Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 09:21 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Woah, woah, woah....
Shut the front door! -Nathan Fillion, Castle

If Mt Everest's peak is covered in blueberries, the only logical ice cream flavor is lemon!
Everyone knows blueberries and lemons pair well together.

That's it. You are ex-communicated.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
03-04-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Woah, woah, woah....
Shut the front door! -Nathan Fillion, Castle

If Mt Everest's peak is covered in blueberries, the only logical ice cream flavor is lemon!
Everyone knows blueberries and lemons pair well together.

Fuck planet you come from? Apostate. Lemon's only good for fish. And we ain't discussing haddock flavored ice cream. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-04-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fuck planet you come from? Apostate. Lemon's only good for fish. And we ain't discussing haddock flavored ice cream. Dodgy


[Image: 6-2.jpg]

↑↑You see any fish in there, asswipe?↑↑

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:29 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:24 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fuck planet you come from? Apostate. Lemon's only good for fish. And we ain't discussing haddock flavored ice cream. Dodgy


[Image: 6-2.jpg]

↑↑You see any fish in there, asswipe?↑↑

See how that works? Theist discussion always leads to ad hom and division. Dodgy

I know the truth, and if you are too dumb to understand... it's off to Hollywood with ya. And! You just wanna sin. Admit it. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?
Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:
God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.
So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!
They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

I disagree. With me being young and all, I find it hard to believe that the cat is BOTH dead and alive. I find it much more compatible to reality that it is an one of those two, we just haven't observed which one. It shouldn't be true and false, it should be unknown. The cat doesn't become dead or alive after we opened the box, but rather we OBSERVE it to be so. It was one state, we just didn't perceive it. I don't know if I am making sense, but that's how I see that.

The double slit shows that things can be both, but just because it can be, doesn't mean it is for this specific case, or for all cases.

That would be a composition fallacy.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Atothetheist's post
03-04-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:35 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:21 AM)Joh Wrote:  Are things either real or not real?
Is this world an either or world?

No. In quantum mechanics there is sort of an in-between. Electrons for example can be waves and particles at the same time. You can describe their location as probability waves. So It can be true and false at the same time that they are at location x. Look at the double slit experiment for instance. As soon as you observe electrons, their wave functions collapse and they become particles with a distinct location. This is the physics of the very small. Where quantum mechanics theoretically goes macro is for instance is the thought experiment of Schrödingers cat. You imagine a cat being placed in a box with a container of poison. The container with poison opens when a radioactive substance decays. It does so with a certain probability per time period. So after a certain time period from the outside the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. Only after opening the box the cat is dead or is alive.

Now if you apply this idea to the concept of a god:
God defined as something unobservable is not being observed and never will be, can be considered as true and false at the same time. However! It will always stay an in-between and never turn true or false! Electrons can be observed. Cats can be observed. The wave functions collapse and become distinct when they are being observed.
So all concepts that cannot be falsified, cannot be true!
They also cannot be false. But the same thing applies to any unprovable/unfalsifiable concept you can name. An anti-god for instance that cancels out a god. Sorry, stupid idea, but i needed a stupid example Wink

I disagree. With me being young and all, I find it hard to believe that the cat is BOTH dead and alive. I find it much more compatible to reality that it is an one of those two, we just haven't observed which one. It shouldn't be true and false, it should be unknown. The cat doesn't become dead or alive after we opened the box, but rather we OBSERVE it to be so. It was one state, we just didn't perceive it. I don't know if I am making sense, but that's how I see that.

The double slit shows that things can be both, but just because it can be, doesn't mean it is for this specific case, or for all cases.

That would be a composition fallacy.


And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:35 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I disagree. With me being young and all, I find it hard to believe that the cat is BOTH dead and alive. I find it much more compatible to reality that it is an one of those two, we just haven't observed which one. It shouldn't be true and false, it should be unknown. The cat doesn't become dead or alive after we opened the box, but rather we OBSERVE it to be so. It was one state, we just didn't perceive it. I don't know if I am making sense, but that's how I see that.

The double slit shows that things can be both, but just because it can be, doesn't mean it is for this specific case, or for all cases.

That would be a composition fallacy.


And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I don't know if you were adding on to me, or if you were reprimanding me on my perception of the Cat.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:42 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  And electrons are not particles and/or waves, they are what they are and exhibit properties like particles and like waves.

Ah, yes, sorry about that. I don't know if you were adding on to me, or if you were reprimanding me on my perception of the Cat.

Both?Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-04-2013, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2013 09:48 AM by Atothetheist.)
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:42 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Ah, yes, sorry about that. I don't know if you were adding on to me, or if you were reprimanding me on my perception of the Cat.

Both?Consider

Ah, I see. Well, thanks for the clarification. It's always good to learn something.

I also saw what you did there.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:32 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:29 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  [Image: 6-2.jpg]

↑↑You see any fish in there, asswipe?↑↑

See how that works? Theist discussion always leads to ad hom and division. Dodgy

I know the truth, and if you are too dumb to understand... it's off to Hollywood with ya. And! You just wanna sin. Admit it. Tongue

You're evading. Answer the fish question or admit that your entire premise is built on a false assumption.

Oh and, I just sinned a few minutes ago and yes, I do want to sin again. But I can't sin twice in a row anymore. I could when I was younger though.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: