hate, including me, is that organized religion is VERY corrupt and cannot be changed. This is an undeniable fact. People that cannot see this, cannot see this because THEY DO NOT WANT TO. With all this said though, believing in God is a personal matter and has to do with your relationship with a supposed magical being. The truth is that you can't just rely on the bible. As it was passed down and more and more translations were made, I'm sure the story was skewed. It still has the same objective though, and that is to show us that if we believe then everything is okay. What is to keep us from all killing ourselves? Nothing. This is why we need a belief. It may not be God, it may be punk or fashion. Whatever it is doesn't matter. Each one will argue that he or she is happy. But punk or fashion doesn't promise you eternal life. This usually makes people in these settings unhappy and suicidal. But who cares as long as we can self medicate with whatever we get our hands on? Even if this self medication never medicates at all, but instead drags us down further. I guess my main point is that everyone needs a belief system, and God is just as good as any. There is no real proof through science that God exists, so I think we should stop arguing that point completely. The main thing, that any true believer will argue, is that the belief system relies on complete faith. It sounds so easy just to turn your life over to a supreme being, yet in reality, it is so hard. Whether God exists or not is an open and neverending argument, but there are only two sides. Faith and Science. Choose.
nin10do_revolution
Smash Journeyman
That was so uncalled for. How would you like it if I took shots at your intelligence? and dont call him stubborn, either. He has his beliefs, and he chooses to abide by them. Also, he is presenting them in a logical and INTELLIGENT manner, unlike I'm about to do right now.blazedaces said:
Just becuase he does not agree with you, that does not make him any less smart than you or me. Tell me, who is smarter: the man with no commmon sense, but all the book smarts, or a man who has common sense, but no book education? Neither, becuase they are evenly matched, as we all are here. From what I see, you have no formal education, becuase in school they teach us people how to treat others with RESPECT.
Also, Pank seems to be the one with the best argument out of all of us. The main thig is not simply your precoius LOGIC, or PROOF, but simply a matter of faith and personal intellingence. If you choose to belive in God, through the stories of the Bible that have been skewered, or the scientififc games people like to play to try to be right, then you do truy believe, in god, and you are not stubborn, ignorant, or closed-minded.
And just to let you know, I am really trying to lose my newly-ghained self-contorl by swearing and taking shts at people personally, so dont push it by trying to jump on me next. Just becuase there is 12 people who dont belive, does not mean I'm gonna sit there and just accept that you all are being true *******s. WTF is this, the AKK? Atheist Klux Klan?
Oh, did I just cuss? Oh well.
snex
Smash Master
are you seriously saying that by claiming that logic is invalid, he is presenting his argument logically? maybe you should think that over again. he isnt even presenting an argument, hes merely burying his head in the sand and denying the only thing we can use to have an argument in the first place.
faith is not, has never been, and never will be, a valid reasoning system.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Dude, not only did you failt to notice that he firstly said that we would dismiss him as such and therefore I just added insult to injury (another words, it was exageration added to his original exageration). I'm sure if you said to your friend "Hey, don't call me an idiot, I'm older then you," and he responded "Fine, I'll call you an idiot who's older then me" you would just laugh alongside him. The original comment was a joke and my response was one. I realized that someone reading might not take it lightly, so I even had the decency to right an apology and to reinforce that I meant no disrespect and only wanted to get my message accross.nin10do_revolution said:
I don't understand why you stick to this ridiculous crutch of faith. If you have faith in one thing (the bible) why should you stop there and not have faith in everything else just as easily? If someone told you to jump off a cliff, it'll make you money, why wouldn't you believe them? Is your faith not stronger then your reasoning in this situation, why? Why do you so easily believe in your precious, illogical God while there are millions of other religions that you don't have faith in?
But particles can have mutually exclusive properties.
And asking why we cling to a "precious illogical God" with our "crutch of faith" is why I jumped in. To be honest, the people representing the Judeo-Christian argument usually get hammered with insults to their faith.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Particles don't have mutually exclusive properties. Did you read Snex's article and his following post at all? Until spin is determined we consider them to have both spins.ManaScrew said:
Stop just defending the fact that you get "insulted". Atheists aren't the majority in the world, they're only the majority on these forums. I've been insulted and had to defend myself countless times, but I never stood in a corner and yelped "stop picking on me aready"! If you're going to defend your beliefs do it with responses worthy of debate.
Panik
Smash Journeyman
Exactly. This is what I have been stressing. There are two things that can happen to a person who goes through a major trouble or life changing experience.snex said:
1. The person will hate God, or the supreme powers, because they did not help the way the person wanted them to.
2. The person can realize that the only way he or she made it through his or her crisis was because of the help of a supreme being, and then accept that "thing" as his or her lord, savior, or GOD.
Everyone has their own veiws on who God really is, and this is a fact. God is ether an angry tyrant, doesn't exist at all, or is a glorius being that will help us survive this wretched world. And believe me, this world is wretched haha. In the end, facts and proof that God is real are only the mind's feeble attempts to understand something supernatural. So why are we so pressed to find logical answers to why the supernatural exists? Because people are SCARED of the unknown. And what do we all, as humans, do when we are confronted by the unknown? We try our hardest to RATIONALIZE THE SITUATION PRESENTED. I don't expect a lot of you to agree with me, mainly because you probably don't want to understand. But if this is all true, then the people asking for proof are the scared ones. Not trying to start a riot, but again, this is an argument that I haven't seen on this thread yet.
snex
Smash Master
im not interested in a journalist's flawed understanding of science. if you cant cite actual scientists, then stop trying.ManaScrew said:
this doesnt even make sense. mutually exclusive properties are properties that CANT be together. if a particle has two properties that you THINK are mutually exclusive, you are WRONG because the observation of those two properties together proves that they werent mutually exclusive.
as ive told you before, particle spin is NOT THE SAME THING as spin of normal objects. your continued refusal to accept this fact of reality demonstrates that you arent interested in debate, but rather you prefer a shouting match to support your faith.
you seem to think that your personal opinion about what properties are mutually exclusive defeats the actual observation of them. how arrogant.
as to panik, your understanding of atheism is deeply flawed, and i wouldnt be surprised if you got it from another christian. perhaps you should ask atheists why they are atheists instead of getting a prepackaged answer from your preacher that squelches dissent among the flock.
Panik
Smash Journeyman
This is a friendly debate snex, yet I understand how this topic can get very heated quickly. What's funny is that I don't go to church, I've never listened to a preacher, and this isn't a prepackaged answer. My understanding may be flawed, but I too was an outspoken atheist at one time. I used to be a cocaine junkie with no future, and I hated God for what he had done to me. He left me for dead here, along with everyone in this world. Trust me, I understand fully why you don't want to analyze my posts, but rather yell at another person for his faults. Why couldn't you have just said, no you're wrong. If an educated person, and I'm assuming we are all educated here, believes something, it will be hard to change that person's mind. You yelling at him won't change his opinion, but rather start a war between the two of you. You both will start trying to outdo each other with your intellect, and guess what? Nobody will win. It's okay though snex, just take your anger out on me next time you post, I don't mind. I take it that you're atheist perhaps? I know you have been posting your opinion on here for a while, but will you please tell me why facts beat faith, beside your own opinion of course. I hope you can prove this to further our debate. The next posts are going to be an adventure haha.
snex
Smash Master
panik you are claiming that all atheists "hate god." making this claim is tantamount to saying that an atheist position has no validity, but rather it is a mere argument from emotion. it is an attempt to dismiss any and all atheist arguments without even having to examine them.
not only is it invalid to attempt to marginalize atheism as an emotional argument, but it is extremely insulting as well. just because you personally were not aware of any justification to atheism and thus fell for invalid theistic claims does not mean the rest of us are the same way.
until somebody points to a flaw in my above argument, rather than waffling around about emotional arguments or the validity of logic itself, you must admit that no such god can exist. its absurd to the extreme that anyone would continue to argue the existence of a being which is fundamentally unable to exist.
not only is it invalid to attempt to marginalize atheism as an emotional argument, but it is extremely insulting as well. just because you personally were not aware of any justification to atheism and thus fell for invalid theistic claims does not mean the rest of us are the same way.
until somebody points to a flaw in my above argument, rather than waffling around about emotional arguments or the validity of logic itself, you must admit that no such god can exist. its absurd to the extreme that anyone would continue to argue the existence of a being which is fundamentally unable to exist.
Panik
Smash Journeyman
Alright, I can agree with you to an extent, but I didn't mean for the "hate God sentence" to be constued like that. I didn't mean all Atheists hate God, but merely that I hated God at the time that I was an Atheist. I was trying to explain t you, since you are the only one that called me out, that I'm not a bible beater, and I used to be in your beloved belief system. I'm by no means a Jesus Freak, but I definitely lean towards God Exists. God could be an alien fr all I know. I was just trying to let you know that I'm not one sided. Your side is a lot easier to argue anyway because you have facts to display, as I on the otherhand, do not.
snex
Smash Master
if you hated god, then you were not an atheist.
atheists lack belief in god.
do you hate santa claus? do you hate unicorns? do you hate elves? CAN you hate any of them? why or why not?
atheists lack belief in god.
do you hate santa claus? do you hate unicorns? do you hate elves? CAN you hate any of them? why or why not?
Panik
Smash Journeyman
You're not listening. I believed in God before anything happened to me. Second, I witnessed and endured some events which led me to hate the God that I believed in. This hatred eventually turned into "lack of belief in God" as time went on. Therefore making me someone who hated God, and did not believe in him/it.
snex
Smash Master
lack of belief is not based on hate, it is based on reasonable doubt which is in turn based on evidence. emotions have nothing to do with the matter.
Panik
Smash Journeyman
Thanks for the obvious Snex. Now, I shall type what I have typed again, just so you understand. I hated the Christian God at one time. Then, I began to doubt that he/it even existed because of lack of evidence. This is what you described as "lack of belief". I guess that it is what I had at one time. I understand that it has nothing to do with emotions, but emotions can lead you into almost any belief system. Can they not?
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Facts are absolute and make sense. You can have faith in anything: God, unicorns, your parents, murderers, Osama Bin-Ladin, adults asking you to come into their car for some candy. In most of these examples if you chose logical approaches you would be safe, but faith leads you to danger. You can't just apply faith to God or just your God. If you're going to use the basis of faith you should be able to apply it to everything in your life.Panik said:
Panik
Smash Journeyman
I agree Blazed. Both are bad:
1. Living on pure Faith.
and
2. Living on pure Facts.
You can believe facts all you want, but doesn't it take a small ammount of faith to believe it. I think this works vice versa as well, for example, having full faith in God yet reading a bible that you believe to be fact.
First is that there is something to be said about the socially constituted nature of everything we percieve as reality. Arguably yes, there are facts and absolutes: however from the moment you are born both your familial and cultural situation condition the way you percieve and interact with this objective world. A good example of this is language; whenever you see a chair you don't see its purely objective status as a blob of wood but rather you see a 'chair', an object you may sit in, which may be sold etc. The gap between the empty word 'chair' and the physical object is filled by a fantasy we call language. It is a fantasy insofar as it is not objectively real but nonetheless exists through a phenomenon known as intersubjectivity. But I mean that's just psychoanalysis 101.
Second, yes this probably does indicate that it is impossible to 'prove' that god exists, but on the same token it also proves that even the most basic levels of reality depend upon a certain amount of faith in their reality in order for them to exist (exist in the sense that they influence how you act and interact with them). For example, the schizophrenic refuses to believe in anything considered objective reality and as such refuse reality's ability to influence their decision making. However how can you prove that what they percieve (random colors, magical creatures etc) is not real? It's real enough to them in the sense that they believe in it, they can feel it, they can see it etc. It is just as real to them as objective reality. This is why for relegion the truly ethical standpoint is faith, to believe without proof. If God existed in our everyday lives in a concrete, clear form IE you could see and hear and feel him clearly, there would be no need for faith because he would be 'objectively' real.
Third, even if God wasn't 'real', it doesn't mean that belief in him cannot be positive. It is true that in the name of relegion and belief some violence has been committed, such as when the Catholics burned baptists and other denominations of christianity. However belief in God has helped many people get out of holes they would have never been able to absent faith. Countless alcoholics, drug addicts, victims of violence etc. choose to refuse to believe in god because of their condition. Many of them never escape their condition. However many times people's faith in God has helped them pull through hard times, even if God doesn't immediately rescue them from them. Like in the popular book Uncle Tom's Cabin, the main character's faith in God allowed him to refuse to be truly hurt and give up when his master's beat and whipped him. Faith alone is a beacon of light that allows some to progress through situations they otherwise would not be able to.
1. Living on pure Faith.
and
2. Living on pure Facts.
You can believe facts all you want, but doesn't it take a small ammount of faith to believe it. I think this works vice versa as well, for example, having full faith in God yet reading a bible that you believe to be fact.
First is that there is something to be said about the socially constituted nature of everything we percieve as reality. Arguably yes, there are facts and absolutes: however from the moment you are born both your familial and cultural situation condition the way you percieve and interact with this objective world. A good example of this is language; whenever you see a chair you don't see its purely objective status as a blob of wood but rather you see a 'chair', an object you may sit in, which may be sold etc. The gap between the empty word 'chair' and the physical object is filled by a fantasy we call language. It is a fantasy insofar as it is not objectively real but nonetheless exists through a phenomenon known as intersubjectivity. But I mean that's just psychoanalysis 101.
Second, yes this probably does indicate that it is impossible to 'prove' that god exists, but on the same token it also proves that even the most basic levels of reality depend upon a certain amount of faith in their reality in order for them to exist (exist in the sense that they influence how you act and interact with them). For example, the schizophrenic refuses to believe in anything considered objective reality and as such refuse reality's ability to influence their decision making. However how can you prove that what they percieve (random colors, magical creatures etc) is not real? It's real enough to them in the sense that they believe in it, they can feel it, they can see it etc. It is just as real to them as objective reality. This is why for relegion the truly ethical standpoint is faith, to believe without proof. If God existed in our everyday lives in a concrete, clear form IE you could see and hear and feel him clearly, there would be no need for faith because he would be 'objectively' real.
Third, even if God wasn't 'real', it doesn't mean that belief in him cannot be positive. It is true that in the name of relegion and belief some violence has been committed, such as when the Catholics burned baptists and other denominations of christianity. However belief in God has helped many people get out of holes they would have never been able to absent faith. Countless alcoholics, drug addicts, victims of violence etc. choose to refuse to believe in god because of their condition. Many of them never escape their condition. However many times people's faith in God has helped them pull through hard times, even if God doesn't immediately rescue them from them. Like in the popular book Uncle Tom's Cabin, the main character's faith in God allowed him to refuse to be truly hurt and give up when his master's beat and whipped him. Faith alone is a beacon of light that allows some to progress through situations they otherwise would not be able to.
JFox
Smash Hero
Snex: I am trying to understand the logic that you have used to disprove the existence of God. According to your post, you defined God as a free agent. What religion defines God as a free agent, and in what way do they do so? I am looking for written text, so please respond with cited text. (For example, something taken out a a book such as the bible, kuran, or torah, that defines God as a free agent.)
Note: I am just curious for my own knowledge, and have not yet decided to take part in arguing either side of this debate.
Note: I am just curious for my own knowledge, and have not yet decided to take part in arguing either side of this debate.
Snex, the New York Times is reliable, you just refuse to admit it. And interestingly enough, here are some quotes for you, directly from Wilczek's book:
"Sometimes 1+1 is 0, sometimes it is 4, 2 just happens to be the average."
"If the quantal world of laves is our universe, the contradictory possiblilities contained in the laves must all be counted as parts of reality."
"and what is the nature of the event that made it possible for the different realms, governed by different laws of physics and even different LOGICS to make contact" (he was discussing quantal reality vs. classical reality"
These are all from the mouth of a nobel prize winner.
"Sometimes 1+1 is 0, sometimes it is 4, 2 just happens to be the average."
"If the quantal world of laves is our universe, the contradictory possiblilities contained in the laves must all be counted as parts of reality."
"and what is the nature of the event that made it possible for the different realms, governed by different laws of physics and even different LOGICS to make contact" (he was discussing quantal reality vs. classical reality"
These are all from the mouth of a nobel prize winner.
snex
Smash Master
the new york times is NOT a science journal, and apparently i was right. your book IS quack pseudoscience. hey, not even scientists are exempt.
[will edit later to include more scientists saying stupid things]
the fact that you continue to use this line of argumentation despite the fact that i SHOWED you, in SYMBOLIC FORM, how quantum mechanics fits within a logical framework means that you arent interested in honest debate. your only interest is throwing out a last-ditch effort to maintain belief in your discredited imaginary friend by throwing out the one thing that enables you to have any meaningful ideas at all.
when youre ready to stop arguing by mere authority and start debating properly, let me know.
[will edit later to include more scientists saying stupid things]
the fact that you continue to use this line of argumentation despite the fact that i SHOWED you, in SYMBOLIC FORM, how quantum mechanics fits within a logical framework means that you arent interested in honest debate. your only interest is throwing out a last-ditch effort to maintain belief in your discredited imaginary friend by throwing out the one thing that enables you to have any meaningful ideas at all.
when youre ready to stop arguing by mere authority and start debating properly, let me know.
snex
Smash Master
if a scientist claims that science defies logic, then he is engaging in quackary. prizes and distinctions and legitimate scientific findings dont give one a license to say whatever one wants and be taken seriously on it. im sure his findings on "the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction" warrant the nobel prize he won for it, but that does not lend validation to his silly claims that it defies logic.
however, for all i know, you may simply be misrepresenting the man to make your point, in which case my apologies to him. since i do not have the book, i cannot read the quotes in context.
however, even nobel laureates arent exempt from spouting nonsense. watch:
in 1916, einstein released his theory of general relativity, which purported to explain gravity and acceleration under his model of a fixed maximum velocity (c). however, GR posed a problem. it predicted that the universe was not static, as einstein and all his collegues KNEW it was. einstein therefore introduced a cosmological constant that affected the equations in such a way as to keep the universe static. 10 years later, edwin hubble proved that the universe was in fact expanding.
OOPS einstein! hey, at least einstein had the guts to admit he was wrong, calling the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder."[1]
in the 1920s, quantum mechanics became the leading theory for describing how the universe worked. despite being one of its core founders, einstein could not fathom a theory which was inherently random. he once said "I am convinced that [God] does not play dice with the universe."[2]
OOPS AGAIN einstein! quantum mechanics is still the leading theory, and it is still random.
albert einstein won the nobel prize for physics in 1921 for his discovery of the photoelectric effect.
linus pauling, the only nobel prize winner to win TWO unshared prizes, one for chemistry in 1954, and one for peace in 1962. linus pauling was also a staunch advocate for megadoses of vitamin C as a cure to almost any disease. he is regarded as a quack by any medical doctor worth his degree.
otto warburg, prize winner in medicine in 1931, insisted until his death that the cause of cancer was "inferior" energy of anaerobic metabolism.[3] he is also widely regarded as a quack on this matter.
and those are only the nobel prize winners! thousands of scientists, including many who are well-respected in their fields of authority, make quack claims. isaac newton thought that his mathematical models of gravity reflected the perfection of god. charles lyell thought that the earth was eternal and ever-cyclical. alfred russel wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, insisted that the human brain must have been designed by god. arthur eddington, one of the most influential astronomers ever known, denied that black holes could exist. thousands of currently working scientists back quack notions like creationism, astrology, uri geller, homeopathic medicine, crystal healing, transcendental meditation, magnetic therapy, psychoanalysis, UFOs, and pretty much any quackery youd care to discuss. if theres quackery about, you can bet theres a real scientist backing it up.
so if quack notions have these scientists backing them up, why dont we accept them too? the answer is simple. we do not accept things based on who is backing them up, or what degrees they have. we accept them based on EVIDENCE. there is simply no EVIDENCE for any of these claims. your nonsense claim that quantum mechanics defies logic has been DISPROVEN by my plain and simple DEMONSTRATION of it fitting within a logical framework. if you continue to argue along these lines, i have no choice but to ignore you, since your only tactic is engaging in cognitave dissonance. it is like arguing with a wall.
1. G. Gamow, My World Line—An Informal Autobiography, Viking Press, New York (1970), p. 44. (ironically, recent observations of distant supernovae have shown that a cosmological constant is indeed required, only it forces the expansion to accelerate, meaning we were all wrong!)
2. Personal correspondence, Max Borne, 1926
3. Warburg, Otto. A Review. Science; l23:309-315:1956.
however, for all i know, you may simply be misrepresenting the man to make your point, in which case my apologies to him. since i do not have the book, i cannot read the quotes in context.
however, even nobel laureates arent exempt from spouting nonsense. watch:
in 1916, einstein released his theory of general relativity, which purported to explain gravity and acceleration under his model of a fixed maximum velocity (c). however, GR posed a problem. it predicted that the universe was not static, as einstein and all his collegues KNEW it was. einstein therefore introduced a cosmological constant that affected the equations in such a way as to keep the universe static. 10 years later, edwin hubble proved that the universe was in fact expanding.
OOPS einstein! hey, at least einstein had the guts to admit he was wrong, calling the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder."[1]
in the 1920s, quantum mechanics became the leading theory for describing how the universe worked. despite being one of its core founders, einstein could not fathom a theory which was inherently random. he once said "I am convinced that [God] does not play dice with the universe."[2]
OOPS AGAIN einstein! quantum mechanics is still the leading theory, and it is still random.
albert einstein won the nobel prize for physics in 1921 for his discovery of the photoelectric effect.
linus pauling, the only nobel prize winner to win TWO unshared prizes, one for chemistry in 1954, and one for peace in 1962. linus pauling was also a staunch advocate for megadoses of vitamin C as a cure to almost any disease. he is regarded as a quack by any medical doctor worth his degree.
otto warburg, prize winner in medicine in 1931, insisted until his death that the cause of cancer was "inferior" energy of anaerobic metabolism.[3] he is also widely regarded as a quack on this matter.
and those are only the nobel prize winners! thousands of scientists, including many who are well-respected in their fields of authority, make quack claims. isaac newton thought that his mathematical models of gravity reflected the perfection of god. charles lyell thought that the earth was eternal and ever-cyclical. alfred russel wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, insisted that the human brain must have been designed by god. arthur eddington, one of the most influential astronomers ever known, denied that black holes could exist. thousands of currently working scientists back quack notions like creationism, astrology, uri geller, homeopathic medicine, crystal healing, transcendental meditation, magnetic therapy, psychoanalysis, UFOs, and pretty much any quackery youd care to discuss. if theres quackery about, you can bet theres a real scientist backing it up.
so if quack notions have these scientists backing them up, why dont we accept them too? the answer is simple. we do not accept things based on who is backing them up, or what degrees they have. we accept them based on EVIDENCE. there is simply no EVIDENCE for any of these claims. your nonsense claim that quantum mechanics defies logic has been DISPROVEN by my plain and simple DEMONSTRATION of it fitting within a logical framework. if you continue to argue along these lines, i have no choice but to ignore you, since your only tactic is engaging in cognitave dissonance. it is like arguing with a wall.
1. G. Gamow, My World Line—An Informal Autobiography, Viking Press, New York (1970), p. 44. (ironically, recent observations of distant supernovae have shown that a cosmological constant is indeed required, only it forces the expansion to accelerate, meaning we were all wrong!)
2. Personal correspondence, Max Borne, 1926
3. Warburg, Otto. A Review. Science; l23:309-315:1956.
snex, please send your arguments in to a scientific journal, you are easily the greatest mind of our time. The way that you discredit nobel laureates with such ease... brilliance. Using disproved science from over 80 years ago to discredit modern research... brilliance. Sheer brilliance...
snex
Smash Master
lack of substance in response noted. goodbye, ostrich.
continue to post off-topic and your posts will be reported from now on.
edit: reply to jfox
there has actually been considerable debate among ancient theologians as to whether god has free will. st jerome who lived in the 4th century argued that god does not in fact have free will. st ambrose, one of his contemporaries, argued that god does have free will.
however, despite that the bible is ambiguous on the subject (as it is on many of gods other qualities), most modern religions ascribe free will to god.
gods actions in the bible are described as actions of a free agent. god says about the creation of humans: "let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."
god also "chooses" the hebrews as his people.
before sending a flood to destroy mankind, god is described as grieved and that "his heart was filled with pain." sounds like it is giving a reason for his decision to flood the earth.
god clearly reacts to things that happen, and the bible often ascribes motives to him. this would indicate that he has free will.
continue to post off-topic and your posts will be reported from now on.
edit: reply to jfox
there has actually been considerable debate among ancient theologians as to whether god has free will. st jerome who lived in the 4th century argued that god does not in fact have free will. st ambrose, one of his contemporaries, argued that god does have free will.
however, despite that the bible is ambiguous on the subject (as it is on many of gods other qualities), most modern religions ascribe free will to god.
gods actions in the bible are described as actions of a free agent. god says about the creation of humans: "let us make man in our image, in our likeness..."
god also "chooses" the hebrews as his people.
before sending a flood to destroy mankind, god is described as grieved and that "his heart was filled with pain." sounds like it is giving a reason for his decision to flood the earth.
god clearly reacts to things that happen, and the bible often ascribes motives to him. this would indicate that he has free will.
JFox
Smash Hero
Snex you completely ignored my previous question. You guys are going back and forth, on a topic that is far from the topic at hand. Please tell me what sources you used when stating that God was a free agent. (Refer back to my earlier post)
snex
Smash Master
ha, i almost did, but reading back i saw it and edited the post right above yours with a reply. =P
JFox
Smash Hero
No where does it say whether or not God is a free agent in the bible, according to my knowledge. The fact that theologians argued about it does not mean **** to me.
I think all you have proved is that God is not a free agent. You have not disproved God, or any religion, you have just disproved that he is a free agent, which I will grant you. So your logic holds up, but your facts are iffy.
I think all you have proved is that God is not a free agent. You have not disproved God, or any religion, you have just disproved that he is a free agent, which I will grant you. So your logic holds up, but your facts are iffy.
snex
Smash Master
if god is not a free agent, then by what license do you call him god? by what license could you say that he is the "intelligence" behind the universe's design? lack of free agency would mean that god is no different from the laws of physics, and as such, he should be predictable in some manner.
if god is indeed some kind of machine acting by pre-set rules, then why worship him? why not just refer to him as "the laws of physics" and cease calling him god?
and, i told you exactly where in the bible god is represented as having free will. god cannot "choose" a people unless he can choose.
edit:
genesis 18:17-19 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."
exodus 31:1-3 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts...
plenty more where that came from.
if god is indeed some kind of machine acting by pre-set rules, then why worship him? why not just refer to him as "the laws of physics" and cease calling him god?
and, i told you exactly where in the bible god is represented as having free will. god cannot "choose" a people unless he can choose.
edit:
genesis 18:17-19 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."
exodus 31:1-3 Then the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts...
plenty more where that came from.
JFox
Smash Hero
The idea of choosing is just one that humanity can easily understand. How else can it be worded so that the message can come across. Language is limited, and I don't see how else the bible can say it without representing that he is a free agent. Not because he is one, but because of the limits in our language.
Edited many times:
The idea of using the word choose to show that God is a free agent is not strong enough evidence to convince me that is is a free agent.
People will often do the same when talking. People will say they only have one choice. A man looks at two doors, and needs to choose one. He tries the right, but it is locked. He than chooses the left because it is his only choice left....Was the left really a choice at that point? No.
These are just flaws in the language that you are getting technical about.
Edited many times:
The idea of using the word choose to show that God is a free agent is not strong enough evidence to convince me that is is a free agent.
People will often do the same when talking. People will say they only have one choice. A man looks at two doors, and needs to choose one. He tries the right, but it is locked. He than chooses the left because it is his only choice left....Was the left really a choice at that point? No.
These are just flaws in the language that you are getting technical about.
Yes its still a choise that he opens the left, he could also choise to find some ways to open/break the lock and stick with the right door. Choise is allways there, only sometimes hard to find...
EDIT: after reading your thread on free will, I gotta retreat for a bit. I agree that are things out of our controle, but leaving out free will completly? Meh, I'll return to that later in your thread.
EDIT: after reading your thread on free will, I gotta retreat for a bit. I agree that are things out of our controle, but leaving out free will completly? Meh, I'll return to that later in your thread.
snex
Smash Master
well like i said earlier, if god has no free will, then in what sense can you call him god? you need to supply some definition of what god in fact IS.
- Status