The God Delusion

[Dirac]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

ps. we might still be around in 10 thousand years due to quantum immortality, which is possible with MWI, believed to be true by a large number of scientists

No semi-competent physicist would ever claim that. If they did, it wouldn't be on 'scientific' grounds.

'MWI' as you call it isn't science, it's a metaphysical theory about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It doesn't (currently) make any testable predictions whatsoever. Stephen Hawking's musings about these philosophical areas are as fallible as the next guy's.

So to clarify, don't use philosophical fluff like this as examples of established science.

Thank you, good day!

[Know me.]

There is another great Koan that fits nicely in here. "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

[sv]

Or... If a tree falls in a forest and no woman is there to hear it, is a man still to blame?

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by Dirac

'MWI' as you call it isn't science

if you dont think Many Worlds Interpretation is science then you probably dont think quantum mechanics is science either.

it is considered a mainstream quantum theory ...
around 60% of the leading physicists consider it to be "true"
and it ends up with a lot let paradoxes than most of the other quantum theories.

Hawkins is not the only one who believes in MWI...
the author of the book posted by Ab, Richard Feynman is another one.

but all that's irrelevant...
some of you believe in science without knowing what science or scientists believe....or understanding that science is full of politics....it is not just about evidence and experimentation.

some scientists were telling you global warming was a problem decades ago.
if you believe in science, why dispute the evidence then?

because you didnt "believe" it to be true.
its a lot about faith...

imho

[Sp0nge]

if a tree falls in the forest the sound you hear is
... the Greenies protesting....

[BathTub]

Really all the finger pointing at theoretical physics is "I don't have any proof for god, but mummy told me it was true, so nyah! You've got things you can't prove yet, at the out reaches of your most advanced sciences, and since I can't prove anything of mine, they are the same! lalalalalalala"

If people assert there is a god, they must show proof FOR god, not pick at where science is still learning, because that certainly isn't evidence for a deity, only that we are human.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Know me.

There is another great Koan that fits nicely in here. "If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Allah's left nut, is that the level of discourse at which we've arrived? What next, is someone going to start quoting Desiderata as a religious text?

[Xanatos]

...and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnPyNQjrC4g

[Lightspeed]

You know, atheists and theists should join forces against a common foe. Pslychics. Filthy pslychics.

[Dirac]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

if you dont think Many Worlds Interpretation is science then you probably dont think quantum mechanics is science either.

it is considered a mainstream quantum theory ...
around 60% of the leading physicists consider it to be "true"

Yes, quantum mechanics is science. No, the MWI is not science, it has no effect on any empirical predictions. It's a conceptual framework that tries to make sense of the mathematics. It's interesting, but it's not established science. And I'm wondering where you pulled that 60% from..

If I tell you that objects fall to the earth when you drop them, you can go and test that for yourself. If Ratzinger tells you that a personal god exists who has an interest in your life, it's a bit murkier.. So in that sense, the level of faith required is fundamentally different.

Well that's how it seems to me, but hey, I could be wrong..

[Foggerty]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

You know, atheists and theists should join forces against a common foe. Pslychics. Filthy pslychics.

Filthy sly chicks? I like

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Foggerty

Filthy sly chicks? I like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM

[BathTub]

A really great speech by Sam Harris "Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World"

http://www.aifestival.org/index2.php...tion=full_info

[Cynos]

Oh dear. Anyone who thinks that people who believe in God haven't thought about it reasonably is deluding themselves. They just started reasoning from different first principles to you.

But then, not many of Sam Harris fanboys are likely to acknowledge what I'm saying is true. NEIN VE ARE ZEE SOLE CLAIMANTS TO ZE TITLE OF REASONABLE! IT IS OBVIOUS THAT JU CANNOT BE REASONABLE IF JU BELIEVES IN UNT GOD!

Which goes to show how badly they've missed the boat.

[Foggerty]

Ok, I'll bite - what first principles?

[Ab]

That there's an invisible superhero who lives in the sky, of course.

[Foggerty]

I thought he was a wizard?

[MoP]

Spaghetti

[Know me.]

I downloaded the MP3 but can't hear anything.

[Sp0nge]

Originally Posted by MoP

Spaghetti

exactly.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Foggerty

Ok, I'll bite - what first principles?

that nothing could possibly exist outside of what we know of the world

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Foggerty

Ok, I'll bite - what first principles?

In the case of the theist, a generalised first principle would be: God is. Now, how they reached that first principle, is a matter of faith.

But so is every other first principle.

[Ab]

What a load of bollocks.

Here's an expression that is logically true from first principles: it is impossible for an object to be simultaneously "blue" and "not blue". Go on, tell me how I am relying on faith.

[Cynos]

Originally Posted by Ab

What a load of bollocks.

Here's an expression that is logically true from first principles: it is impossible for an object to be simultaneously "blue" and "not blue". Go on, tell me how I am relying on faith.

Prove your first principles. They are, by their nature, unprovable, no? Ergo, it requires faith that one's assumption is correct - your assumption being that your first principles are correct.

[StN]

Ludicrously happy Cookie monster begs to differ!

[Know me.]

Originally Posted by Ab

What a load of bollocks.

Here's an expression that is logically true from first principles: it is impossible for an object to be simultaneously "blue" and "not blue". Go on, tell me how I am relying on faith.

How do you know its blue or not blue?

[Sp0nge]

i think this is blue, but my monitor is fucked so it might be green, plus im colorblind... and wearing sunglasses, and what is blue anyway (cos we couldnt define yellow), and is text an object, and blue is an english word so shouldnt we be talking maths instead, although quantum theory says you can have "p" and "!p" simultaneously under certain conditions, so yeah, um, what was the question again, cos i saw blue in the rainbow but everyone standing somewhere else saw no rainbow!?

[Redneck]

Originally Posted by Ab

What a load of bollocks.

Here's an expression that is logically true from first principles: it is impossible for an object to be simultaneously "blue" and "not blue". Go on, tell me how I am relying on faith.

A white object with blue light shone at it.

I WINS

[Sp0nge]

A:this thread is pointless
B:this thread is not pointless

A:this statement is a lie

i vote A: both times.

[Ajax]

Vehicle with chameleon paint job: a thing that is blue and a thing that is not blue.

[Dirac]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Prove your first principles. They are, by their nature, unprovable, no? Ergo, it requires faith that one's assumption is correct - your assumption being that your first principles are correct.

True, a scientific worldview also requires some basic assumptions. But just because no scientific/religious claim can be 100% logically proven, it doesn't mean that they are all on the same footing. Maybe the world 'reasonable' is just used to mean that there's more empirical evidence for something.

Religion to me comes down to psychology. Would people invent God to help cope with death and give meaning to their existence? Sure seems like a plausible explanation to me.

But yeah there's no decisive logical answer which is why these arguments tend to drag on ad infinitum

[[WanG] Wandarah]

Originally Posted by StN

Ludicrously happy Cookie monster begs to differ!

It saddens me that your genius didnt bring the debate to a halt.

[BathTub]

Originally Posted by Cynos

Oh dear. Anyone who thinks that people who believe in God haven't thought about it reasonably is deluding themselves. They just started reasoning from different first principles to you.

But then, not many of Sam Harris fanboys are likely to acknowledge what I'm saying is true. NEIN VE ARE ZEE SOLE CLAIMANTS TO ZE TITLE OF REASONABLE! IT IS OBVIOUS THAT JU CANNOT BE REASONABLE IF JU BELIEVES IN UNT GOD!

Which goes to show how badly they've missed the boat.

lawlz.

[BathTub]

Or you could actually point out real errors, rather than going "LALALALALALAALALALLALALAL"

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Sp0nge

A:this thread is pointless
B:this thread is not pointless

Which way would you lean on this one:

A:existence is pointless
B:existence is not pointless

[Sp0nge]

.
^ that point on the line above exists because I made it, and there was no point in making it.
it is a pointless point.

ummm, hang on, I think i just made a point with that point, so the pointless point is now not pointless.

so I vote "All of the Above"

...imo, the meaning of life is to give it meaning....
if you exist but do nothing towards that, than your existance is mainly pointless...
if you try to make your existence have a point, then thats what it will have.

the POINT of my own existance is to make everything pointless

mmmm, i love the paradox.

[Lightspeed]

Wow, coming up with nonsense, such an achievement.

[Ab]

For once Lightspeed and I are on the same side in a theology thread.

[cEvin]

Originally Posted by Ab

For once Lightspeed and I are on the same side in what has become a complete bullshit thread.

[?>Superman]

lol