The gig is up.

Signal said:
<snip>I still think that in order to appease her anger, I need to "prove God". Then there are the voices of my Christian "friends" who always found such a combination of scriptures that made me look condemned, like an idiot, worthless. And I don't want to feel that way, I don't want to believe that this is "who I really am", so I fight them, seeking "proof of God", among other things.<snip>
Click to expand...
I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible. The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.

Theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only self conscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as "potentia" in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until selfconscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993).
Click to expand...
Source: http://davidpratt.info/jse.htm

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of "potentia". If I'm correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But..........
Other theorists, however, believe that nonselfconscious entities, including cats and possibly even electrons, may be able to collapse their own wave functions (Herbert, 1993).
Click to expand...

If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn't really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.
 
audible said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cEL6UoMqg
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/3007/Video__Electron_filmed_for_first_time_ever/

I am going to say your full of shit arsehole. Here endeth the lesson.

I haven't replied to the rest of your post as I feel, I'd be flogging a dead horse.
As your wrong about one thing it's definite your wrong about the rest, it seeds doubt in everything else you say, plus you keep coming back with the same inane drivel, it's boring.
If you willing to look you will find the evidence.
Click to expand...
kind of fitting that you cite the authority of your deluded authority.... yada yada .... Jeez, you haven't even seen an electron have you, yet here you go blindly believing.... yada yada ... yrfullashit ..... yada yada

see how easy that is?
:eek:
 
lightgigantic said:
If you think you can talk about reality or a solid basis of proof divorced from philosophy its quite clear you don't a clue what you are talking about.
:eek:
Click to expand...

Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific. One must present belief in god as a possibility to discourse with sane people. Dope.

Your semantics is all out of whack. Philosophers do not frame that god definitely exists. If they do they are going to be reminded that there is no proof for the stance.

Ideas are fine. Belief is reserved for that which is PROVEN.

We could say IMAGINE god exists as a philosophical exercise, but this doesn't change the stance a sane person is required to maintain underneath.

Y'all just got carried away by the BS.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible. The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.


Source: http://davidpratt.info/jse.htm

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of "potentia". If I'm correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But..........


If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn't really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. No scientist fully understands Quantum Physics. This field is still under review. There are certain aspects which are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Other areas are fringe science under the kosh of conjectural hypothesis. (This is really basic stuff you don't grasp I see).

But to then leap to belief in consciousness acting on these systems smacks of desperation; indeed inability to wait on definite proofs instead of focusing on one possible conclusion reached with insufficient understanding of the system in question.

Just proves how UNscientific belief is.
 
universaldistress said:
Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific. One must present belief in god as a possibility to discourse with sane people. Dope.

Your semantics is all out of whack. Philosophers do not frame that god definitely exists. If they do they are going to be reminded that there is no proof for the stance.

Ideas are fine. Belief is reserved for that which is PROVEN.

We could say IMAGINE god exists as a philosophical exercise, but this doesn't change the stance a sane person is required to maintain underneath.

Y'all just got carried away by the BS.
Click to expand...
You know, this definition of science as the study of the natural world is a new definition, it's a common use that's sprung up in the last century. Dictionaries don't actually tell us what words mean, they tell us what people mean by the words when they use them. So what definitions appear first, (most common use) changes over time as cultures evolve.

This is from an online site:

New Scientist Science Mag

http://www.newscientist.com/

sci·ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Click to expand...
Philosophy and Theology are also, properly, a science. Note "facts or truths" or "principles" in the bolded part. Those who study the natural world have, over time, distanced themselves from religion is order to be able to objectively pursue knowledge without interference from churches. Galileo is probably the classic example.

Those who pursue knowledge and truth, aren't themselves necessarily objective. (see: Dawkins or any Creationist)
 
Mind Over Matter said:
You know, this definition of science as the study of the natural world is a new definition, it's a common use that's sprung up in the last century. Dictionaries don't actually tell us what words mean, they tell us what people mean by the words when they use them. So what definitions appear first, (most common use) changes over time as cultures evolve.

This is from an online site:


Philosophy and Theology are also, properly, a science. Note "facts or truths" or "principles" in the bolded part. Those who study the natural world have, over time, distanced themselves from religion is order to be able to objectively pursue knowledge without interference from churches. Galileo is probably the classic example.

Those who pursue knowledge and truth, aren't themselves necessarily objective. (see: Dawkins or any Creationist)
Click to expand...

I understand the etymology of the word Science.

Dawkins is a blinded crackpot that assumes using insufficient evidence just as a god believer does. He has risen to prominence on the backs of extreme atheism. I do not share his stance.
 
universaldistress said:
Ha ha. No scientist fully understands Quantum Physics. This field is still under review. There are certain aspects which are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Other areas are fringe science under the kosh of conjectural hypothesis. (This is really basic stuff you don't grasp I see).

But to then leap to belief in consciousness acting on these systems smacks of desperation; indeed inability to wait on definite proofs instead of focusing on one possible conclusion reached with insufficient understanding of the system in question.

Just proves how UNscientific belief is.
Click to expand...
Everything is not explainable by science.
 
universaldistress said:
I understand the etymology of the word Science.

Dawkins is a blinded crackpot that assumes using insufficient evidence just as a god believer does. He has risen to prominence on the backs of extreme atheism. I do not share his stance.
Click to expand...
Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term "science" was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term "science" was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.
Click to expand...

You could look at it that way. Doesn't effect my stance in the slightest.

I like to think Religion is a science (broad use of the word), a dysfunctional science that comes to conclusions without proof, and chooses to ignore proof when it wishes.
 
universaldistress said:
Logic is an evolved system that has been proven time and time again with the results it produces.
Click to expand...
Logic is a useless system when it comes to the subject of God, and that isn't the only thing it's useless for. It has been demonstrated time and time again, including here at this forum, that logic cannot produce results that prove or disprove anything about the subject of God.

But then, you have to believe that there are things in the world which defy logic, and that logic is only useful in a restricted setting. For instance, logic is axiomatic and axioms are a priori "facts" which are assumed to be complete. But they're only complete within the axiomatic logic. Logic can only be logical, so its usefulness is limited.

Logic is not what you appear to believe it is.
 
arfa brane said:
Logic is a useless system when it comes to the subject of God, and that isn't the only thing it's useless for. It has been demonstrated time and time again, including here at this forum, that logic cannot produce results that prove or disprove anything about the subject of God.
Click to expand...

Dumb. Logic is not at fault. Your believing in unproven BS is. Go figure.

But then, you have to believe that there are things in the world which defy logic, and that logic is only useful in a restricted setting. For instance, logic is axiomatic and axioms are a priori "facts" which are assumed to be complete. But they're only complete within the axiomatic logic. Logic can only be logical, so its usefulness is limited.

Logic is not what you appear to believe it is.
Click to expand...

Clutching at theoretical straws I think.

You still offer no PROOF LOL.

When will you concede that my stance is unbreakdownable.
 
Lori_7 said:
you just don't like the answer. it doesn't fit in your box. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't like the lack of proof within the answer.

For a question to truly be answered the answerer must address its context. All you lot do is whine and moan about how you can't answer it.
 
universaldistress said:
You still offer no PROOF LOL.
Click to expand...
Laugh all you want.
What compels you to believe that I "need" to offer a proof? What does that even mean?

If it means: use a logical argument to prove that God exists, that is impossible. It's been impossible for thousands of years. That you insist it is possible only demonstrates that you don't understand what logic is, although it seems you like to think you do.

The OP asks a question which cannot be answered. Except, you can answer it for yourself, and you don't need logic to do it, all you need (really!) is the ability to concentrate, forget about logic, forget even about thinking ... it's like that.

Then, if you do experience something--it could take a bit of effort and practice--you can revisit your contention that personal proof "is not scientific". If you find, for example, that this practice makes you feel relaxed and "at peace", you can analyse this feeling as an unscientific result which has no bearing on your intellectual grasp of reality . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top