Argument for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2013, 09:50 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:45 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  Both?Consider

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


Well, it seems to me that trying to characterize what the electron (or any 'particle') is as either or both of two models we have invented is just a confusion.

They were thought of as particles, then wave-like behavior was discovered. Mental/conceptual inertia dragged on the particle/wave duality argument for decades.

It is a false distinction. The electron (proton, neutron, ...) is what it is, it has the properties it has. Trying to tie it to one model or another, or - worse - trying to justify some flip-floppy duality model is a giant waste of time and borders on mystic bullshit.

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, 09:50 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.

... Egor, I think the fact that we started serious arguments with EACH OTHER over whether existence is a binary state, when that was just the first leading question you asked, suggests that a Socratic approach will get derailed before it bears fruit.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:45 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  Ah, I see. Well, thanks for the clarification. It's always good to learn something.


Well, it seems to me that trying to characterize what the electron (or any 'particle') is as either or both of two models we have invented is just a confusion.

They were thought of as particles, then wave-like behavior was discovered. Mental/conceptual inertia dragged on the particle/wave duality argument for decades.

It is a false distinction. The electron (proton, neutron, ...) is what it is, it has the properties it has. Trying to tie it to one model or another, or - worse - trying to justify some flip-floppy duality model is a giant waste of time and borders on mystic bullshit.

I wasn't trying to imply both, but I was merely stating that using the DSE as a justification for thinking existence is both is not only a false example, even if it was valid it says nothing about existence being both

[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, 09:53 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:52 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:50 AM)Chas Wrote:  Well, it seems to me that trying to characterize what the electron (or any 'particle') is as either or both of two models we have invented is just a confusion.

They were thought of as particles, then wave-like behavior was discovered. Mental/conceptual inertia dragged on the particle/wave duality argument for decades.

It is a false distinction. The electron (proton, neutron, ...) is what it is, it has the properties it has. Trying to tie it to one model or another, or - worse - trying to justify some flip-floppy duality model is a giant waste of time and borders on mystic bullshit.

I wasn't trying to imply both, but I was merely stating that using the DSE as a justification for thinking existence is both is not only a false example, even if it was valid it says nothing about existence being both


I believe that I think that I sort of agree with you in some sense.Drinking Beverage

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, 09:55 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:52 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  I wasn't trying to imply both, but I was merely stating that using the DSE as a justification for thinking existence is both is not only a false example, even if it was valid it says nothing about existence being both


I believe that I think that I sort of agree with you in some sense.Drinking Beverage

....and that's the closest I'll ever get to pleasing you, Chassy.Thumbsup

You are a hard man to befriend, you know that?Tongue

[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, 09:57 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:55 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  I believe that I think that I sort of agree with you in some sense.Drinking Beverage

....and that's the closest I'll ever get to pleasing you, Chassy.Thumbsup

You are a hard man to befriend, you know that?Tongue


I am your friend.Yes

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, 10:02 AM
RE: Argument for God
Why can't god make his own arugments. Why rely on such mentally disabled patience?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
03-04-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 09:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 09:55 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  ....and that's the closest I'll ever get to pleasing you, Chassy.Thumbsup

You are a hard man to befriend, you know that?Tongue


I am your friend.Yes

Well... That was easy...

[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, 10:09 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 10:02 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Why can't god make his own arugments. Why rely on such mentally disabled patience?

Patience? Or patients?

[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, 10:12 AM
RE: Argument for God
(03-04-2013 10:09 AM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(03-04-2013 10:02 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Why can't god make his own arugments. Why rely on such mentally disabled patience?

Patience? Or patients?

I dedided to leave it for your pleszure.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: