Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 139 of 139
Like Tree31Likes

Thread: Proving the non-existence of god?

  1. #101  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    ...
    The universe is apt for entropy. ... .
    Are you sure of that?
    If so,
    Why so?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    When you begin assuming things that are not part of your reality, you halucinate, you are not reasonable. There's 2 types of people who currently fail at life:

    1) Religious people, who try to fit the entire existence in a God.
    2) Scientists, who try to fit the entire existence in a human brain. Existence will never fit in a human brain, it's human brain which fits in existence.

    I am proud to be the second one because at least I am not assuming things which are not of our world. I may be foolish and naive for thinking I can fit the existence in a human brain through an equation or a unified theory, but at least it's a far better try than sitting on my lap and claiming God made everything.

    There can be that existence is simply too big to fit into anything. I believe that existence and creation was always here. It has no beginning and it has no end. The whole concept of creator or logic behind it seems wrong. I don't think we will ever fit existence into a human brain operating according to human logic. Existence is...illogical. It has no purpose or meaning. It has no beginning. It exists but it might as well not exist. It simply does not matter. Ever.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    When you begin assuming things that are not part of your reality, you halucinate, you are not reasonable. There's 2 types of people who currently fail at life:

    1) Religious people, who try to fit the entire existence in a God.
    2) Scientists, who try to fit the entire existence in a human brain. Existence will never fit in a human brain, it's human brain which fits in existence.

    I am proud to be the second one because at least I am not assuming things which are not of our world. I may be foolish and naive for thinking I can fit the existence in a human brain through an equation or a unified theory, but at least it's a far better try than sitting on my lap and claiming God made everything.

    There can be that existence is simply too big to fit into anything. I believe that existence and creation was always here. It has no beginning and it has no end. The whole concept of creator or logic behind it seems wrong. I don't think we will ever fit existence into a human brain operating according to human logic. Existence is...illogical. It has no purpose or meaning. It has no beginning. It exists but it might as well not exist. It simply does not matter. Ever.
    How sad for you.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    (How come I'm not notified about these things?)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. You will have to justify the claimed incompatability.
    If God knows everything that is to occur to him, wouldn't it mean that he is powerless to stop this?

    2. Omnipotence may be possible outside this universe. (I assume you were using the immovable stone/irresistible force paradox)
    The paradox you mentioned might be solved by an entirely new set of physics "outside this universe." However, there is another "possible" weak spot. I'm not sure how effective this argument might be but, can he remove or limit his omnipotence? And if he can, that wouldn't be true omnipotence, would it?


    The wildcard of believers is that God is not part of nature, rather the creator of nature itself; and thus, is immune to any constraints that we might try to put on him. That's not fair, but there's really nothing I can do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    (How come I'm not notified about these things?)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. You will have to justify the claimed incompatability.
    If God knows everything that is to occur to him, wouldn't it mean that he is powerless to stop this?

    2. Omnipotence may be possible outside this universe. (I assume you were using the immovable stone/irresistible force paradox)
    The paradox you mentioned might be solved by an entirely new set of physics "outside this universe." However, there is another "possible" weak spot. I'm not sure how effective this argument might be but, can he remove or limit his omnipotence? And if he can, that wouldn't be true omnipotence, would it?


    The wildcard of believers is that God is not part of nature, rather the creator of nature itself; and thus, is immune to any constraints that we might try to put on him. That's not fair, but there's really nothing I can do.
    I don't think so. If God existed I don't think he could be portrayed by any picture, illustration or drawing, there is nothing like him. Omnipotence means, its power is infinite and incomparable. For example, if you say that God is 100,000 times stronger than the strongest human being, that's not God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    (How come I'm not notified about these things?)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. You will have to justify the claimed incompatability.
    If God knows everything that is to occur to him, wouldn't it mean that he is powerless to stop this?

    2. Omnipotence may be possible outside this universe. (I assume you were using the immovable stone/irresistible force paradox)
    The paradox you mentioned might be solved by an entirely new set of physics "outside this universe." However, there is another "possible" weak spot. I'm not sure how effective this argument might be but, can he remove or limit his omnipotence? And if he can, that wouldn't be true omnipotence, would it?


    The wildcard of believers is that God is not part of nature, rather the creator of nature itself; and thus, is immune to any constraints that we might try to put on him. That's not fair, but there's really nothing I can do.
    I don't think so. If God existed I don't think he could be portrayed by any picture, illustration or drawing, there is nothing like him. Omnipotence means, its power is infinite and incomparable. For example, if you say that God is 100,000 times stronger than the strongest human being, that's not God.
    Simply put, he's beyond our understanding and we shouldn't talk about him? Sounds good to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    If God knows everything that is to occur to him, wouldn't it mean that he is powerless to stop this?
    Nothing occurs to God, everything occurs because of God, so there is no paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    2. Omnipotence may be possible outside this universe. (I assume you were using the immovable stone/irresistible force paradox)
    The paradox you mentioned might be solved by an entirely new set of physics "outside this universe." However, there is another "possible" weak spot. I'm not sure how effective this argument might be but, can he remove or limit his omnipotence? And if he can, that wouldn't be true omnipotence, would it?
    God is allowed to define what is meant by immovable and irresistible.

    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    The wildcard of believers is that God is not part of nature, rather the creator of nature itself; and thus, is immune to any constraints that we might try to put on him. That's not fair, but there's really nothing I can do.
    Exactly, and that's because you are not God.
    alastairnye likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    (How come I'm not notified about these things?)
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    1. You will have to justify the claimed incompatability.
    If God knows everything that is to occur to him, wouldn't it mean that he is powerless to stop this?

    2. Omnipotence may be possible outside this universe. (I assume you were using the immovable stone/irresistible force paradox)
    The paradox you mentioned might be solved by an entirely new set of physics "outside this universe." However, there is another "possible" weak spot. I'm not sure how effective this argument might be but, can he remove or limit his omnipotence? And if he can, that wouldn't be true omnipotence, would it?


    The wildcard of believers is that God is not part of nature, rather the creator of nature itself; and thus, is immune to any constraints that we might try to put on him. That's not fair, but there's really nothing I can do.
    I don't think so. If God existed I don't think he could be portrayed by any picture, illustration or drawing, there is nothing like him. Omnipotence means, its power is infinite and incomparable. For example, if you say that God is 100,000 times stronger than the strongest human being, that's not God.
    Simply put, he's beyond our understanding and we shouldn't talk about him? Sounds good to me.
    Trying to understant existence and creation through human logic is guaranteed to fail because existence does not comply to human logic. It is far too complex and big to fit into it. It defies understanding on many levels because things that human beings deem impossible, happen all the time in the process of creation. It's why they use probability functions in quantum physics, because they have no idea what's going on and so they use statistics.

    But is that accurate? If I give you a statistic about the population density in USA, will you know what goes on in the country? Will you know its history, politics, technology and so on? From the statistic? The statistics tell you that you may find electrons in that area. That means we know nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    But is that accurate? If I give you a statistic about the population density in USA, will you know what goes on in the country? Will you know its history, politics, technology and so on? From the statistic? The statistics tell you that you may find electrons in that area. That means we know nothing.
    On question of accuracy, please study the Uncertainty Principle. For statistics, just to be certain about what you say, are you saying that we know nothing from statistics?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Will you know its history, politics, technology and so on? From the statistic? The statistics tell you that you may find electrons in that area. That means we know nothing.
    Wrong. It means we can't know everything. That does not mean we know nothing at all.

    It leaves it as a matter of judgment whether we know enough to come to particular conclusions or to undertake certain actions.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    It's why they use probability functions in quantum physics, because they have no idea what's going on and so they use statistics.
    At present it is impossible to say when a specific atom of uranium, or potassium, or rubidium will undergo fission. Yet if we have a sizeable group of such atoms we are able to say, statistically, how many will undergo fission in a given time. This has enabled us to date, with considerable accuracy, events that have occured on the Earth and even events preceding its formation. Indeed some of that dating has led us to understand how that formation occured. Therefore to say that we know nothing from statistics is a singularily ignorant thing to say. (However, statistically, it's not so unusual for you.)
    KALSTER and alastairnye like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Exactly, and that's because you are not God.
    But I think I can live, while rejecting a proposition that both lacks evidence and is unfavorable --- especially for me; I'll be damned for my blasphemy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by alastairnye View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Exactly, and that's because you are not God.
    But I think I can live, while rejecting a proposition that both lacks evidence and is unfavorable --- especially for me; I'll be damned for my blasphemy.
    Lack of evidence, sure, but because it is unfavourable? That is the reverse of many theists who claims the threat of damnation aids their belief, a position that is rightly derided.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    It's why they use probability functions in quantum physics, because they have no idea what's going on and so they use statistics.
    At present it is impossible to say when a specific atom of uranium, or potassium, or rubidium will undergo fission. Yet if we have a sizeable group of such atoms we are able to say, statistically, how many will undergo fission in a given time. This has enabled us to date, with considerable accuracy, events that have occured on the Earth and even events preceding its formation.
    A better example is atomic clocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Therefore to say that we know nothing from statistics is a singularly ignorant thing to say. (However, statistically, it's not so unusual for you.)
    Cool story bro but you know like your 5 fingers that I wasn't referring to the Wall-Street figures when I said statistics. I was talking about the lack of understanding of the quantum world resulting in the lack of a unified theory. If you take my words out of context and talk about the humidity percentage on Weather Network, statistics are useful but I think you can throw better punches than that lool.

    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    But is that accurate? If I give you a statistic about the population density in USA, will you know what goes on in the country? Will you know its history, politics, technology and so on? From the statistic? The statistics tell you that you may find electrons in that area. That means we know nothing.
    On question of accuracy, please study the Uncertainty Principle. For statistics, just to be certain about what you say, are you saying that we know nothing from statistics?
    Don't take out of context. With the USA analogy I explained more than clearly why we don't know much. Have you ever seen a nucleus with your own eyes? With the NASA microscope? Have you seen one?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Thor. Does Thor exist? Really? With his hammer, and the giants, the rainbow, etc? How about Zeus? Does anyone feel any deep unquenchable desire to scientifically *disprove* Thor in order not to believe such a persona is anything other than a man made myth? Do most non christians that hear about the christian bubble of delusion with its angels, and limbo, and Noa's arc, and learn that miracles didnt make headline news in the roman empire, have the slightest doubt that God is a steaming pile of BS. Probably not, not any more than most people have no doubt that Thor or Zeus, which in their respective cultures could have been believed in, is anything other than myth.

    So, I think some of the Atheists that entertain a doubt about the Delusion Bubble they are in, either are soaked in the culture to the point of thinking the delusion is normal (so many people around me think this, who knows, maybe its me that wrong?), or, are a bit shy about saying to people they respect that their belief is BS and entertain the slight doubt as a polite politically correct view ("Yes, indeed perhaps your grand mother is happy in heaven, so dry your tears, she's in a better place now and looking over us, all will be fine" thinking 'what the heck, a little white lie might as well be useful anyway').

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=q631uZ6DQzg


    Also, think about a first contact situation, where Aliens from planet V-Delta-467, who have visited planets across this section of the galaxy, never hear of Yave, Moises, Jesus, etc are presented the Case for God...

    ...Yes, and of all the places in the universe, God just happened to select that sub sector of goat hearding tribes right here to spread the good news, arent we lucky or what? cool heh...
    ... and then all the animals on the planet crossed ocreans and climate zones to reach a boat to avoid...
    ... thats right, theres 7 days, Why 7in particular? Isnt there *7* days in a week where your from?... ...well because it took 6 days(what ever's the number) to make the universe and of course "God" needed to rest after all that magical hard work, so...
    ... Not only did he walk on water, but...
    ... and the bible, which was written by people that thought our planet was flat, says that...
    ... oh, but its all true, because you cant disprove our delusion, God is invisible and outside the universe, but can act by magic to affect anything...

    Somehow, I dont think the alien will have any doubt about this being BS, because hes not influenced by the culture, he can see the BS right away.


    And finally, I believe in BlackerySlagon. What's that? Well, I cant really define it, per say, because Ive never actually seen any BlackerySlagon, but what ever it is it is what might be responsible for the universe existing, what ever we'll find eventually, lets call that BlackerySlagon and then define it, but Ill have the merit of having initiated the prophecy, and say I knew it all along, whatever it is well find. I might give you more details about BlackerySlagon, but lets ignore anything that we discover doesnt fit reality, as we go along, and redefine it with respect to what we do find while pretending the incorrect details dont matter. So, BlackerySlagon single handedly created Universe in 6 days, well ok, lets forget that. BlackerySlagon made the human from a apple and made goats just he way they are. What? A fossil? Oh, no I meant to say BlackerySlagon created the early earth what ever way well find it was really, 6 thousand years. What? Carbon dating? Crap. Anyway, BlackerySlagon was a man in the clouds, and thats why you cant have woman as advocates of BlackerySlagon. What? Thats silly? ok, lets say hes a energy outside the universe, but only men can be advocates of BlackerySlagon just because thats what BlackerySlagon wants, and the earth is the center of the universe, ooops, better make that the sun, oops... And Limbo... what, no one beleives in Limbo anymore? Ok Limbo no longer officially exists...
    Last edited by icewendigo; September 28th, 2012 at 03:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    I wouldn't discard God, not even the Bible, but rest assured, I am far from naive. I have for a long time wondered what is the greatest criminal mind. It is someone who spends his entire life writing a bulletproof story and pass it for real, knowing that it's just a story, so that people can believe in it and choose it over reality. Despite me being a chemist, I cannot imagine an adequate torture to punish such a crime. I don't think there is one with the current technology but if we were able to do brain transplants, an adequate punishment according to me would be to burn most of the body area with hydrofluoric acid, allowing an excruciatingly painful death over a period of 7 days, after which the brain would be transplanted into a healthy body (clone) and the procedure repeated, 1001 times during a period of 20 years.

    A man who believes something which is not part of reality is a very dangerous man, and a few billion like him are a danger to the entire human race. So remember, the story could be true, but if it's just a story, what an idiotic, murderous author that was!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    But is that accurate? If I give you a statistic about the population density in USA, will you know what goes on in the country? Will you know its history, politics, technology and so on? From the statistic? The statistics tell you that you may find electrons in that area. That means we know nothing.
    On question of accuracy, please study the Uncertainty Principle. For statistics, just to be certain about what you say, are you saying that we know nothing from statistics?
    Don't take out of context. With the USA analogy I explained more than clearly why we don't know much. Have you ever seen a nucleus with your own eyes? With the NASA microscope? Have you seen one?
    Let's talk about the analogy. You say statistics about population density of USA cannot tell about its history, politics, technology and so on. Why do you limit the statistical information only on population density? Can you tell about USA history by information about staying a day in the Central Park? If you have a lot of statistical information you can tell a lot about anything.
    But just on population density alone you may be able to tell:
    Whether people prefer living in the city rather than in the urban.
    Whether they prefer living along the coast.
    Whether they increasingly move inland as decades passed.
    Whether they keep on living closer together or spreading thinner.
    etc.

    And about seeing nucleus, now that you ask, I am not sure whether I ever see nucleus with my own eyes. I think when light reflects from something, the photon probably hit the nucleus, not the electron. If it is so then I have actually seen nucleus.

    But why do you ask?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Have you ever seen a nucleus with your own eyes? With the NASA microscope? Have you seen one?
    What is this supposed to be demonstrating exactly? Are you suggesting that making claims based on evidence and experimental data is a bad approach? Are you saying that the visibility of something is the only way to prove it? Does a blind person have to take their own existence on faith?
    Oxycodone likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Let's talk about the analogy. You say statistics about population density of USA cannot tell about its history, politics, technology and so on. Why do you limit the statistical information only on population density? Can you tell about USA history by information about staying a day in the Central Park? If you have a lot of statistical information you can tell a lot about anything.
    Because the quantum world is limited on predicting the electron density only. It may predict potential and so on but the main physical property calculated is the density function Phi. So here I compare electrons to human beings. It's like saying there's a probability of finding humans into the forest, but you don't know exactly where they are because you never went there.

    So my point is, are they using a probability because the quantum world will never behave according to any rules, or is it because they don't know the rules?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Have you ever seen a nucleus with your own eyes? With the NASA microscope? Have you seen one?
    What is this supposed to be demonstrating exactly? Are you suggesting that making claims based on evidence and experimental data is a bad approach? Are you saying that the visibility of something is the only way to prove it? Does a blind person have to take their own existence on faith?
    It demonstrates my point, that electrons are like human beings into a forest, and say some distant aliens scan us for population density, saying there's humans in that forest, but they've never been into the forest and they never saw a single human being, ever. How much do the aliens know about us? That is our situation now. We don't know exactly where the electrons are and we never saw one. Not even a nucleus. We saw an atom but...but not a nucleus.

    I think the key in observing atom behavior is not zooming in more it's slowing down time. The problem with the electrons is not really their small size as it is for the fact that they move really fast...too fast for us to see anything. Existence is like this: Large scale objects like planets and galaxies move very slow, medium scale objects like human beings move much faster, and very small objects like electrons move very very fast. It's how existence works. Things speed up when you go from large objects down to small objects. Things speed up so much you can no longer make anything of it. I feel it during meditation.

    If the galaxy had eyes and could zoom in on the Earth and try to observe human beings, they would move so fast...the galaxy couldn't see anything and so, it would associate density function Phi to describe the probability of finding a human being. So my point is, just because on the small scale things happen too fast for you to see anything, is it ok to say it's a nonsense crap and just stick a probability to it?

    Humans have this logic of wanting to wrap things up. They want to find the string and say: The entire existence is made up of these tiny strings. They want closure. They want understanding of everything so when they find something small, they keep looking for other things that are even smaller, and the cycle never ends. I am pretty sure that there are objects much smaller than quarks but they didn't see them yet with this technology. It could be very simple and they may find the strings but what i say it, it may also be very complicated...and they may never find the string. As long as they cannot find the string and calculate everything about it, humans will not have a unified theory. the answer resides in the infinitly small, it's all about seeing how deep the rabbithole goes.

    When you look deep enough and reach the end, you will have the unified theory that describes our Universe, but it will still not describe existence. The unified theory equation will only describe our UNIVERSE, not anything else. When you try to jump into another dimension, it's like a videogame carracter trying to come out of the screen and go buy some stuff at Wall Mart. It doesn't work. THe videogame carracter will only be able to make a unified theory and say his entire Universe is made of zeros and ones, 0101001010, but saying that the entire existence is made of zeros and ones is...laughable at best. Nothing will ever define existence. There is nothing like it and it doesn't fit into anything, it is not bound by any equation and can behave in any way. It is the most free and powerful entity ever because nothing can affect it or disturb it.
    Last edited by Oxycodone; September 29th, 2012 at 09:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I think I get what you're saying, but processing it will take some time. I still haven't had breakfast.
    Oxycodone likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    I think I get what you're saying, but processing it will take some time. I still haven't had breakfast.
    Take your time, these discussions are very helpful and important, it's helpful for me, to better understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post

    Because the quantum world is limited on predicting the electron density only. It may predict potential and so on but the main physical property calculated is the density function Phi. So here I compare electrons to human beings. It's like saying there's a probability of finding humans into the forest, but you don't know exactly where they are because you never went there.

    So my point is, are they using a probability because the quantum world will never behave according to any rules, or is it because they don't know the rules?
    So you believe that quantum theory is nothing but the prediction of electron density, and conclude that it knows nothing, right?

    Which means that there is no benefit or advance in technology that come from the application of this theory, right?

    And you don't really mean statistics in general does not tell anything useful about a certain subject, right?
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post

    Because the quantum world is limited on predicting the electron density only. It may predict potential and so on but the main physical property calculated is the density function Phi. So here I compare electrons to human beings. It's like saying there's a probability of finding humans into the forest, but you don't know exactly where they are because you never went there.

    So my point is, are they using a probability because the quantum world will never behave according to any rules, or is it because they don't know the rules?
    So I believe that quantum theory is nothing but the prediction of electron density, and conclude that it knows nothing, right?

    Which means that there is no benefit or advance in technology that come from the application of this theory, right?

    And I don't really mean statistics in general does not tell anything useful about a certain subject, right?
    Fixed. Put your words in your own mouth, leave others alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post

    Because the quantum world is limited on predicting the electron density only. It may predict potential and so on but the main physical property calculated is the density function Phi. So here I compare electrons to human beings. It's like saying there's a probability of finding humans into the forest, but you don't know exactly where they are because you never went there.

    So my point is, are they using a probability because the quantum world will never behave according to any rules, or is it because they don't know the rules?
    So I believe that quantum theory is nothing but the prediction of electron density, and conclude that it knows nothing, right?

    Which means that there is no benefit or advance in technology that come from the application of this theory, right?

    And I don't really mean statistics in general does not tell anything useful about a certain subject, right?
    Fixed. Put your words in your own mouth, leave others alone.
    I just ask for clarification, since it is hard to believe that you are as ignorant as your statements indicate. May be you are simply arrogant.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Therefore to say that we know nothing from statistics is a singularly ignorant thing to say. (However, statistically, it's not so unusual for you.)
    Cool story bro but you know like your 5 fingers that I wasn't referring to the Wall-Street figures when I said statistics. I was talking about the lack of understanding of the quantum world resulting in the lack of a unified theory. If you take my words out of context and talk about the humidity percentage on Weather Network, statistics are useful but I think you can throw better punches than that lool.
    I did not know what you were referring to. If I had I should have posted differently, or not at all. your context was not clear. Responsibility for writtent communication resides primarily with the writer, not the reader.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post

    Because the quantum world is limited on predicting the electron density only. It may predict potential and so on but the main physical property calculated is the density function Phi. So here I compare electrons to human beings. It's like saying there's a probability of finding humans into the forest, but you don't know exactly where they are because you never went there.

    So my point is, are they using a probability because the quantum world will never behave according to any rules, or is it because they don't know the rules?
    So I believe that quantum theory is nothing but the prediction of electron density, and conclude that it knows nothing, right?

    Which means that there is no benefit or advance in technology that come from the application of this theory, right?

    And I don't really mean statistics in general does not tell anything useful about a certain subject, right?
    Fixed. Put your words in your own mouth, leave others alone.
    I just ask for clarification, since it is hard to believe that you are as ignorant as your statements indicate. May be you are simply arrogant.
    No! Quantum theory is flawless, it tells everything. Is compiler happy now?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Therefore to say that we know nothing from statistics is a singularly ignorant thing to say. (However, statistically, it's not so unusual for you.)
    Cool story bro but you know like your 5 fingers that I wasn't referring to the Wall-Street figures when I said statistics. I was talking about the lack of understanding of the quantum world resulting in the lack of a unified theory. If you take my words out of context and talk about the humidity percentage on Weather Network, statistics are useful but I think you can throw better punches than that lool.
    I did not know what you were referring to. If I had I should have posted differently, or not at all. your context was not clear. Responsibility for writtent communication resides primarily with the writer, not the reader.
    Ya lol

    My bad, I should use the term statistical mechanics and I say statistics out of lazyness...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Quote Originally Posted by Oxycodone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prasit View Post
    I just ask for clarification, since it is hard to believe that you are as ignorant as your statements indicate. May be you are simply arrogant.
    No! Quantum theory is flawless, it tells everything. Is compiler happy now?
    I am happy now. You are not quite there yet, but much closer.
    If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism
    -Albert Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129 spoken by a true rebel (otherwise known as an ignored child) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6
    The devils greatest lie is to prove the absence of GodHes got so many people running around so confused about what to believe in and who to follow, its almost comical if it wasnt so sad, The science community makes me laugh, our world is millions of years old and we are born of apes and the earth formed of waters and weather, seriously ?Were is the scientific proof of any of that ? The same people that claim that also helped write our history that Columbus discovered america, really? The Idea of evolution makes me laugh out loud, we are being bombarded by aliens and monsters and ghosts, lolWitches and science it must all be true because experts say it is.The proof that the world is so very old is proven with carbon dating, we prove this is true because we compare it to the other, guess how we proved the other was true ? You guessed it, carbon dating, yeah, catching on now ?Im not dissing science because it is a useful tool in many ways, but when you make a statement like scientific fact, thats not two words that belong together, theres science and then theres fact, theres no such thing as scientific fact. Science is a practice of puting reason to something you cant explain any other way, unfortunatly the world can not hold boths science and religon. let me put it this way for all the scientists, no two forms can occupy the same space at the same time, so theres religon and science, they cant both share the same space, good and evil, cant share the same space either, you can chose to believe there is the existance of God but believe in science, but science tells you God cant exist, likewise Bible disagrees with science, you can chose to believe what you want but when the day comes that you must make a choice, well see wich belief gives you eternal life, and always remember, some things are true whether you believe them or notI suggest this, read your Bible with the truest of heart and pray for answer and you will find what your looking for
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by lindamariejones View Post
    The devils greatest lie is to prove the absence of God...bla bla bla....I suggest this, read your Bible with the truest of heart and pray for answer and you will find what your looking for
    I suggest you find another forum if you intend to preach.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131 why isnt God on this list ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6
    Im having trouble navigating this site so tossing this in were I can, sorry to who ever this fouls yaTo answer a questionGod wasnt on my list of things I dont believe in was kinda obviousI believe in God n I said Prove im wrongThere is no other explanation for my life other than God made me, God saved me, and best of all God isnt done with me yetGod doesnt belong on that list, I said to please try to prove to me that monsters, aliens or any of that other stuff is true, cuz I dont see how any of it can be true, God doesnt belong on that list, this is my opinion and I have a right to it, you know what I love about science ? Theres no room for anything else because if you believe in it you cant possibly believe anything else, it will contradict but I can believe in God n still see the beauty of other things,I hope I answered that questions
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6
    I rest my case, no way someone can possibly believe anything other than your opinion, as usualThats not a forum, thats germany
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by lindamariejones View Post
    I rest my case, no way someone can possibly believe anything other than your opinion
    Some of us prefer evidence to opinion.

    Thats not a forum, thats germany
    Oh grow up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    Quote Originally Posted by lindamariejones View Post
    I said to please try to prove to me that monsters, aliens or any of that other stuff is true
    Why would anyone try and prove those things? We have no evidence for any of the things you mention. So, personally, with no evidence I would assume they do not exist.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6
    Seriously, did you just use carbon dating and science to defend your argument for carbon dating and science ?You really are in deep, Im very inteligent too, but I dont rely on science to explain away my religous beliefs, look for your own opinions based on your own facts not the crap they pump into you for years, look for your own answer not someone elses, you will never own it unless you step out of that mold they trapped you in, I know your a smart person, I wasnt trying to argue that, but dont get angry at me for not jumping on the wagon with you, I have a brain and chose to use it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I dont rely on science to explain away my religous beliefs
    Science and religion have nothing in common. Neither can be used to support or refute the other.

    Science relies on evidence and appropriate techniques for evaluating that evidence. The only requirement for religion is faith (or belief or spiritual insight or whatever a particular religion says is valuable). There is no evidence of any kind for Krishna or Thor or Zeus or the Rainbow Serpent or for the single omnipotent God at the centre of the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths.

    Theology and comparative religion is interesting to people who believe in one or several gods or who are interested in teasing out the similarities and differences between various forms of belief. But there is no scientific relevance, interest or value there except to psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Theres no room for anything else because if you believe in it you cant possibly believe anything else, it will contradict but I can believe in God n still see the beauty of other things,I hope I answered that questions
    This forum is full of people who are able to reconcile science and a belief in god. If you hang out here for a while you might come to understand how. Only the most stringent definition of a personal god don't fit science, but there is a sea of ideas about the very definition of god--ranging from an extremist Abrahamic views on one end to total set of natural laws on the other. The entire range recognizes the beauty of universe, often at a profoundly emotional level--even this atheist for things I understand quite well (weather phenomena).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,496
    never mind ...
    Last edited by Strange; October 20th, 2012 at 08:02 PM. Reason: found the answer... :)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,802
    Quote Originally Posted by lindamariejones View Post
    look for your own answer not someone elses.
    Are you the first person to use God as an answer?
    Strange and MrMojo1 like this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. does existence of God disprove the Devil ?
    By pipster in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 13th, 2011, 05:53 AM
  2. proving coplanarity
    By scientist91 in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 14th, 2010, 04:03 AM
  3. How Evolution Proves the Existence of God
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Mrs. God says God is a one woman God. No Mary thank you.
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 7th, 2008, 01:30 PM
  5. Proving God.
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2007, 08:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •