461 replies to this topic

[freetoroam]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Where did I tell you god exists? Please, if you're going to act all offended, at least get your facts straight.

As an extra, you do not have proof god does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



I honestly have no idea what that last sentence is meant to be about. On the off chance that it's the usual 'you can't ask someone to prove something doesn't exist' then that's outright wrong. The only way you can say something is definitely the case is to disprove all other possibilities.

"When you have conclusive proof that gods cannot exist, give me a shout" this is what you asked, now if you do not believe in him, you would not be asking this question to me in the first place, unless you are on a wind up, if you do belive in him, then i have given you my answer in my previous post.
You see, you are asking me to proof something which can not be because there is no evidence at all that it does.
You prove to me that he does exist.

[Emma_Acid]

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

My point was aimed more at the atheists on here and most scientists you see in interview son the subject. It's jsut a general observation. They tend to go off the subject with their answer. Surely you have seen this?

They "go off the subject", because the question is literally meaningless. Ask the right questions of the right people and you'll start learning.

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

I'm not good at explaining things. So it's better i don't try. lol I'll probably end up saying something completely different to what I mean.

That has nothing to do with biology.

Quantum physics points to a new sort of reality that is counter intuitive. It is not "unexplainable" as you stated. And I still can't see how this in any way shores up any of your points.

[Coffey]

Rlyeh, on 30 November 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.

Explain what you mean? All they did was try to record it happening and it changed to what they expected to happen before they conducted the test.

Putting the recording device there made the particles act differently. How is that possible?! (an no the device was not interfering with it, that is made clear)

Emma_Acid, on 30 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

That has nothing to do with biology.

Quantum physics points to a new sort of reality that is counter intuitive. It is not "unexplainable" as you stated. And I still can't see how this in any way shores up any of your points.

I was using it as 1 example. It was not intended to be biology either.


If you really look into it you will see what I mean. I'm not good at explaining it and I'm not even going to try explaining something that took me years of research into this stuff to find. As I said I'm merely stating that there is unexplainable things that Scientists cannot explain and a lot of the leading scientists have stated how they believe it's more than what we know. Including Einstein:

Quote

Einstein grew increasingly troubled by the "Collapse of a Wave" and toward the end of his life at one point during a heart-to-heart talk with physicist Abraham Pais asked "Do you really believe the moon exists only when I look at it?"

So I'm pretty positive you can't claim to know better than him.

[Alienated Being]

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

If you really look into it you will see what I mean. I'm not good at explaining it and I'm not even going to try explaining something that took me years of research into this stuff to find. As I said I'm merely stating that there is unexplainable things that Scientists cannot explain and a lot of the leading scientists have stated how they believe it's more than what we know. Including Einstein:

You will find that many of Einstein's quotes are generally ambiguous, and taken out of context. From what I have gathered, what was really said is something along these lines...

Quote

"I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements.
That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured.
I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.".

He was not making reference to a lack of understanding pertaining to the nature of things when we are not observing them, rather that we can be confident that they are behaving in the same manner even when they are not being observed.

[Setton]

freetoroam, on 30 November 2012 - 01:47 PM, said:

"When you have conclusive proof that gods cannot exist, give me a shout" this is what you asked, now if you do not believe in him, you would not be asking this question to me in the first place, unless you are on a wind up, if you do belive in him, then i have given you my answer in my previous post.

Not so. I don't believe tectonic plates move due to deep mantle processes yet if you disproved it, I'd want to know about it.

I think the key difference here is I require proof before making any assertion. You evidently do not.

Quote

You see, you are asking me to proof something which can not be because there is no evidence at all that it does.
You prove to me that he does exist.

I am not required to prove anything as I have only stated a belief. As you are the one making a 'factual' statement, the onus is on you to provide proof. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You were the one who said god definitely does not exist. Now prove it or that is simply a belief.

I say again (with a revision courtesy of Arbenol68): Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.

Edited by Setton, 30 November 2012 - 03:40 PM.

[Alienated Being]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

I am not required to prove anything as I have only stated a belief. As you are the one making a 'factual' statement, the onus is on you to provide proof. I am not trying to convince you of anything. You were the one who said god definitely does not exist. Now prove it or that is simply a belief.

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

[Setton]

Alienated Being, on 30 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

Wait... you and I agree on something? Isn't that a sign the world's going to end?

[Alienated Being]

Setton, on 30 November 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Wait... you and I agree on something? Isn't that a sign the world's going to end?

The universe is imploding as we speak. God dammit.

[lightly]

I think Bob Dylan said it best ...  "  and you KNOW!  something's happening...  but   you don't know what it   IS

[Mr Right Wing]

iforgot, on 28 November 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

I'll start by saying that I'm not religious at all, and that I (probably) never will be. I guess a good description would be spiritual!

However, I'm really curious where, or what force, non-believers think we (and physical reality itself) came from. If everything in physical reality needs a cause to have an effect (simple laws of physics), then what was the initial cause to create the physical reality we live in? If everything in our physical reality needs a cause to have an effect, the only way for initial creation was for some outside force to essentially create our physical reality, or our reality must have broken its own laws of physics at the beginning of time.

By saying there was no cause, and knowing that our universe has not been around for an infinite amount of time means that a mystical (paranormal) force caused creation. By saying there was a cause, then something had to have created our universe (such as what many people would describe as 'God'). It seems like a simple and self defeating argument.

It's clear that our universe wasn't always in existence, so I'm anxious to hear your opinions. This simple reason is why I do not understand the die hard atheists, or people who take a close-minded skeptical stance instead of open-minded and skeptical view of our reality.

The thing we experience as reality is a collection of perceptions created in the mind.

No god created it, no big bang created it, we have. We is comes to the question of something objective existing behind the perceptions thats a different ball game altogether which quite easily descends into what people would call crazy talk.

As Quantum Mechanics shows if theres no information on something it doesnt exist. I therefore go for the non-dualist stance that the universe is a feedback loop created by ourselves by us seeking information.

The version of it in the Bible is Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge (gaining information).

[Liquid Gardens]

Alienated Being, on 30 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

As much as we don't particularly get along, I have to agree with you - even the most highly respected scientists agree that it is nothing short of blatant ignorance to assert that god absolutely can not exist. However, I believe in god as much as I believe in faeries, unicorns and pixies.

Not even the most highly respected atheists say that god 'absolutely cannot' exist, just that there's no good reason to think he does.

[Rlyeh]

Coffey, on 30 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

Explain what you mean? All they did was try to record it happening and it changed to what they expected to happen before they conducted the test.

How do you measure something so small you can't see?

Quote

How is that possible?! (an no the device was not interfering with it, that is made clear)

It most definitely was, otherwise the measuring device would have detected nothing.
In fact the video states the act of measurement affects the result.

Mr Right Wing, on 30 November 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

As Quantum Mechanics shows if theres no information on something it doesnt exist. I therefore go for the non-dualist stance that the universe is a feedback loop created by ourselves by us seeking information.

You've been corrected numerous times that QM says no such thing.

Edited by Rlyeh, 30 November 2012 - 07:03 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 29 November 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

I wouldn't call it that. Were you high?

That's because you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 30 November 2012 - 07:01 PM, said:

That's because you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Says the person who's information comes from hallucinations.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 30 November 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

Ofcourse to observe the particle you must interact with it.

Nope... You can interact with its entangled twin in a completely different room, on the other side of the universe or even in the future.