Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 12:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Not therefore Wizards. Just something you would expect to see if the Wizard exists.

Not really, no. This is just a post hoc rationalization attempt.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 12:57 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2015 01:05 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 12:35 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 12:24 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  No theory explains "Irreducible randomness" or theorizes a mechanism by which this happens.

Therefore wizards.

Here's a couple of slides from a Coursera class I took on "Reasons, Persons, and Freedom" from the University of Singapore. It had little to do with free will but it was an excellent information theoretic introduction to quantum physics.

[Image: randomness1_1.png]

[Image: randomness2_1.png]

BlowMe is right in that if we label what we cannot possibly comprehend as God it creates room for it. But so the fuck what? What can I do with that information? Might as well call it Bob for all the explanatory and predictive power it gives us. It is practically useless and is no more than mental masturbation. It certainly does not inform any change in behavior and sure as shit don't mean we gonna somehow survive our death which is what all these fuckers really fear. .. pussies.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
31-08-2015, 01:13 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 12:51 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 12:43 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Not therefore Wizards. Just something you would expect to see if the Wizard exists.

Not really, no. This is just a post hoc rationalization attempt.

Except that it is not. Before quantum mechanics, an observation of an event without a local cause would clearly have been considered supernatural. When such observations are actually made a post hoc rationalization classified them as natural only because we have actually observed them.

I have asked a couple of times that if atheists will not accept observations of effects without local causes as evidence of God's existence what would they accept? Each time I get as a response the sound of crickets.

You guys presuppose God does not exist and therefore you conclude He does not exist. No evidence whatsoever will ever satisfy you. You're as close minded as the fundamentalists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:22 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 01:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Before quantum mechanics, an observation of an event without a local cause would clearly have been considered supernatural. When such observations are actually made a post hoc rationalization classified them as natural only because we have actually observed them.

No, they are classified as natural because we have mechanisms for them.

(31-08-2015 01:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have asked a couple of times that if atheists will not accept observations of effects without local causes as evidence of God's existence what would they accept?

Something which actually directly indicates the presence of a god.

Unusual phenomena, even entirely unexplained phenomena, do not. That is nothing but the god of the gaps argument, and I hardly think we need to go over why that is fallacious again.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 01:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Before quantum mechanics, an observation of an event without a local cause would clearly have been considered supernatural. When such observations are actually made a post hoc rationalization classified them as natural only because we have actually observed them.

No, they are classified as natural because we have mechanisms for them.

Except that we do not have mechanisms for them.

(31-08-2015 01:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I have asked a couple of times that if atheists will not accept observations of effects without local causes as evidence of God's existence what would they accept?

Something which actually directly indicates the presence of a god.

Do you realize this isn't an answer to the question posed? I'll ask the question again.

If effects without local causes are not something which indicates the existence of God, what kind of thing or observation would indicate the existence of God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you realize this isn't an answer to the question posed?

It is. It's just not one you necessarily like.

(31-08-2015 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If effects without local causes are not something which indicates the existence of God, what kind of thing or observation would indicate the existence of God?

Something which directly indicates the presence of a god.

What that might actually be depends on what god you're talking about, but something along the lines of divine manifestation would qualify, for a start.

No amount of "that's weird" or "we don't know" is ever going to be evidence for a god, no matter how much you wish it was.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 11:00 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Bucky, if you are going to take the position that if something happens it is natural....including acts of God, you cannot now then claim there is no evidence for God because all observations indicate everything is natural. The position that acts of God are natural/supernatural is contradictory.

You made that shit up, Blowme. I never took any position with respect to either as they relate to any god. The meme "god" is undefined. There are no ''acts of god", and you have none to put forward as examples, and cannot until you define what they are, and the criteria fro the label, is. I merely pointed out how Biblical scholars, (which you are not) define a "miracle". There is not now, nor ever has been a "supernatural" (double-decker) realm. You have no evidence for it. I would never even bother to speak of such bullshit.

Be honest and don't just presuppose God does not exist when you think about the next question. What kind of natural events would indicate God's existence?
[/quote]

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:06 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 01:36 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-08-2015 01:33 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you realize this isn't an answer to the question posed?

It is. It's just not one you necessarily like.

Except that it isn't an answer.

You just turned the question into an answer. If you asked me, "what is a car?" and I answered "A car is a car". Would you consider that an answer?

You simply do not have an answer. In your mind, nothing will ever indicate the existence of God because you assume God does not exist and therefore conclude that God does not exist. Errant thinking.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2015, 02:11 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(31-08-2015 02:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Except that it isn't an answer.

It very much is. Especially since I have expanded upon it.

The critical word which you seem to be missing in my answer is "direct". You keep attempting to argue for indirect evidence in favor of a god's existence, such as unexplained phenomena and quantum entanglement. This doesn't indicate that a god is present. It only indicates that something strange is going on.

If I asked you for direct evidence of a murder, a recently-fired gun would not suffice. Anyone could have fired that gun for any reason. Direct evidence of a murder would be a body. Direct evidence of a god would be divine manifestation of some kind.

(31-08-2015 02:06 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In your mind, nothing will ever indicate the existence of God because you assume God does not exist and therefore conclude that God does not exist. Errant thinking.

A tip: do not attempt to tell your opponent what their position is. You only make yourself look like an arrogant fool.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-08-2015, 11:23 PM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I'm still curious what the significance was of asking for peer-review of the Bell's Theorem loophole-free experiment.
My only reason for it is to simply confirm what is already inevitable.
They've been doing these experiments for decades.
At first, EPR Paradox was shown to be falsified with Bell's Theorem, and then they showed that we needed to close "loopholes" in order to confirm, for sure, what was happening.
They've been closing them all successfully and are now saying they've finished closing the loopholes and we really have no reason to believe otherwise, yet people still are being hyper-skeptical and saying "but it's not peer-reviewed".
On that note, I wouldn't mind if some of you provided some sites that you say post peer reviewed papers. Nature claims they post peer-reviewed papers. So I'm challenging this until we get to the bottom of this.

So yeah, I'm going to find out the real status of this experiment and see if what you guys are saying is holding up about it not being peer-reviewed.
If it's not, and you're right, then I'll come back here and update.
If it is, then why do you guys give a shit (which I am confident you really don't in this case)?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: