Calling all physics experts
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-05-2012, 06:48 PM
RE: Calling all physics experts
(25-05-2012 02:32 PM)MrEchidna Wrote:  I don't take a logical positivist view, i like the critical rationalism of Karl Popper and the principles of falsifiability and such. Under that philosophical view, science is indeed substantiated. I realize my argument might not be the best way to attack the philosophical idea of god, and i know many other ways to do so. Its just it occurred to me awhile back that if an omnipotent being would have created the universe that there would be a noticeable effect on the universe, mainly making it exhibit signs of hard determinism. The argument i put forward is my own pet argument and i'm trying to refine it and make it better, and i realize and accept other tracks of debate. Though as for the "god doesn't play dice with the universe quote" in the vast majority of interpretations of quantum physics, that has been abandoned and proved wrong.
Also most theists i know don't hide in proper philosophy anymore, because it has moved beyond the kind of infantile notions of god for the most part. It's in the faux-philosophy that we call theology that they hide.

Yeah, like I said, the "god doesn't play dice" quote was just to be funny. I don't know whether or not it can hold it's weight or not, because I'm no where near a theoretical physicist. I've heard Richard Dawkins quoting someone else saying: "If you think you know quantum physics, you don't know quantum physics". If there is anything I know, it's that, I don't know a damned thing about quantum physics other than I heard that shit works LOL.

I also didn't mean you had to be a logical positivist, I was just saying, if you had that type of view on the world, the type of argument you are making would be almost obvious. The only thing is, which you know, is that you can't assume that to be true in order to make and argument or you will be begging the question. I was just pointing out that an opponent would just deny quantum mechanics, modern physics, and maybe even science in general, to force you to have to substantiate it in your argument.

LOL, at faux-philosophy. I think that philosophy, for the most part, always had the better arguments on the side of atheism. But, you can't ignore the inevitable: God exists because god exists argument. Or someone forcing you into an argument that is basically: God doesn't exits because god doesn't exist. Those are the 2 best arguments I've ever heard regarding the existence of god.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2012, 07:33 PM
RE: Calling all physics experts
(25-05-2012 06:48 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(25-05-2012 02:32 PM)MrEchidna Wrote:  I don't take a logical positivist view, i like the critical rationalism of Karl Popper and the principles of falsifiability and such. Under that philosophical view, science is indeed substantiated. I realize my argument might not be the best way to attack the philosophical idea of god, and i know many other ways to do so. Its just it occurred to me awhile back that if an omnipotent being would have created the universe that there would be a noticeable effect on the universe, mainly making it exhibit signs of hard determinism. The argument i put forward is my own pet argument and i'm trying to refine it and make it better, and i realize and accept other tracks of debate. Though as for the "god doesn't play dice with the universe quote" in the vast majority of interpretations of quantum physics, that has been abandoned and proved wrong.
Also most theists i know don't hide in proper philosophy anymore, because it has moved beyond the kind of infantile notions of god for the most part. It's in the faux-philosophy that we call theology that they hide.

Yeah, like I said, the "god doesn't play dice" quote was just to be funny. I don't know whether or not it can hold it's weight or not, because I'm no where near a theoretical physicist. I've heard Richard Dawkins quoting someone else saying: "If you think you know quantum physics, you don't know quantum physics". If there is anything I know, it's that, I don't know a damned thing about quantum physics other than I heard that shit works LOL.

I also didn't mean you had to be a logical positivist, I was just saying, if you had that type of view on the world, the type of argument you are making would be almost obvious. The only thing is, which you know, is that you can't assume that to be true in order to make and argument or you will be begging the question. I was just pointing out that an opponent would just deny quantum mechanics, modern physics, and maybe even science in general, to force you to have to substantiate it in your argument.

LOL, at faux-philosophy. I think that philosophy, for the most part, always had the better arguments on the side of atheism. But, you can't ignore the inevitable: God exists because god exists argument. Or someone forcing you into an argument that is basically: God doesn't exits because god doesn't exist. Those are the 2 best arguments I've ever heard regarding the existence of god.
I see where your coming from, and yes my argument could easily be undone by someone who either deny's the efficacy of quantum mechanics or knows much more about it then me and beats me over the head with a textbook written by stephen hawking till i feel as stupid as i'd look. The argument wasn't designed to necessarily be convincing, or one to use in a popular debate but more one of application. I wouldn't use book on genetic drift to argue with a creationist. I admit i don't know anywhere near to anything about quantum mechanics. To even have a working knowledge of it, you need to know high-order mathematics. That is why i'm always open to anyone who knows more on the subject to correct me and i have heard such corrections. I'm more interested in the logic behind it, and the way the arguments constructed. Imagine the argument like a building i made and take great pride in. I'm not so much concerned with who or what the building is being used for, rather the structural integrity, and mindset behind the work.

I'm a philosophy major currently and am going into that so i'm kinda devoting my life to some brand of it (Consequentialist Ethics interest me more then anything) There's a time for putting forth arguments meant to convince someone (socratic dialog works wonders) and there are arguments put forth out of a sense of intellectual integrity and pride in the art of philosophy which could either be an argument of your own or a counterargument against someone else. I'm more interested in the latter, because the people who don't value intellectual integrity probably aren't going to be convinced by the other arguments either haha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: