Creationists Will Destroy ATS

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I see your invisible dog land and up you one quantum dimension! You have NO IDEA. You can't link it to experience, cause you HAVE NO IDEA. Personal witness and testimony mean nothing to you because (mwahaha) you HAVE NO IDEA. Let's face it, lastoutfinitevoiceeternal, you're not going to be able to truly and truthfully comment on other people's experiences until you HAVE AN IDEA. So I suggest we create a new branch of psychiatry in which your particular malady is included. We could call it "CLUELESS DISORDER."

[edit on 12-6-2008 by undo]

posty toasty to see post above ^

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
See the definition of schizophrenia? You fit it well.

Is that your professional psychiatric opinion?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
The more I converse with you the more I realize that you really are a case of schizophrenia.

Well, I must say, you are amazingly underpaid as a psychiatrist if you are able to diagnose people over the internet. Amazing you can do it with only an iota of forum posts to draw from.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You're an Athiest that uses blind faith? That's a new one.

Not really, because atheists have faith that there is no G*d. You’re thinking of agnostics, who do not have faith in anything. I will not be the judge to say whether their faith is blinde or not.

Originally posted by JPhish
When did I say I am an atheist?

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
You did.

I said THIS

Originally posted by JPhish
My family is atheist and I was raised atheist.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What does this quote imply then?

The quote humbly implies that you are wrong. You accepted ambiguous information, applied it to your logic, and miraculously, you were incorrect.

You’re logic, it seems, is not as perfect/flawless as you believe it to be.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Plato is old and outdated.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants," -Isaac Newton

All the below, originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I am pro-logic, pro-intellect and pro-truth.

Absence is the immeasurable presence, and yes I can see it.

I've shown that I've broken the back of the intangible.

No, I won't fall into a trap because I don't have a biased blindspot.

I have no biased blindspot.

You sir, have a biased blindspot.

My logic is perfect.

So, have fun with your biased blindspot and inherent paradoxical logic. Mine is flawless.

Glad I could help open you up to reality.

Originally posted by undo
I see your invisible dog land and up you one quantum dimension!

Again you show your ingorances of the sciences and of logic. You cannot see that which is invisible and there are only 3 dimensions in constant conversion and transmutation because of the forces and principals that they emanate and inherently possess.

Whenever you're ready to provide evidence for this extra-quantum dimension and a perfect definition of it, I'll be waiting, until then your faith and your opinion of it is nothing more than you touting your ignorant horn and attempting to salvage your unknown God.

You have NO IDEA. You can't link it to experience, cause you HAVE NO IDEA.

No idea of what exactly?

Personal witness and testimony mean nothing to you because (mwahaha) you HAVE NO IDEA.

No, actually personal witness and testimony means everything to me, it is the contents of that personal witness and testimony that matters.

Let's face it, lastoutfinitevoiceeternal, you're not going to be able to truly and truthfully comment on other people's experiences until you HAVE AN IDEA.

Well, I'm here commenting truthfully and truly right now. So, whenever you're ready to explain your experiences you can go right ahead. So far all experiences explained and their impending hypothetical scenerios and logics have failed horribly and showed a complete lack of knowledge of the physical existence and have led me to believe that at least two of the posters here have a severe and fanatical case of religiously type induced schizophrenia.

So I suggest we create a new branch of psychiatry in which your particular malady is included. We could call it "CLUELESS DISORDER."

Until you can provide evidence of my cluelessness whether through logic or facts, then that branch of psychiatryjust won't have any substance from which to progress.

However, you and your cohort would fit such a branch smugly.

Defining the admittedly unknowable is as clueless as it gets.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by JPhish
Well, I must say, you are amazingly underpaid as a psychiatrist if you are able to diagnose people over the internet. Amazing you can do it with only an iota of forum posts to draw from.

Schizophrenia:
1. a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.
2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

No, but you, your arguments and your character fit the definition. Have you found my invisible dog yet? He's in your house right now.

Not really, because atheists have faith that there is no G*d.

I don't have faith that there is no God and if you claim that I do, then so far my faith that there is no God is much stronger than the faith that you have in God, or rather the constantly contradicting and hypocritical logic that you are attempting to use to explain this God. My "faith" as you put it, that there is no God is certainly not blind relative to the logic you use to try and convince me that there is a God. The unknowable, eh? Then how do you continue to explain it?

You’re thinking of agnostics, who do not have faith in anything. I will not be the judge to say whether their faith is blinde or not.

Oh, you won't be the judge of them, eh? But you'll be the judge of me? Do you even know what blind faith is or do I have to post another definition?

Originally posted by JPhish
When did I say I am an atheist?

I said that your religious heritage was shining through, you replied by providing me with information of how you were raised athiest and your family is athiest. Perhaps the word that was misleading here was heritage, by heritage I mean at any time in your past. Also by claiming that we have free will, and this free will is directly a result of religion, then you believe that you were born with this right, which is your religious heritage.

The quote humbly implies that you are wrong. You accepted ambiguous information, applied it to your logic, and miraculously, you were incorrect.

Again, would you show why, please? You said that your family is athiest and you were raised athiest, would you like to then complete the rest of your reply rather than attempting to set up "traps" which is merely revealing your deceptive ways. Were you raised Athiest and now you have been proselytized to Christianity/Catholicism? Since you're not answering the questions yourself and it appears to be a difficult task for you to carry out, I suppose I'll have to presume, that which I don't like doing.

You’re logic, it seems, is not as perfect/flawless as you believe it to be.

Again, until you can provide evidence of such and explain clearly why, then your opinion means nothing. Regardless of how often you repeat your opinion of me; without proper facts, logic and explanation to back it up it is ignorant banter.

Simply taking some of my quotes and spraying them across the board with none of your own input as to why they are flawed, then you are doing nothing more than taking part in your own form of visual propaganda.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

What I call "welcome to the fold of the faithful":

Schroedinger's Cat.
In the experiment, the investigator (read scientist), must have faith that the cat is indeed in the box, BECAUSE, if he opens the box and observes the cat, it dies and the experiment is a failure and nothing has been proven. so for the experiment to work and the science proven, faith in the cat's existence must be maintained without seeing it.

Originally posted by undo
In the experiment, the investigator (read scientist), must have faith that the cat is indeed in the box, BECAUSE, if he opens the box and observes the cat, it dies and the experiment is a failure and nothing has been proven. So for the experiment to work and the science proven, faith in the cat's existence must be maintained without seeing it.

This is unevidential. I can put my dog in a box right now and ask my brother whether he thinks it's in there or not. Now if my brother sees me put the dog in the box, and I am not up to any magic tricks, then my brother knows the dog is in the box, no faith involved. Now, if my brother opens the box to see my dog, my dog won't magically die. There is no faith in the cat's existence nor the dog's existence.

The cat's existence was seen and visually proven, assuming that I am up to no magic tricks or optical illusions, before placing the cat in the box. We know how the physics of the universe works, according to these physics the cat will still be there when the box is opened. This is not faith, it is science. It is not only predictable, but it is 100% verifiable and testable.

Now, whether my brother has faith in my dog being in the box or not, the dog will still be there either way. Faith has nothing to do with my Dog's physical existence. However, faith has everything to do with your God's non-physical, unknowable, detached from reality existence.

There are also x-rays I could use to see through the box and thermo-imaging without ever opening the box. Unfortunately God can not be seen or tested in any of these ways, because God does not exist.

And also, if he opens the box, according to said experiment, and the cat dies, the experiement is a success going off of what you just presented... as the cat was still found to be in the box whether dead or alive.

Physical matter doesn't just magically "poof" into existence and it doesn't magically "poof" out of existence. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The faith of my mind doesn't cause spontaneous appearance or disappearance of other creatures or materials. And if you in fact believe this to be true, then you don't believe in free will. As the free will excercised by the man's faith in the experiement directly negates the free will of the cat. So if we put a man in the box and I don't have faith that the man is in the box, then this man disappears? No wait, if I open the box he dies?

This is silly and not scientific at all, but rather more religious illogical babble.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

you can't put it in the box, you have to have faith that's in there already. that's how the experiment works.
if you observe it, it changes state and you can't prove it ever had any other state than its changed state.

Originally posted by undo
you can't put it in the box, you have to have faith that's in there already. that's how the experiment works.

Well, a cat can't survive in a box without someone giving it food and water, and to do that you'd have to know it's in there.

if you observe it, it changes state and you can't prove it ever had any other state than its changed state.

This has nothing to do with physical reality. Things don't change state because we observe them. For instance, my living room door is not silly puddy rolling around on the floor right now having a party with my the table that has turned into jell-o waiting for me to come and observe it so that they can take their original forms again.

Henceforth, said experiment once again has no correlation or attachment to the physical universe, physics and the way reality works.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

that's why schroedinger's cat was designed, to show how a light particle and light wave function when under observation. if you observe it, it changes state, and you have no evidence that it was ever in its former state. therefore, you have to have faith that it has the unseen state, which is not verifiable with observation. only the resulting end product is verifiable, which is what lead to the concept in the first place.

Originally posted by undo
that's why schroedinger's cat was designed, to show how a light particle and light wave function when under observation.

Schroedinger's cat is bunk. It is based on completely illogical ramblings. It's the same argument as saying God is unknown and then defining what God is. A blaring contradiction.

If no one knows there is a cat in the box, then no one knows there is a cat in the box. It is teeming with tripe to have faith in ignorance. A cat can not survive in a box without someone giving it food and water and anyone telling you that there is a cat in the box and that it will die or change form if you look at it is a liar and a deceiver and unacquainted with physical reality.

if you observe it, it changes state, and you have no evidence that it was ever in its former state.

Yes, we do, and again this has nothing to do with physical reality. Energy is transmorphological, this is no secret. We know what states and forms things can and can not take. The cat is not a light particle or a light wave. This has no physical connection or correlation to this experiement.

therefore, you have to have faith that it has the unseen state, which is not verifiable with observation. only the resulting end product is verifiable, which is what lead to the concept in the first place.

If a state is not EVER verifiable or visible, then it once again falls into the category of irrelevant and unknown.

In fact, the concept in the first place is flawed. We could never know if a cat was in the box without looking, but we certainly could know that after not looking for 3 months... if there was a cat in the box it would be dead. Now, I didn't look at the cat in the box, but it died anyway and not from light waves but from mal-nutrition. Shroedinger should be arrested for animal abuse (among other things such as stupidity).

Am I missing something? Did someone create a bio-chemical cat that doesn't need to eat or drink and lives in a closed box forever and plays tricks on people? Oh right... here we go with God again and schizophrenia. My invisible dog is licking my leg.

Sounds like schroedinger's cat is another word for God. It lives forever without food or drink in a place called Heaven (inside a box), no one can see it, and anyone that doesn't believe in it or that questions it has something bad happen, in this case to the cat.

This isn't based on science, this is based on "hey, I have an invisible friend in a box that makes me feel good, want to believe in him too? He'll make you feel good. Wait! Don't look in the box or you'll destroy him forever!"

So, a shapeshifting cat in a box, wonderful. What else are you going to come up with?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

whew. tell ya what, let's just agree to disagree.

Originally posted by undo
whew. tell ya what, let's just agree to disagree.

What's the matter? Your invisible shape shifting cat and unknowable non-physical God with attributes are crumbling before your eyes and you don't have the logic and intellect to form your own line of reasoning? Rather you use dogmatic, illogical hypothetical experiments from those that have come before you?

Like I said, when you can disprove my flawless logic then I'll be defeated, until then the world is going to have to deal with me and all of my endeavors that I do while I'm here. If you want your God to stick around I'd suggest explaining what he is. Otherwise pretty soon you're going to be reading a book that everyone will have access to completely disproving your God and any arguments that could ever be used to defend it.

I don't agree to disagree. I agree that I'm right and you're wrong and you've not proven the opposite.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question: when does a quantum system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resemble different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox: our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states, yet it seems only cats can be such a mixture. Are cats required to be observers, or does their existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer? Each alternative seemed absurd to Albert Einstein, who was impressed by the ability of the thought experiment to highlight these issues; in a letter to Schrödinger dated 1950 he wrote:

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality—if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality—reality as something independent of what is experimentally established. Their interpretation is, however, refuted most elegantly by your system of radioactive atom + amplifier + charge of gun powder + cat in a box, in which the psi-function of the system contains both the cat alive and blown to bits. Nobody really doubts that the presence or absence of the cat is something independent of the act of observation.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...'s_cat

You need to speak to Schroedinger and Einstein if you disagree with the concept. Ya know?

Originally posted by undo
You need to speak to Schroedinger and Einstein if you disagree with the concept. Ya know?

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing it's about the fact that I've completely proven it wrong by surpassing their faulty logic and false insertion of science.

I've already spoken to Shroedinger and Einstein with what they left behind in their legacy.

You think they told Gallileo to speak to God about the notion that the Earth revolves around the sun?

Facts are facts, they will not be trumped by dogma or famous names.

Instead of posting a whole page about what I just disproved, why don't you respond to my post in your own words with your own logic?

Again, regardless of how many times you voice your opinion and your faith it will never negate fact and logic.

There is no physical correlation from which to compare Shroedinger's experiment with actual reality except to show that it has no connection to reality.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

well i'd like to but the problem is you've assumed 3 months will solve the riddle. isthat just a random number you plucked out of the eth..........wait, just forget this. the more i read your post, the more i realize you're just yankin' my chain

see ya!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

 

I see your invisible dog land and up you one quantum dimension! You have NO IDEA. You can't link it to experience, cause you HAVE NO IDEA. Personal witness and testimony mean nothing to you because (mwahaha) you HAVE NO IDEA. Let's face it, lastoutfinitevoiceeternal, you're not going to be able to truly and truthfully comment on other people's experiences until you HAVE AN IDEA. So I suggest we create a new branch of psychiatry in which your particular malady is included. We could call it "CLUELESS DISORDER."

Well you now have four stars for that post undo. I refuse to even talk to him after he said he could create a new life form. Its one thing to debate with people - its another to try to steam roll over them. The accusations of schizophrenia on others are hilarious as hes the closest to the definition Ive encountered on ATS.

reply to post by undo


3 months is a suffice amount of time for a cat without proper nutrition in a closed box to vitally terminate, at which time or shortly thereafter I should start to smell an aroma of decomposition which would then tell me if in fact there was or was not any sort of living creature in the box.

Would this cat not move around or make noise while in the box? What kind of cat is this? Could I not pick this box up and shake it?

What if I went and bought my own box and placed a cat in it, and then observed what type of things the cat did while in it, then returned to Shroedingers box and compared my results to what is in his box.

Too much speculation and ignorance, no logic, no science, mass delusion.

If we know there is a cat in the box to begin with but no one has ever seen the cat and no one put the cat in the box, then who can say we know there is a cat in the box at all?

For that matter, a cat is not a body of light wave particles either.

The expierment should be renamed Shroedinger's delusion and carnal mishaps.

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The accusations of schizophrenia on others are hilarious as hes the closest to the definition I've encountered on ATS.

Well then, perhaps you should read the definition of schizophrenia once again.

a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.
2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

Now you must also provide proof of where I fit into this category.

I'd also like to see proof of the invisible dog that Whammy sees along with the "extra-quantum dimension". Maybe the two of you could collaborate and come up with something that I will peer review.

Unless you're just giving him stars because... uh... you don't like me?

[edit on 13-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Also, maybe the two of you could team up to show exactly what it is that I have no idea about as I still have no received a reply in regards to this inquery.

Since you understood her