Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2015, 01:04 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 01:02 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(08-07-2015 12:49 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Why is atheism the "default position"?

Because god/gods is an idea. When one is first born, one is unaware of a god or religion until told so. Until educated and indoctrinated into a particular religion, such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc.

Religions of all stripes through the ages have been ideas. Religion began thousands of years ago. Most gods have been forgotten because they existed before the written word. Take a god like Zeus. Zeus was worshipped for many thousands of years until that god became unfashionable. Just as others before him.

Nowadays humanity has advanced far beyond the words in, for example the bible, that tell us the second coming will be foreshadowed by stars falling upon the earth. Now we know what stars are and how huge and far away they are. It is impossible for a star to fall upon the earth.

That said, it is now the responsibility of those who assert the existence of something, to prove it exists. It is not for an atheist, for example to disprove something that they never asserted to existing in the first place. As a believer, that is your task.

Now, this thread is devoted to physics. Not basic, and this is extremely basic, questions which have nothing to do with physics.

Rather than derail this physics thread, perhaps open your own thread and prove to us the existence of whichever of the many thousands of gods it is in which you believe.

I hope this is clear?

You're making very good points. However, atheism is still contradictory. If atheism is contradictory, God must exist.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 01:05 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Thank you Banjo, I really appreciate that. Unfortunately, gathering from what I'm reading in his reputation page, this one doesn't understand reason.
You definitely deserve a +1 for that, however. Wink

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
08-07-2015, 01:06 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 01:05 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Thank you Banjo, I really appreciate that. Unfortunately, gathering from what I'm reading in his reputation page, this one doesn't understand reason.
You definitely deserve a +1 for that, however. Wink

Reason is contradictory without God.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2015, 01:08 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Diddo97, you either haven't reached puberty yet, or your brain is underdeveloped.
Please find another target, my thread is not the place.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
08-07-2015, 01:09 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(08-07-2015 01:06 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  Reason is contradictory without God.


This statement is both off topic and nonsensical. It has no meaning.

Please leave this physics thread and start one of your own.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
08-07-2015, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2015 04:45 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  "There have been proposed ways to (eventually) detect them" does not somehow raise the multiverse hypothesis to a new level of detection. You either can or you cannot currently test the hypothesis. Saying "we may eventually be able to test this" doesn't somehow make that idea a better alternative if it's still making unnecessary assumptions.

I see you REALLY know nothing about the real physics or the ways that HAVE been proposed to test this.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  It's good that I've defined what I mean by 'god', then. Since you're just throwing the term around, why don't you go ahead and define your term since you don't seem to either understand what I mean, or you simply do not care. Either way, if you're not on the same page, then you're irrelevant to this thread and will be ignored if you don't get on the same page.

Waaa waaa waaa.
There is no coherent definition, and your crap is no bettter than all the others just because you copy-paste someone else's definition of a deity. You definition is not coherent, And your "proof" is totally ignorant, theologically and philosophically. There is no "getting on the same page" with crappy ignorant incoherent ideas.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  And here you are making baseless assumptions about me.
Ad Hominem statements to undermine the argument. You and a couple others are doing this repeatedly in here.

Well here you are AGAIN, still making *arguments* for an incoherent idea. The truth hurts. Too bad.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You don't seem to know what you're talking about here as this statement is incomplete.

No. You just don't get it.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Firstly, I haven't "ended" at god. I haven't said anything about this thing being the end of anything. This is open to other options as well. I simply am appealing to a simpler alternative to the MWI and Simulation hypothesis. Using the Occam's Razor Heuristic, I am going with the explanation with the least amount of assumptions or unnecessarily added entities.

Occam's Razor is crap. Sometimes the truth is complex, sometimes not. The ONLY thing to do is go with the EVIDENCE. There is none for a god, AND no one sees you propose any OTHER explanation other than the gods. You HAVE "ended" with the god as an explanation, you're just not honest enough to admit it. IF YOU HAVEN'T, lets hear it.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  The MWI adds an entire universe for every quantum transaction in your body. That's already a number of undetectable universes that breaks your calculator when you try to calculate it. Then add every quantum transaction in our entire cosmos and you have a complicated system of undetectable universes, each allegedly with their own unique quantum properties. So at the base level, this idea grossly violates the Occam's Heuristic.

Irrelevant. If it's true it's true, if it's not it's not. (What ? You learned a new big word ? You think "Heuristic" makes your garbage sound all "smart" ? It's bullshit.
Does Relativity or Uncertainty comply with "Occam's *heuristic*" ? Hahahaha

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I did mention that the MWI suffers from the Preferred Basis Problem as well as rectifying the Born Rule. However, it seems that a few of you don't like that this thread is so "sciencey". So I'm apparently supposed to not use so much science.
This kind of reminds me of when I was much younger, in the Pentecostal Church. I would study my Bible better than my pastor did while I was at home. Every Sunday, I would have a large list of questions for the pastor. I figured he would have answers to these questions. He is the pastor after all...
As I brought him the questions in-between services, he blanketed all my questions with one simple answer - "Put down the books. Ask god to give you the answers you need."
Thereby sending me on my journey out of organized religion.

Irrelevant. There are no proofs for any deity. No one cares. Either MWI is true or it's not, and we will know when the evidence is in. There will NEVER be any for any god.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So as I stated earlier in this thread, I am not interested in irrelevant comments. I am also not interested in antagonistic responses. I am not interested in one-line dismissals. I also do not care if you think I am presenting too much material. This stuff isn't going anywhere, and I have already made it clear that I am not trying to overwhelm anyone. I am going to answer any and all questions, as long as they are relevant and genuine questions, of course.

Irrelevant. You have presented no RELEVANT points. YOU think you have. You don't get to dismiss things because they are inconvenient. You "overwhelm" no one. Apparently you think you got smarter in your absence. You didn't.

(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  You completely misunderstood my statement and simultaneously made a straw man. I'm not going to humor this with a response.

Exactly. You CAN'T *humor* it, as you have no answer for Epicurus, just like every other theist never has. It's INCONVENIENT so you toss it out. YOU have no answer to pain and suffering, which MUST be addressed by theism, and you don't want to bother. Apparently you got lazy too, in your absence.


(07-07-2015 10:08 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I'm not sure why, but you and TheInquisition seem to have this problem in common so far. You've skimmed through my material and comments and made responses that show this like a sore thumb. I've given a particular definition of my proposal that is separate from the definition you quoted me saying - and then you credited me for using that instead. I'll let you chew on that a little bit and see if it finally makes sense for you.

No. You turned into yet another internet nut who thinks *your* bullshit is somehow very special. It's not. It's crap. Your definition of a deity is incoherent. Your physics does not lead to your OWN conclusion. Your theology is ignorant. Your limitations of your OWN argument you deny. It's pathetic, and you're gonna have to do MUCH better.

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
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-07-2015, 05:20 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
It's impressive that you can act like a complete dick to me even as I'm hardly asking for it, and several people actually "like" that. So far, Bucky Ball has outed himself as irrelevant to the thread. Diddo is just retarded.
And Szuchow, Banjo and TheInquisition like when Bucky Ball is a douche cannon.
Dually noted.

In any case, I'll get back to responding to other posts that are actually on topic.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
08-07-2015, 05:27 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Also, Bucky, your quoting of Epicurus is entirely irrelevant to this thread as I've pointed out in plain English that I am not referring to a religious "God" of any kind. My lack of response should have hinted at that. Instead you took that as a victory of some sort.
Strange.

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
08-07-2015, 05:28 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
I tend to like certain points made. It does not necessarily mean I like every point. Nor does it mean I support all content within a post. I have also liked points of yours. I just like giving likes. Smile

I am actually enjoying this debate. I know virtually nothing of physics and it is why I defended your thread earlier from Dildo.

I look forward to reading more. I am reading, not participating. Please carry on.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-07-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: Quantum and Digital Physics argument for the existence of God.
Yeah, that did throw me off a little when you defended me against one troll and then seemed to support another that was a bit off-base with virtually every comment he's made so far.

No worries. I'm rather enjoying this discussion as well. Big Grin

“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
[+] 1 user Likes ideasonscribe's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: