Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


so once you believe you learned something, you should cease to study?

Thats not very scientific...

Its also a convenient cop out... "Oh I know it's true, so therefore I don't need to assimilate any new information into my knowledge"...

Followed by a veiled insult to people who seek to learn... even after they "think" they know the answer?




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Fair enough, I would say though, that evidence and probabiltiy is what you make of it based off of faith. The evidence would suggest that because you see many people, on a side walk, and two of them are buying a soda from a machine, you could logically surmise that one of them dropped it and you found it. However, there is an enormous amount of other possibilities that could have brought that quarter to that spot. A bum could have dropped it, a kid could have lost it out of their lunch money, someone simply didn't want it and placed it there. My point is, your logic is based on as much faith as the Christian argument that God placed it there.

Being that we are not omniscient, we can only examine a list of probable outcomes and make a conclusion off of that. Logic and reason are simply another faith based mechanism to help us explain our world. You can hold the quarter in your hand, you know its "real". You can see the people buying, you know they are "real" so you draw one conclusion. That is just as valid as a different set of base values examining the same evidence. A Christian can look at that setup and determine that God placed it there. Or, in a more existential vein, God helped that man get a job, so that he had a quarter to drop because he knew on this day in the future I would need a quarter to get through the turnstile in the subway.

Since I got through, I got on the subway, made it home in time to walk across the street 5 minutes earlier than I would have if I had not made the subway and kept me from being hit by a car on my way across the street. That makes it as natural as it gets, because I didn't see a thing that was "out of the ordinary", no phenomenon was observed, therefore I have no idea what could have been in store for me. We as humans don't have the capacity to see on that large of a scale, nor do we have the ability since we can't see in to the future.

That responds to your first part, moving on, I think you are missing the fallacy of your definition of Occam's razor "The explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory." I would submit that assuming God isn't real, undercuts the very fabric of "make as few assumptions as possible" and if God IS real, then it would have every bearing on the observable predictions. I go back to my argument about choice. You choose to work from the basis that God doesn't exist, without giving much thought to the fact that he COULD exist, just because he hasn't walked up and shaken your hand


"I do believe it is a testament to ignorance that people still believe what some random people 2000 years ago wrote down in a book. Why is this book any more "factual" than any other ancient writings? Greek Myths, Beowulf or any of the like?" I disagree, I don't believe that it's ignorant at all, it's just different. I think the difference between the bible, and greek myths, would be who they attribute the providence to. I would say that they were using the same method of trying to explain their world that Christians do today. What makes the bible more factual is the amount of followers in Christianity as opposed to those who still believe the Greek myths. Facts are facts only based on the number of observers. A drinking glass in America is called a glass. A drinking glass in Germany is called a tasser. If I go to Germany and order a "tasser es vasser" I'll get a glass of water. A Germans fact is that it's a tasser, my fact is that it's a glass. Same result, different fact.

"I am simply not required to respect the beliefs of others. I'm only required to respect their right to believe." That's true, and isn't part of respecting their right to believe not attacking those beliefs?

You submit that I cannot disprove the existence of god... This is a fact I readily trumpet often in these forums. However, the fact you can't disprove unicorns doesn't mean that unicorns exist." Isn't that the same circular logic you were lamenting in a previous post?
But I will take you up on the offer of a Russell's Teapot. I've never heard the term and I will research it.

"4000 years and running on the judeo-christian god... however, there has not been one iota of evidence supporting the existence of such a being. " I think there has been a multitude of evidence supporting the existence of a God. Such as an entire army reporting that the sun stayed in the sky longer than one day, or that God gave Moses the power to part the Red Sea. This was observed my multitudes of people. But this "evidence" is just not in the standards and graduated cylinders that you would like.

I gotta crash out before I go to work. Good debating with you man, and I'll pick this back up when I wake up.

Also to the person who is upset that we label God "He" Come on, do you get upset that we label sailing vessels as "She'? It's just a pronoun.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gYvMessanger
reply to post by nj2day
 



Its true I am making that assumption, but that is the common definition of god, so under that definition how does the initial statement disprove that definition.


The question here is if he exists... not where he lives....

straw-man to the max...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by justamomma
 


so once you believe you learned something, you should cease to study?


That is a false assumption that you are making. I have not stated that one should cease to study. Once one knows the Truth exists and did regardless of aknowledgment, then comes the fun part which would be finding the truths within the Truth. But to argue the Truth when it is not something that can be argued is ignorant and shows that you do not actually know the Truth.


[edit on 19-2-2009 by justamomma]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Aw, I feel left out nj2day. You skipped over what I said. Or was Schrödinger's cat quantum flux of the possibility of alive or dead too esoteric to draw a conclusion?

Maybe you just didn't like the movie quotes.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
It's weird....kinda like looking into a mirror when reading some of these posts. Maybe 10 years ago I would have been on the hard proof, logical scientific side of the argument and explaining how silly it was to believe in God. Now look at me. lol

Blessings to everyone while on their journey.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
God is beyond any SIMPLE logic a person may have or offer.

But, it was funny to see you guys act like you have figured out the nature of God in a few sentences.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
I think you misunderstand what Occam's Razor means in its entirety... It doesn't mean Simple is right. It means that you shouldn't make assumptions that wouldn't make an observable difference in experimentation.




A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.


Preferable, not right. As I said, I see people who live like this all the time. They always take the easiest answer and then they cling to it until they are proven wrong. And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times, and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again, and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it, and why? Because they chose the easiest answer, rather than looking for what is true. All you are doing is making the "safe bet".



Well, if a supernatural being had walked the earth with moses, created everything in one fell swoop, and had as much of a hand in the world as the bible says... there would most certainly be evidence left from these actions. Its this evidence we require. after 4000 years of trying, no concrete evidence has been presented to verify the assertions in the bible... therefore, it is safe to assume that the events didn't happen in the manner discribed. Show me evidence, and we'll modify existing knowledge.


You are looking into the creation for evidence of the creator. And this is silly. This is like looking inside your Windows OS and hoping to find Bill Gates. Sure, you can look there all you want, you can look out in creation for evidence all you want, but where you need to look is inside you. You surely won't be able to understand the father if you can't even understand your own true nature. Hint: John 14:20.




You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking.


Or perhaps it comes from the genetic predisposition to believe in such things. What's more likely? the crazy guy down the street walks around and talks to god? or could he have a mental disorder?


Well if he is talking out loud to god, then he obviously doesn't know where to find god. And what of Genetics? If I buy a Honda Civic, and it has a problem with it's airbag, then chances are cars just like it are also going to have problems with it's airbag. Similar to genetics. But it is the owner of the car who determines if the car is dirty or clean, how fast it drives, how erractic it is, and how it behaves. The limits of the driver is determined by the car, just like in genetics. Go figure.

Biology is just nanotechnology and DNA is the code the little self reproducing nanobots follow.


Define soul... Depending on your definition, you may be disappointed with some new Scientific findings.


Soul is better known these days as consciousness. I would love to hear about how science has figured this out. Please, tell me how 1 chemical reaction to another chemical brings about the ability to observe and feel. What is the magical observitanium element? I'm very interested to know how an electrical signal and chemicals reaction to bring about an observer and consciousness.




The only thing that can come from nothing is thought.


Ok... than where did god come from?


You mean that which created the universe and is the only actual observer that is and always will be? It is impossible for such to not exist, if there is no observer then there is nobody there know it doesn't exist. If there is no afterlife, you'll never know 1 way or another. Because you will not be there to observe it. The very act of being there to observe and "know" if there is an afterlife requires and afterlife to view it. I always giggle when people say - we'll know when we are dead, because the only way to know is if there is an afterlife. If there was no consciousness and nothing to view creation, then it would not be known to exist. The very act of observing is separate from the creation itself.




And the ability to observe is something only consciousness/soul can do.


Not really... I could prove this to you, but its kind of a moot point... so nevermind.


No you can't, all you can do is show things which simulate it based on the logic already installed in the program by a conscious being. Sure, you can create AI that does and mimics all kinds of things, but there is a reason it is called artificial intelligence. Because people understand it is not conscious and does not observer. Every single movie about robots that has some "Special" robot is a robot which magically gains consciousness. The functions of the other robots are based only on follow the logic patterns given to it by it's creator.



So you're saying that nothing existed until man? thats going to be tough to defend...


The father is pure consciousness. He is the sum of all consciousness past, present future and all of creation, that which is known and beyond. The father is the only observer in the end.




It's amazing how many people tout science as the end all be all and then forget it takes a scientist to actually observe and understand it.


Thats it in a nutshell... Science seeks to learn from the universe... Faith seeks to project predetermined beliefs onto the universe...


But you do not realize the difference between patterns running based on the logic given, and the actual ability to understand and observe. That which is not conscious is unable to learn new logic.



Incorrect.... but I'll give you a chance to explain your position first.


Well I hope you don't bring up psychology, as it is only able to recognize behavior patterns, not consciousness itself.




What about the law of entropy? The universe could care less if humans think logic doesn't apply... the universe will remain governed by the same laws it always has...


But what you fail to understand is that consciousness is not part of the creation. If you see yourself as only flesh, as being only a creation and result of this universe, then you are blind to the truth. Only if you realize your true self(consciousness/soul) can you understand why I say what I do. Where are these magical molecules that have consciousness in them? You see yourself as being flesh and see yourself as machine. And yes, your body is from the dust of the earth, it is from the creation and it is a machine. But you are the driver, and if you can't understand that, then you will never understand me.

This is what Jesus is talking about when he says you must be born again. You are born of the flesh. You see your parents as those of the flesh, you see yourself as genetics. I once did as well, but then I came to understand the true nature of self. And so I am reborn and understand that my true self is consciousness/soul and that my true father is god, who I call the father. Who is the virgin, not Mary. The flesh of Jesus came from Mary and Joseph. Because Jesus knew the truth, and knew that he was truly only soul/consciousness and that is why he called god his father, rather than Joesph and Mary. People forget that he denies Mary as his mother as well.

So we will not find agreement as long as you associate yourself as being flesh rather than soul/consciousness. But please tell me, to what are the electrical signals in your brain presenting this reality to? How does an electrical signal become the image you see? If it goes from light to the eyes, converted into electrical signals which go to the back of the brain, to what is that image presented to? To what are feelings presented to? Isn't it beyond just a signal telling you something is happening? If all these things like free will and such are illusions, then to what are the illusions to?



Well, Chaos theory is designed to do that... but you're taking shortfalls of man to be able to create a random number generator as meaning that entropy doesn't exist. Who is to say that someday, Entropic laws won't be proven wrong... its very possible... but, that doesn't change the universe... merely man's understanding of the universe.


It's not man's flaw that we can't generate a random number that can be predicted. It's just because the program has to follow a pattern and logic given to it. It has to take a number, apply equations and such to it to arrive at the random number. We can make them random enough that a person can't tell the difference, but because it is based on logic it can be predicted. The best they can do to get random numbers is to take in something which is unknown and then base the equations off that. We can get random enough to suit our purposes, but it's never truly random.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Not really you are saying if he can change the future he is not omniscient, if he cant change the future then hes not omnipotent.

I'm saying the ultimate source exists outside of creation, therefore having a view of the whole picture is possible, and changing it if needs be is possible.

What future means to us bound within the concept of time, is something which you cant apply to an entity which exists outside of that constraint. We dont see the big picture thats part of the human problem, and something we are all looking for in different places.

Knowing what will happen and then choosing to change events so that something else happens isn't even an example of omniscience, you can do it yourself within your local community if you have any form of observational skills.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
It's weird....kinda like looking into a mirror when reading some of these posts. Maybe 10 years ago I would have been on the hard proof, logical scientific side of the argument and explaining how silly it was to believe in God. Now look at me. lol

Blessings to everyone while on their journey.


Yep, same boat here too. But it was only like 3-5 years ago for me. I try to keep it in mind when I debate here. But it's funny because they are making the same arguments I used to make, and it's like arguing with myself from a few years ago. Think Shakespeare is probably laughing.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Its impossible to disprove the existence of anything.

therefore, the burden of proof is on the positive assertion... As positive proof is possible.


Actually, putting the burden of proof on others is where you go wrong. You have to seek for yourself, rather than expect everyone else to bring it to you. In this case, you are just eating what is being feed to you. The burden of proof relies on if you actually care enough to seek it out, and do so in an honest manner without bias.

Sometimes to see outside the box, you have to step outside the box. Even if that tea pot was in the middle of space, I couldn't prove it to you if you refused to even take a look. Can't prove it to a blind man.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It makes one wonder if perceptions and opinions would be different towards a power with consciousness if this were the case:

There never were any religions from the beginning of man forward.

There was never one to criticize, leverage, or shame you for not believing as they do.

There were no Holy Books at all.

No temples, churches, synagogues, assembly halls, congregations.

No dogma, rituals, or rites.

No prophets, saints or messiahs.


Would it be such an issue?

Then a person could marvel at the incredible universe that we have only begun to tap. We could look at nature and be amazed. It may then, not seem so ignorant, or stupid, to think of something even more magnificent and beautiful, that had a hand in all of this splendor.

Would it hurt so bad?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
WHO CARES

Let the religious live in their world
Let the Agnostic live in their world
and let the Atheist live in their world

We already know they don't mix because there are those who have to say we are better, you suck. And from that spurs resistance and so on and so forth. WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??? I don't care if someone is religious as long as they don't try converting me with their rhetoric and I don't go around spitting out my own rhetoric about why the idea of a god existing is obscene. ARGH


[edit on 2/19/09 by MoothyKnight]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by midnightbrigade
reply to post by nj2day
 


Fair enough, I would say though, that evidence and probabiltiy is what you make of it based off of faith. The evidence would suggest that because you see many people, on a side walk, and two of them are buying a soda from a machine, you could logically surmise that one of them dropped it and you found it. However, there is an enormous amount of other possibilities that could have brought that quarter to that spot.


Basing a belief off of evidence is not faith... holding a belief with no evidence is faith...


A bum could have dropped it, a kid could have lost it out of their lunch money, someone simply didn't want it and placed it there. My point is, your logic is based on as much faith as the Christian argument that God placed it there.


nope... If you flip a coin there are 3 possible outcomes. 49.9% heads, 49.9% tails and .2% that it will land on its edge. There could be a 4th possibility... that the coin will not be acted on by any outside forces, and will stay hovering at the apex of its arc toward the ground...

It is a possibility, but no one has ever seen it happen... and no one has been able to get it to react in a similar way via experimentation.

A person who swears the coin can/will do that... is the one basing this belief against all evidence... and is acting on faith... I mean after all... can you prove it can't happen?

believers are hedging their bets on the 4th option and the hovering coin... Atheists will play the odds and say Heads or Tails... knowing full well it might land on its side... but the odds aren't that great... and knowing full well in the history of coin tossing, it has never just hovered in the air at the apex of its arc toward the ground...

This is not faith... its statistics.


Being that we are not omniscient, we can only examine a list of probable outcomes and make a conclusion off of that. Logic and reason are simply another faith based mechanism to help us explain our world.


Logic and reason are what we use to draw conclusions from observation... Since observation is concrete, and can be replicated by anyone with the time to set up the experiment... it is entered as evidence. Faith, is belief without evidence.


You can hold the quarter in your hand, you know its "real". You can see the people buying, you know they are "real" so you draw one conclusion.


I can weigh it, pass it to anyone else who would like to see it... and they will all conclude that is in in fact real... the evidence for its existence is then conclusive.

however, in science, you don't have to see it to believe it like the average joe would...

Instead, we can prove its existence without seeing it by observing the impact the given object has on its immediate surroundings. Yet another proof that is lacking with a "god"


That is just as valid as a different set of base values examining the same evidence. A Christian can look at that setup and determine that God placed it there. Or, in a more existential vein, God helped that man get a job, so that he had a quarter to drop because he knew on this day in the future I would need a quarter to get through the turnstile in the subway.


Now probability determines that god didn't place it there... and the existentialist alternative you offered, goes against Occam's Razor... i.e. is it really that much of a stretch to say that all the events your stating could have happened exactly the same... but -1 god?


We as humans don't have the capacity to see on that large of a scale, nor do we have the ability since we can't see in to the future.


Oh yes we do... as evolution works very much on the same principals... a series of simple steps... that over time lead to complexity.


I would submit that assuming God isn't real, undercuts the very fabric of "make as few assumptions as possible" and if God IS real, then it would have every bearing on the observable predictions.


Assuming god is real leads to a huge pile of assumptions... you have to assume not only that god exists, but he has the power to act, he has the desire to act, that he has existed forever, that power can be absolute, etc etc... it goes on and on... Vastly more assumptions that you are, for some reason, not concidering. Now, if I can explain that there is approx a 100% chance that the coin I flipped will have one of those three outcomes I mentioned above... and I flip it, and it lands on heads... why is there a need to presume that "god made it land on heads". There was a high probability of the coin landing in that manner to begin with... you're just adding more assumptions.


I go back to my argument about choice. You choose to work from the basis that God doesn't exist, without giving much thought to the fact that he COULD exist, just because he hasn't walked up and shaken your hand


I base my assumptions on the improbability of such a reality. It is, in fact just as improbable as the quarter levitating for no reason at the apex of the arc... I doubt you'd hedge your bets on that if I decided to make that wager with you.


I disagree, I don't believe that it's ignorant at all, it's just different. I think the difference between the bible, and greek myths, would be who they attribute the providence to. I would say that they were using the same method of trying to explain their world that Christians do today.


But for some reason, Christians are "right" and the ancient greeks were "wrong"


What makes the bible more factual is the amount of followers in Christianity as opposed to those who still believe the Greek myths.


Whoa there... Popularity does not make something true.


Facts are facts only based on the number of observers.


erm... the number of observers according to one source, that was written by anonymous people (for the most part). The actual truth of the claims impossible to find evidence for...

The bible is no better than a copy of Beowulf. Prove Grendel is real.

[qutoe]A drinking glass in America is called a glass. A drinking glass in Germany is called a tasser. If I go to Germany and order a "tasser es vasser" I'll get a glass of water. A Germans fact is that it's a tasser, my fact is that it's a glass. Same result, different fact.

not really, completely different pantheon with a different set of beliefs all together... not the "same thing diff name" like you are suggesting.

If thats the case... than satanists have found the same god as the christians! they just call it something else!


That's true, and isn't part of respecting their right to believe not attacking those beliefs?


No, I am free to speak my opinion. But, i am not free to try and impose legislation to attempt to outlaw their beliefs in favor of mine. Your kid can pray in school to themselves if they want... but don't come near my kid. (another thread lol so i'm not gonna go there)


Isn't that the same circular logic you were lamenting in a previous post?
But I will take you up on the offer of a Russell's Teapot. I've never heard the term and I will research it.


How is that circular logic? Circular logic would be "God is all powerful, the bible says so... and god wrote the bible". (another thread out of that one too... If the bible says god can't lie... and god wrote the bible... isn't it possible that he can indeed lie? LOL)


I think there has been a multitude of evidence supporting the existence of a God. Such as an entire army reporting that the sun stayed in the sky longer than one day, or that God gave Moses the power to part the Red Sea. This was observed my multitudes of people. But this "evidence" is just not in the standards and graduated cylinders that you would like.


This is not evidence unless we can confirm this with multiple unrelated sources... instead... all evidence comes from the bible... and documents proven to be Midieval forgery...


Also to the person who is upset that we label God "He" Come on, do you get upset that we label sailing vessels as "She'? It's just a pronoun.


LOL yah, I have to admit... in a thread like this, taking offense to the use of a pronoun is a little much...




[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Aw, I feel left out nj2day. You skipped over what I said. Or was Schrödinger's cat quantum flux of the possibility of alive or dead too esoteric to draw a conclusion?

Maybe you just didn't like the movie quotes.





LOL sorry man... Every time I write a post... another 10 pop up in its place lol

Its like perpetual catch up in here for me... I'll go back and see what else I missed too...



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by nj2day
 


Occam's Razor is dumb IMO. It's just a way of being simple minded. It's just a way of appearing to be right all the time, but not actually being right. I see people who live by this all the time, and they are all dumber than a box of nails. They will never believe anything unless it is proven to them, and so they accept whatever answer is given.


Think of it this way:
How complex is our universe?
How complex is God?

Surely your God would have to be more complex than our universe in order to create it.
Now, you've heard the creationist argument on how low the odds are for our universe to exist without a creator...
Your God would be infinitely more complex by his very nature - how less probably would it be for such a being to simply exist?

Our Universe's existence requires less steps, and moreover we have scientific theories which explain how our universe and our world came to be.
God is not needed.

So what are you left with?
What is your evidence that there is a God?


Originally posted by badmedia
Nobody can prove god, because you can always just write it off as being something else. You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking.



But the mind is flawed. Something which is internal can not be looked at and verified by others and is therefor far more likely to be false.
I can do a google search and show you countless people who say they have the same understanding or 'knowing' of their god - or in some cases imaginary friends.

What if, just allow the possibility, it proves that the belief in the extraordinary is a psychological result to any number of things: boredom, fear of death, fear of the unknown, etc.

This requires no belief in the extraordinary, and explains why every religious person feels that "knowing" or "understanding" - which I once felt as well.
Is it not more probable that something ordinary is taking place rather than something extraordinary?

Meh, just trying to implement Occam's Razor into religion.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Ladies and Gentleman, this is it! The proof you have been looking for. For thousands of years man has had this silly idea of God. For thousands of years, the most brilliant theologians and scientist monks who devoted their lives to understanding God were all but too stupid to find out this apparent proof against God. Yes, some dude with a youtube account and a basic understanding of video editing has succeeded where all those people have failed. My Go-... I mean, My goodness, why did it take so long!




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Viral
 


It didn't "take so long".
Christianity has been proven false for years, only few take note of it.
No one can disprove God, but we can prove that there are faults and contradictions in God's description in the Bible and therefor either his description is false or he does not exist.

In the Bible, he is both forgetful and all knowing.
All powerful, and yet somehow taken aback by "iron chariots".
He is said to be good and righteous, and yet there are verses which say that he created the evil in this world to be evil.
He says that he did not come to destroy but that Satan comes to kill and to destroy, and yet he has killed countless people - even children.
He commands us not to kill, and then commands us to kill our child if he/she disobeys.
He could hardly be more contradictory if he tried
.

In fact, you can hardly find a verse describing God which isn't contradicted somewhere else in the Bible.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
LOL wow, I don't really get into philosophy a whole lot... But, just for reference, if I use the word Truth, I use it in the sense any student of history would intend it to be used... Truth in my sense is a complete knowledge of the facts to ascertain exactly what "is". I know there are different "truths" out there... especially when it comes to history... But Truth in history is the events as the actually happened, along with an understanding of all sides of the event.

I'm not a fan, nor a student of philosophy... But I can attack Schrodingers Cat.


Just like Schrödinger's cat, we have to open the box to know for sure if the cat is alive or dead. Any other answer is speculation and belief...in other words, by faith alone can it be answered without opening the box.


This is untrue. In the scale of all possible outcomes, there will emerge highly probable answers as to the status of the cat. we can increase the probability of some answers and reduce the probability of others through Observation..

the more facts that can be assembled about this box/cat... the most probable outcome will emerge... much like 20 questions...

How long as the cat been in there
Is the box airtight?
Are there high levels of methane coming out of the box?
What is the concentration of CO2 vs O2 levels inside the box...

each answered question comes closer to finding the status... this is called deductive reasoning... You have a list of outcomes, and can remove (deduct) them from the list of possible outcomes with the more facts we can assemble.

Science does not create facts. Science collects facts.

Once your data set is strong enough, you are able to rule out the improbable with great precision, leaving only highly likely outcomes... and hopefully eliminating all but 1 possible outcome.

you're assuming that i'm approaching the box for the first time, and with no data set, stating the status of the cat... and if I was doing such a thing, you would be correct... I would be basing that assumption off faith.

With that... I'll end on a movie quote of my own...

"Snakes... why does it have to be snakes... I hate snakes!"

hehe





[edit on 19-2-2009 by nj2day]






top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join