|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:15:47 GMT
"No, because not I'm saying I am right, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. " You're not outright saying that obviously, but saying "this one guy adds validity to my argument" is at least invoking it Appeal to Authority Fallacy to some degree. "By that logic, all expert testimony is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy and so is your mentioning Krauss and Neil Degrasse-Tyson. " If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overhwelmingly agree it's happening. can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real. To clarify this issue, there are many different types of possible parallel universes. All of them without exception are consequences of other theories/models being true. Certain cosmological models predict multiple universes if those models are true. It's true that we can't directly test/observe those other universes, but most cosmological models are, at least in theory, testable in other ways, and if they turn out to be right then we should take multiple universes seriously. One specific case of other "universes" being actually observable is the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. When we perform the double-slit experiment we literally see these "worlds" interfering with each other in the experiment. The weird thing is that one of these worlds (or states) go away when we start to measure these states beforehand. The last century of quantum mechanics has mostly been about how to make sense of this. Many interpretations say the other world/state collapses or goes away, but this creates all kinds of physical and logical contradictions. Other interpretations say there are hidden variables we're missing that would make the process deterministic; but Bell's Theory has shown no hidden variables could achieve that while maintaining locality, which is a major thing in physics as it would make QM incompatible with General Relativity. Many-worlds states both worlds/state still exist, but they're now entangled with the multiple states of the observer and have decohered into the environment, never to interact again. If that interpretation is right then we're literally seeing other worlds every time we perform such experiments in quantum mechanics, but we simple can't see those other worlds any more after we interact with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:16:06 GMT
That because a bunch of people believe in something must add validity to it. That's not fallacious at all! That's what I figured, but I'm waiting for her to say it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 20:18:17 GMT
That because a bunch of people believe in something must add validity to it. That's not fallacious at all! That's what I figured, but I'm waiting for her to say it. I don't think she's gonna outright say that because I think even she knows that kinda dumb. But she is basically invoking argument from ad populum.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jan 4, 2021 20:27:01 GMT
...parallel universes... can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real. To clarify this issue, there are many different types of possible parallel universes. All of them without exception are consequences of other theories/models being true. Certain cosmological models predict multiple universes if those models are true. It's true that we can't directly test/observe those other universes, but most cosmological models are, at least in theory, testable in other ways, and if they turn out to be right then we should take multiple universes seriously. One specific case of other "universes" being actually observable is the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. When we perform the double-slit experiment we literally see these "worlds" interfering with each other in the experiment. The weird thing is that one of these worlds (or states) go away when we start to measure these states beforehand. The last century of quantum mechanics has mostly been about how to make sense of this. Many interpretations say the other world/state collapses or goes away, but this creates all kinds of physical and logical contradictions. Other interpretations say there are hidden variables we're missing that would make the process deterministic; but Bell's Theory has shown no hidden variables could achieve that while maintaining locality, which is a major thing in physics as it would make QM incompatible with General Relativity. Many-worlds states both worlds/state still exist, but they're now entangled with the multiple states of the observer and have decohered into the environment, never to interact again. If that interpretation is right then we're literally seeing other worlds every time we perform such experiments in quantum mechanics, but we simple can't see those other worlds any more after we interact with them. I followed that more or less, thank you for making it laymen friendly. While I didn't major in the hard sciences, I deeply appreciate them. It makes me wonder in awe in what we will find in 100 years. Will we finally find a White Hole?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 20:35:29 GMT
Why the hell do you think it’s your friggin’ business to try to talk people out of their beliefs in a higher power?!? Because that's part of discussing religion, faith, and spirituality, which is what this board is for. You lie about religion. You insult billions of innocent people because of your smug feelings of superiority. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:39:15 GMT
Because that's part of discussing religion, faith, and spirituality, which is what this board is for. You lie about religion. You insult billions of innocent people because of your smug feelings of superiority. What have I lied about? What makes you think I have "smug feelings of superiority?"
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 20:39:46 GMT
When human beings believe in a higher being (not 100% but most) since the dawn of recorded history, it’s part of the experience of the human species.
Trying to do a cancel culture act on the human race itself takes the cancel business a bit too far.
Leave people the hell alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:40:50 GMT
To clarify this issue, there are many different types of possible parallel universes. All of them without exception are consequences of other theories/models being true. Certain cosmological models predict multiple universes if those models are true. It's true that we can't directly test/observe those other universes, but most cosmological models are, at least in theory, testable in other ways, and if they turn out to be right then we should take multiple universes seriously. One specific case of other "universes" being actually observable is the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. When we perform the double-slit experiment we literally see these "worlds" interfering with each other in the experiment. The weird thing is that one of these worlds (or states) go away when we start to measure these states beforehand. The last century of quantum mechanics has mostly been about how to make sense of this. Many interpretations say the other world/state collapses or goes away, but this creates all kinds of physical and logical contradictions. Other interpretations say there are hidden variables we're missing that would make the process deterministic; but Bell's Theory has shown no hidden variables could achieve that while maintaining locality, which is a major thing in physics as it would make QM incompatible with General Relativity. Many-worlds states both worlds/state still exist, but they're now entangled with the multiple states of the observer and have decohered into the environment, never to interact again. If that interpretation is right then we're literally seeing other worlds every time we perform such experiments in quantum mechanics, but we simple can't see those other worlds any more after we interact with them. I followed that more or less, thank you for making it laymen friendly. While I didn't major in the hard sciences, I deeply appreciate them. It makes me wonder in awe in what we will find in 100 years. Will we finally find a White Hole? If you want more detail, Max Tegmark had a very good laymen-friendly introduction to several of the most popular theories in this article for Scientific American: space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 20:41:41 GMT
Most of the billions of believers do believe in an invisible higher power that can’t be tested by the physical world. Saying otherwise is a lie.
Leave the human race the hell alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:41:51 GMT
When human beings believe in a higher being (not 100% but most) since the dawn of recorded history, it’s part of the experience of the human species. Trying to do a cancel culture act on the human race itself takes the cancel business a bit too far. Leave people the hell alone. Have you enabled a random non sequitur program on your computer that's producing these posts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:43:07 GMT
Most of the billions of believers do believe in an invisible higher power that can’t be tested by the physical world. Saying otherwise is a lie. Christians and Jews believe in a God based on a book that gives examples of how that God interacts with and is testable in the physical world. So either you're lying or ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 20:51:07 GMT
Most of the billions of believers do believe in an invisible higher power that can’t be tested by the physical world. Saying otherwise is a lie. Christians and Jews believe in a God based on a book that gives examples of how that God interacts with and is testable in the physical world. So either you're lying or ignorant. You frigging liar. There is no way to test a spiritual being in the physical world. I’ve never heard this stupid claim in my entire life. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2021 21:06:04 GMT
It's my opinion you are clouding the issue and trying to make it unnecessarily complicated to avoid just admitting you are wrong. Some people believe in God. Some don't. There is no proof one way or another. There may be a God. There may not. You can believe anything you want. So can I. You are a smart guy. You should have realized by now, your primitive and severely restricted ways of trying to prove --- or even suggest --- there is no God, are laughably unable. No matter how much you wish to, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I'm not clouding anything. I've said from the beginning most people don't understand how evidence works and you're clearly and example of that. What, pray tell, was I wrong about? You keep repeating this "there is no proof either way" like a mantra. I've said repeatedly I'm not (never have been) talking about proof but evidence (and assumptions). That same statement applies to any imaginary being. LMAO, my "primitive and restrictive ways of trying to prove there is no God?" You mean, "the fundamental model of how evidence works in order to prove anything at all?" THOSE "primitive and restrictive ways?" Please, do tell, what other advanced and non-restrictive ways would you endorse that would warrant belief in God? I'm sure the world of epistemological philosophy is on the edge of their seat waiting for you to detail this new, super-sophisticated method. Here, I'm going to make this simple: Either there is evidence for God or there isn't. If you think there is evidence, post it and then we can discuss why that is/isn't evidence. If you agree with me that there's no evidence, then you need to argue why it's rational to assume God (or any being) exists without evidence. If you can do neither, you must then agree that belief in God is irrational and unwarranted. So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It's just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 21:15:30 GMT
I'm not clouding anything. I've said from the beginning most people don't understand how evidence works and you're clearly and example of that. What, pray tell, was I wrong about? You keep repeating this "there is no proof either way" like a mantra. I've said repeatedly I'm not (never have been) talking about proof but evidence (and assumptions). That same statement applies to any imaginary being. LMAO, my "primitive and restrictive ways of trying to prove there is no God?" You mean, "the fundamental model of how evidence works in order to prove anything at all?" THOSE "primitive and restrictive ways?" Please, do tell, what other advanced and non-restrictive ways would you endorse that would warrant belief in God? I'm sure the world of epistemological philosophy is on the edge of their seat waiting for you to detail this new, super-sophisticated method. Here, I'm going to make this simple: Either there is evidence for God or there isn't. If you think there is evidence, post it and then we can discuss why that is/isn't evidence. If you agree with me that there's no evidence, then you need to argue why it's rational to assume God (or any being) exists without evidence. If you can do neither, you must then agree that belief in God is irrational and unwarranted. So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. It’s an individual decision. Definitely. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 21:21:52 GMT
Christians and Jews believe in a God based on a book that gives examples of how that God interacts with and is testable in the physical world. So either you're lying or ignorant. You frigging liar. There is no way to test a spiritual being in the physical world. I’ve never heard this stupid claim in my entire life.Maybe you should read your own holy book better. God interacts with the physical world all the time in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 21:28:21 GMT
You frigging liar. There is no way to test a spiritual being in the physical world. I’ve never heard this stupid claim in my entire life.Maybe you should read your own holy book better. God interacts with the physical world all the time in it. You are a frigging liar. No one else I’ve ever seen claims that the spiritual God can be tested by the physical world. No one. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 21:28:48 GMT
I'm not clouding anything. I've said from the beginning most people don't understand how evidence works and you're clearly and example of that. What, pray tell, was I wrong about? You keep repeating this "there is no proof either way" like a mantra. I've said repeatedly I'm not (never have been) talking about proof but evidence (and assumptions). That same statement applies to any imaginary being. LMAO, my "primitive and restrictive ways of trying to prove there is no God?" You mean, "the fundamental model of how evidence works in order to prove anything at all?" THOSE "primitive and restrictive ways?" Please, do tell, what other advanced and non-restrictive ways would you endorse that would warrant belief in God? I'm sure the world of epistemological philosophy is on the edge of their seat waiting for you to detail this new, super-sophisticated method. Here, I'm going to make this simple: Either there is evidence for God or there isn't. If you think there is evidence, post it and then we can discuss why that is/isn't evidence. If you agree with me that there's no evidence, then you need to argue why it's rational to assume God (or any being) exists without evidence. If you can do neither, you must then agree that belief in God is irrational and unwarranted. So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 21:30:53 GMT
Maybe you should read your own holy book better. God interacts with the physical world all the time in it. You are a frigging liar. No one else I’ve ever seen claims that the spiritual God can be tested by the physical world. No one. Care to call me a liar again?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 21:35:22 GMT
You are a frigging liar. No one else I’ve ever seen claims that the spiritual God can be tested by the physical world. No one. Care to call me a liar again? How do you test God in this? Sent fire from heaven? Ask for fire and see how it goes. You are a frigging liar. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 21:43:43 GMT
When human beings believe in a higher being (not 100% but most) since the dawn of recorded history, it’s part of the experience of the human species. Trying to do a cancel culture act on the human race itself takes the cancel business a bit too far. Leave people the hell alone. I'm starting to suspect you have at least 10 cats
|
|
