Atheists are right...

a reply to: luthier

luthier,

What have i been proven wrong about?

Physics and Philosophy... happy to concede that point.

I never said theoretical physics was bs. I inferred that theoretical physics such as the observer stance says that 'it appears' that an observer is needed for quantum interaction.

There are no assertions by physicists that this is what is happening.

Why?
Because we dont understand diddly sqat about QM.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy


One "reality" requires observation or it may as well be Santa. It should shown up in data or evidence without it, there is no relevance. There is zero emperical evidence without observation. Your confusing this concept with life cycles

Two: without observation a waveform of probability occurs. Once observation happens that waveform is condensed into an event marked in time and space and probability becomes a location.

When observers completely die off the universe ceases to exist in a definate time space location and becomes waveforms of probability.

luthier,

Ok your kinda confusing me. Is the above quote by you your belief?

Coomba98

Yes I believe that is possible.

So do you believe it to be so... or just that its possible. Cause your posts allude to you believing it to be so.

Coomba98

a reply to: luthier

Like I said before, if you don't answer my questions, then i'm not going to answer yours.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
People behave morally without religion then why is religion even necessary? Much of what is in the Bible seems like made up fairy tales with no modern day evidence supporting it. So are atheists right? Since there's no evidence for God's existence and people who don't go to church behave just a moral as those who do go to church whats the point of believing in God?

Religions problem is that it doesn't promote the esoteric wisdom of its scripture so that most people don't understand, including the priests and pastors of today who teach it as if it were history, even though any person with common sense knows that it isn't.

Atheist can be just as ignorant and hard headed as the religious though, it's not faith or lack of that determines behavior, most of the ''faithful" are brainwashed zombies who act like asses by telling people they will burn in hell for believing anything other than that which they do.

And many atheists are equally brainwashed by politics, science, work and the demand for conformity of thought and have no morals other than the ones "learned" in life, some act just as ignorantly as the fanatics.

It makes no difference if you believe in God or not, he is not present so it's understandable either way. Neither are going to determine behavior. You can be just as evil as anyone while believing in God and while not.

Same with being good. Religion is only for inner peace and any outer conflict with the world should be a separate issue, not an excuse to hurt anyone physically or otherwise.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: luthier

luthier,

Your arguing that an observer/consciousness is needed for reality to exist, and basing said assertion on a theory within a very young field of science that nobody truly or partially understands.

Its like using ancient Greek knowledge on cannonball physics today!

So to use a theory on a subject nobody understands not even the physicists truly understands and make assertion is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Definition of the Argument from Ignorance phrase.
'A fallacy is a mistake in belief based on an unsound argument; so, an ignorance fallacy occurs when a person mistakenly believes something to be true that is not, because he or she does not know enough about the subject to know otherwise. For example, an argument based on stereotype or hasty generalization is an example of ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is persuasive because the audience is ignorant.'

Coomba98

Coombs the Anthropic priciple in at least four forms has been around longer than the 25 years I have studied philosphy.

John Archibald Wheeler

Read him.

Read the coopenhagen school and waveform and probability theories.

Again this a possibility not a fact I am stating.

It sounds like your uniformed.

I agree, it appears you have been selected as a person with whom this person can feel as though he/she has humiliated.

Some people get their jollies this way, I believe the term is troll. This person is just trolling so just ignore them, ignorant people don't need to be responded to.

Just don't observe the trolls actions then theoretically they don't exist!

originally posted by: coomba98

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Can you prove there were no observers or designers?

Your not in a simulation?

luthier,

Your confusing Quantum Theory with Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Theory says that it 'appears' that an observer is required for quantum interaction, given the double slit experiments.

But we are still in our early early infant stage of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

Ask anyone who studies theoretical physics if this saying is correct:

'Anyone who says they understand quantum physics, doesnt understand quantum physics.'

So using the observer example is asinine and a good example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Coomba98

I think your comment here is pretty ignorant and fallacious, you have to suggest that other people besides yourself be asked about the truth of a statement that is theoretical itself as some people can and do understand parts of quantum physics, it would not exist otherwise other than as pure theory and I believe it is more than just a theory, is a science with facts and thus can be understood.

Your little ''anyone who thinks they understand... doesn't" is just a stupid phrase, not factual and made out of ignorance (by you), taken too literally and that you are just a little troll trying to feel smarter than you really are.

I don't care about quantum mechanics, but people who say things like ''ask so and so" are obviously not informed themselves and need others to confirm what they are saying is true.

Because you know you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Lucid lunacy

I literally answered a dozen times. I have only agnostic beliefs. Should be obvious.

I have serious doubts you have a philosphy degree as none of these topics seem to register with you.

I am literally referencing classroom academic philosphy debates you have as student.

Sorry this was not meant for the Seth. Must have hit the wrong button.

a reply to: coomba98

There are assertions though you just are not very well read.

I literally gave you the name of a specific school of thought from copenhagen.

I also gave you a name of a very repected physicist who came up with participatory Anthropic priciple models.

There are are so real cosmologists and philospher working on holographic reality and a simulated reality theory.

Real math, real physics, Fermi lab sponsored stuff.

a reply to: luthier

I couldn't care less about your agreement on my degree lol

just answer the damn question.

Is it that difficult?

Give an actual response and then we will have a dialogue.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

If you don't understand the response you don't understand philosphy.

I think it's possible as I have stated reality will expand into probability waves.

For instance Shroedinger's cat was an attempt to say this doesn't happen in the larger physical world, lately cosmologists are not so sure and there is math to support coopenhagen like model using entanglement with dimensional reality.

I have agnostic views so no you aren't going to get this is what I believe.


What I find remarkable is you can't back up even your basic hypothesis.

You can't explain a natural mechanism to create an infinite time loop in the universe.

You may as well say unicorns fart stars out.

Here is some reading for those of you who don't keep up with research, theory, philosphy, or science.

www.newscientist.com...

www.nature.com...

a reply to: luthier

lately cosmologists are not so sure

The majority of cosmologists don't support deism. Want me to back that up with fact?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Yes I would like you to back that up, though I find it irrelevant.

You would remember from the very first post I mentioned pandiesm as a sort of thought expirment not a rigid belief.

This comes from unsatisfying answers to philosphical questions.

I would be very surprised if you found papers of thousands of scientists and their internal cosmological beliefs.

I would assume they would be agnostic no?

It's a field I have done academic work in and I can sure tell you they don't all have brash opinions like Hawking.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

lately cosmologists are not so sure

The majority of cosmologists don't support deism. Want me to back that up with fact?

Also see Einstein quote on god and Spinoza reference.

Since your a philospher I assume you know what that means.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza"

a reply to: luthier

Yes I would like you to back that up, though I find it irrelevant.

The scientific consensus is irrelevant?? Meanwhile you make reference to science in your posts!

How the hell is it then irrelevant??

Have the cake and eat it too?

You would remember from the very first post I mentioned pandiesm as a sort of thought expirment not a rigid belief.

Actually, no. I remember something about a necessary being at the start. That's what you mentioned. I recall you later backtracking that.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

Yes I would like you to back that up, though I find it irrelevant.

The scientific consensus is irrelevant?? Meanwhile you make reference to science in your posts!

How the hell is it then irrelevant??

Have the cake and eat it too?

You would remember from the very first post I mentioned pandiesm as a sort of thought expirment not a rigid belief.

Actually, no. I remember something about a necessary being at the start. That's what you mentioned. I recall you later backtracking that.

I recall you saying you were a philospher.

If you don't know the basic arguments for God you need to go back to 101.

The necessary being is a concept and reference to aquinas.

In philosphy today this is considered a logical example of hypothesis.

You mistake me for thinking I believe this.

I just am not so arrogant I can dismiss it as none sense.
Why? Because that is how you get trained in philosphy. It's like anthropology. You don't go in with predetermined judgement.

Again Einstein literally references panthiesm as his inner belief.

Do you have papers to show how scientists disregard deism or passing comments even? Actual cosmologists.

I know Hawking has refuted god who else?

a reply to: luthier

I'm very familiar with Aquinas. You're doing a piss poor job representing him. That said, I again bring up the irony of a deist basing the bulk of his argument on a theist.

You mistake me for thinking I believe this.

Okay. What do you believe then??

I know Hawking has refuted god who else?

Reality.

There isn't good enough evidence to support the belief in the existence of a creator.

As long as there are women... you can never, ever, ever, refute god.
They're the best which he saved for last! A masterpiece! And they have wits and charm.
Tis all you need in life. Get thee a wife!

a reply to: Pinocchio

We are pretty awesome.....

love ya!

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Look, I would love for there to be consciousness at the root of all things, some eternal reality, an afterlife even...

You have no proof that there isn't. Why is it that everything you post is an absolute truth? And other people's judgments are always wrong.

You just "know" everything you know is right and true. I wish I everything I knew was as good as that.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You don't understand Aquinas and please tell me the piss poor job?

Empty words. Try using philosphy which is to attack falacy if you have ever heard of Karl Popper.

Deism=Theism first off.

If you studied at all you know Aquinas failed to prove a Christian God fantastically.

Can you explain how Aquinas' necesary being doesn't fit a deist view?

Can you disprove a creator.

Can you disprove your not in a simulation created by grad students?

Can you prove fine tuning isn't a valid observation?

I believe that to be a scientist or philospher an agnostic temperament to observation is an asset to obsorbing information.

I don't disregard hypothesis I don't find convincing just because that is an opinion. I have to find fallacy.

Yes I think it's possible the universe is all there is, also find it intriguing that some reality can be observed as virtual, etc.

Reality however lives in consciousness.

There it's literally no purpose for concepts of reality without it. Your stuck on life cycles. Totally different subject.

We can never understand the object as it is only how we perceive it.

So yes I believe it's full possible wavefunction is also happening for larger objects.

I also believe it's possible we are entangled in an alternate reality (s)

Now go ahead and disprove those possibilities.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: luthier

lately cosmologists are not so sure

The majority of cosmologists don't support deism. Want me to back that up with fact?

What is the current cosmological theory why any energy exists at all as opposed to nothing? What is their argument from where the source of energy comes from? Do you believe in nothingness ever existed in reality? Of you believe nothingness is an imaginary construct of the mind?

Besides our primitive mappings of mathematics matching patterns of nature's behaviors, we really know very little about why the laws of physics are the way they are. You might as well have God and religion because science is pretty hollow when it comes to why are we here and what does it all mean.

There's reason why scientists don't get invited to parties because they are mostly a bunch of immature know-it-alls who are not much fun to be around. I'd rather hang out with the people who are trying to live a moral life but keep committing the worse sins after a few drinks.