The atheist's dilemma and the state of Physics

[VitalOne]

In the current state of physics, there are many different theories attempting to explain the result of the quantum double-slit experiment, however at the moment there is no clear evidence as to which one is actually true.

Some of these theories make an afterlife and soul probable and likely, no longer can the atheist say there's no reason to believe in a soul or afterlife.

So the question is what faith gives the atheist the reason to believe that there's a 0% chance of a soul or afterlife existing? The atheist must either have knowledge of everything, or lots of blind faith to deny the possibility.

 

[glaucon]

In the current state of physics, there are many different theories attempting to explain the result of the quantum double-slit experiment, however at the moment there is no clear evidence as to which one is actually true.

Some of these theories make an afterlife and soul probable and likely,
...

Non Sequitor.

How did you come to this conclusion?

So the question is what faith gives the atheist the reason to believe that there's a 0% chance of a soul or afterlife existing?
...

No faith.
The atheist has no need of faith. At best, we look at faith as abberant behaviour, at worst, irrational. Note how you make use of the word "reason". Note also how the word faith directly contradicts reason.

What grants the atheist reason to believe that there is no soul and no afterlife is threefold: empirical experience, probability and logic. The three of these quite soundly inform us that it would be highly unreasonable to believe in a soul and an afterlife.

...
The atheist must either have knowledge of everything, or lots of blind faith to deny the possibility.

Artificial dichotomy.

Complete knowledge is an impossibility, and we make use of no faith, reason serves better.

 

[spidergoat]

Strawman. Most rational atheists don't say such concepts are 100% wrong, but only so improbable that they preclude belief.

The double slit experiment is weird, but I don't see how it gives cause for belief in the afterlife or the soul.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

In the current state of physics, there are many different theories attempting to explain the result of the quantum double-slit experiment, however at the moment there is no clear evidence as to which one is actually true.

Correct.

Some of these theories make an afterlife and soul probable and likely, no longer can the atheist say there's no reason to believe in a soul or afterlife.

Please descibe one such theory as I am not aware of any that do this.

So the question is what faith gives the atheist the reason to believe that there's a 0% chance of a soul or afterlife existing?

If by 'faith' you mean unconditional trust then I place my faith in reality. What it says is true is true. At present reality doesn't show any supportive evidence for the existince of a 'soul' or 'afterlife' (in fact it shows contradictory evidence).

The atheist must either have knowledge of everything, or lots of blind faith to deny the possibility.

A very flawed conclusion.

 

[swivel]

In the current state of physics, there are many different theories attempting to explain the result of the quantum double-slit experiment, however at the moment there is no clear evidence as to which one is actually true.

Some of these theories make an afterlife and soul probable and likely, no longer can the atheist say there's no reason to believe in a soul or afterlife.

So the question is what faith gives the atheist the reason to believe that there's a 0% chance of a soul or afterlife existing? The atheist must either have knowledge of everything, or lots of blind faith to deny the possibility.

1. Physicists are doing experiments and NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN.

2. Therefore I, VitalOne, KNOW THAT THESE EXPERIMENTS BACK UP MY ALREADY-HELD BELIEFS.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Strawman. Most rational atheists don't say such concepts are 100% wrong, but only so improbable that they preclude belief.

The double slit experiment is weird, but I don't see how it gives cause for belief in the afterlife or the soul.

He might not understand what the double slit experiment shows in the first place. For the sake of clarity it might be beneficial to state it. The double slit experiment shows that small particles (anything from photons to carbon atoms) can be temporarily cloned long enough measure. The duration which the clone(s) last is a function of the size/density of the particle and the relationships (or lack of) the particle has with its environment.

I am personally rooting for Penrose' theory being the correct one

 

[superluminal]

All that the DS experiment means is that matter and energy on very small scales behaves differently than we're used to (as you might expect). A particle is an entity that exhibits point/wave aspects. It dosen't mean or imply anything else. It's like a bird having different behavior than a fish. Nothing really amazing about it.

 

[swivel]

All that the DS experiment means is that matter and energy on very small scales behaves differently than we're used to (as you might expect). A particle is an entity that exhibits point/wave aspects. It dosen't mean or imply anything else. It's like a bird having different behavior than a fish. Nothing really amazing about it.

Are you sure the Double Slit experiment doesn't prove god's existence and my own immortality? Because I can't figure out what it could possibly mean, which SHOULD give me free license to just make some crazy shit up.

Right?

 

[superluminal]

Are you sure the Double Slit experiment doesn't prove god's existence and my own immortality? Because I can't figure out what it could possibly mean, which SHOULD give me free license to just make some crazy shit up.

Right?

Ok, ok. You've made your point. You can be immortal. And have your god. And make up crazy shit too. The DSE proves it all.

:m:

 

[VitalOne]

All that the DS experiment means is that matter and energy on very small scales behaves differently than we're used to (as you might expect). A particle is an entity that exhibits point/wave aspects. It dosen't mean or imply anything else. It's like a bird having different behavior than a fish. Nothing really amazing about it.

Actually, thats your personal interpretation of the experiment. Other interpretations say that it means that reality isn't independant of an observer. Other interpretations say that it means there's infinite timelines/realities, and others etc....your personal interpretation says that matter behaves differently on a small scale....the macro-level is composed of the quantum-level..invalidating your interpretation

He might not understand what the double slit experiment shows in the first place. For the sake of clarity it might be beneficial to state it. The double slit experiment shows that small particles (anything from photons to carbon atoms) can be temporarily cloned long enough measure. The duration which the clone(s) last is a function of the size/density of the particle and the relationships (or lack of) the particle has with its environment.

I am personally rooting for Penrose' theory being the correct one

Thats your personal interpretation. The Copaghen interpretation says something else as does the many-worlds-interpretation. The only thing the interpretations all agree on is the objective results of the double-slit experiment, they all attempt to explain what happened differently

1. Physicists are doing experiments and NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY MEAN.

2. Therefore I, VitalOne, KNOW THAT THESE EXPERIMENTS BACK UP MY ALREADY-HELD BELIEFS.

I wouldn't say nobody knows they mean, I would say there's no clear evidence showing what it actually means

Please descibe one such theory as I am not aware of any that do this.

Well there's the many-minds interpretation, quantum immortality, consciousness causes collapse, etc....none of these theories are more verifiable then the other because there's no experimental evidence showing which one is actually true

If by 'faith' you mean unconditional trust then I place my faith in reality. What it says is true is true. At present reality doesn't show any supportive evidence for the existince of a 'soul' or 'afterlife' (in fact it shows contradictory evidence).

A very flawed conclusion.

If the observer is independant of matter doesn't that mean there's a "soul" or "mind" that exists independantly of matter? Wouldn't that mean the observer can continue on existing even after the death of the body made of matter?

Strawman. Most rational atheists don't say such concepts are 100% wrong, but only so improbable that they preclude belief.

The double slit experiment is weird, but I don't see how it gives cause for belief in the afterlife or the soul.

Actually, there's nothing saying its improbable because there's no experimental evidence saying the Many-worlds-interpretation is true or the Copenhagen theory is true, etc...

You can't say its improbable nor probable because there's no evidence showing either, therefore it remains a distinct possibility...and it can quite literally be the truth

Non Sequitor.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Just the fact of the many interpretations and the fact there's no evidence that says that one is true and one is false (or one is even more likely)

No faith.
The atheist has no need of faith. At best, we look at faith as abberant behaviour, at worst, irrational. Note how you make use of the word "reason". Note also how the word faith directly contradicts reason.

So then where do atheist surmount the faith that Quantum immortality, the many-minds interpretation, the observer being independant of matter, etc...are definitely not true conclusions when the evidence doesn't imply so?

What grants the atheist reason to believe that there is no soul and no afterlife is threefold: empirical experience, probability and logic. The three of these quite soundly inform us that it would be highly unreasonable to believe in a soul and an afterlife.

But the empirical evidence doesn't clearly show that there is or that there isn't an afterlife....thats the problem

Artificial dichotomy.

Complete knowledge is an impossibility, and we make use of no faith, reason serves better.

So then where do you get the ideas that after death you do not continue on observing and existing when there's is no evidence showing so?

 

[spidergoat]

You can't say its improbable nor probable because there's no evidence showing either, therefore it remains a distinct possibility...and it can quite literally be the truth...

No, there is alot of evidence that a created world would look differently than the one we inhabit. For instance, the flaws in our design, back problems, old age, cancer, the appendix, genetic diseases, ect...

 

[glaucon]

...


Just the fact of the many interpretations and the fact there's no evidence that says that one is true and one is false (or one is even more likely)
...

And?
That's still a non-sequitor.

So then where do atheist surmount the faith that Quantum immortality, the many-minds interpretation, the observer being independant of matter, etc...are definitely not true conclusions when the evidence doesn't imply so?
...

Please rephrase in English.
None of the positions you mention require faith.

But the empirical evidence doesn't clearly show that there is or that there isn't an afterlife....thats the problem
...

That's not a problem for the atheist.
But it is a problem for the theist. The burden of proof always lies with the position that lacks evidence.

So then where do you get the ideas that after death you do not continue on observing and existing when there's is no evidence showing so?
...

There's ample evidence: the lack of evidence that there is an afterlife.

 

[(Q)]

Some of these theories make an afterlife and soul probable and likely, no longer can the atheist say there's no reason to believe in a soul or afterlife.

It's quite hilarious how you take an observational experiment and glean from it conclusions for the existence of the supernatural.

Are souls visible or invisible, and if so, are they affected by gravity?

 

[VitalOne]

And?
That's still a non-sequitor.

How is it illogical? If there's no experimental evidence showing which intepretation is correct then any one of them can be correct...saying one is true over the other would stem from blind faith and blind faith alone

Please rephrase in English.
None of the positions you mention require faith.

Yeah they do, you have to hope that the observer isn't independant of matter, you have to hope that Quantum immortality can't be true, all this hope stems from blind faith

That's not a problem for the atheist.
But it is a problem for the theist. The burden of proof always lies with the position that lacks evidence.

Not really...the atheists says there's definitely no God, no soul, no afterlife, etc...but the evidence shows that there can be an afterlife, soul, etc....

There's ample evidence: the lack of evidence that there is an afterlife.

But there is evidence....quantum immortality...the observer being independant of matter....the many-minds....all are reasonable

 

[VitalOne]

It's quite hilarious how you take an observational experiment and glean from it conclusions for the existence of the supernatural.

Are souls visible or invisible, and if so, are they affected by gravity?

It depends....is the observer visible or invisible, or is it affected by gravity?

 

[(Q)]

It depends....is the observer visible or invisible, or is it affected by gravity?

So, in other words, you have no idea?

 

[glaucon]

How is it illogical? If there's no experimental evidence showing which intepretation is correct then any one of them can be correct...saying one is true over the other would stem from blind faith and blind faith alone

Exactly.
Which is why your conclusion is illogical.
There is no good reason (given equal probability) to support a soul, or afterlife.

Yeah they do, you have to hope that the observer isn't independant of matter, you have to hope that Quantum immortality can't be true, all this hope stems from blind faith

Not at all.
What you have to do is make use of a history of induction that has a great amount of probabilistic evidence in its favour.

Not really...the atheists says there's definitely no God, no soul, no afterlife, etc...but the evidence shows that there can be an afterlife, soul, etc....

ibid

But there is evidence....quantum immortality...the observer being independant of matter....the many-minds....all are reasonable

None of which whatsoever remotely imply a non-physical human existence, to say nothing of an afterlife.

And where did you get this idea of observer/matter independence??

 

[VitalOne]

So, in other words, you have no idea?

Well as defined by religion...the soul is independant of the material world...the soul is reality itself, unchanging, inexhaustible...there would no existence without the soul...so technically the soul is "invisible" and isn't affected by gravity

"For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. " - (BG 2.20)

The atheist can no longer say this is irrational or that there's no reason to believe in this as the truth

 

[glaucon]

Well as defined by religion...the soul is independant of the material world...the soul is reality itself, unchanging, inexhaustible...there would no existence without the soul...so technically the soul is "invisible" and isn't affected by gravity

"For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. " - (BG 2.20)

The atheist can no longer say this is irrational or that there's no reason to believe in this as the truth

ad verecundiam

 

[VitalOne]

Exactly.
Which is why your conclusion is illogical.
There is no good reason (given equal probability) to support a soul, or afterlife.

No, the logical conclusion would be there is a equal probability that all can be true since there's no evidence saying one interpretation is more or less true than other

Not at all.
What you have to do is make use of a history of induction that has a great amount of probabilistic evidence in its favour.

So...what you're saying basically is based on blind faith you don't believe that there's even a possiblity of a soul, or afterlife being true

None of which whatsoever remotely imply a non-physical human existence, to say nothing of an afterlife.

And where did you get this idea of observer/matter independence??

The idea stems from the results of the double-slit experiment...if the observer causes the electron to come into a particular state then the observer is independant of the brain made of matter

Actually they do imply afterlife...as in there is no death of the observer