The Frankman
Banned
Seconded.jdogmoney said:Motion to make this the new thread?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Does Quantum Theory disprove the idea of God?
- Thread starter vordhosbn
- Start date
- Status
Apology accepted. Generally, if you're c/ping old posts from totally different threads, relevance will not be high. It's your responsibility to make a reasoned and relevant argument, not ours to carefully comb through what you've said before and try to guess what you're saying now.Dunk#7 said:
foodtaster
Banned
Dimensions are inherent just how the second and third dimension are inherent. Whoever happens to be at the top has the greatest influence and ability to affect the lower dimensions. We just so happen to call this being God.Archer said:
plagiarize
Banned
i did, and i slapped my forehead repeatedly for the length of the film.Dunk#7 said:
ID is not science. it is philosophy. it is being pushed out of science classes... but the only reason it needs to be pushed out of science classes is because people with ulterior motives were pushing it into science classes in the first place.
science cannot explain everything, but its ridiculous to expect it to.
'we don't know yet' is a fundamental part of science, and that drive to try to explain the things we don't know yet is important.
you can believe in ID, but it isn't scientific. that doesn't make it wrong... but it isn't science.
he really didn't. he made the point that if it's logical to believe that a complex system was made by something else of equal or higher complexity, that it's logical to believe that the creator must have it's own creator. he used aliens in his hypothetical example out of kindness.
people who claim that ID isn't a religious belief don't specify what the creator is, in order to attempt to sidestep the religion vs science debate and get it into science lessons. he pandered to that.
ben stein missed his point and mocked him for what he misunderstood the point to be.
and there are scientists that have lost their jobs for teaching evolution in the states that don't permit it... and it has nothing to do with science one way or another, it only has to do with politics.
science is only interested in finding the explanation for things we can observe but can't currently explain. it isn't interested in disproving religion, or anything else. it's only agenda is a greater understanding of the physical universe. nothing more, nothing less.
the problem with ID, is that in a purely scientific discussion you have to explain where the creator came from too... which gets you right back to the problem you had before.
only when you bring in religion and philosophy can you make that work, and absolutely people can believe the two themselves, and operate perfectly well... but ID remains unscientific.
note that unscientific doesn't mean untrue. it just means that it isn't science.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Hmmmm..... not really dude.Dunk#7 said:
Azih said:
There is a subtle but significant difference between asking "Is God scientifically incompatible with this theory?" versus "If you accept this scientific theory as a premise, can you logically disprove God?" - despite the fact that my answer to both questions would be "No."
Atramental
Banned
Why we still got quarks?
Stumpokapow said:
I've heard of people basing it on experience. Sure, there are people who lose their faith when the god they believe in fails them, by taking their loved one away. But the opposite holds true as well. When that God they believe in actually answers a call.
Sometimes the experience is so profound, that that person's doubt is wiped out forever. Like crying for water in the desert, or for safety when bombs are falling around you, or for a dollor when you are the poorest amongst the poor. Or if your child's in hospital.
It's not a good argument, with too many reasons why it isn't definitively proof, or full proof; but it is one of the reasons why some people believe in a god. They asked for help; and they got help.
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
That's not entirely accurate. There's also people who claim to converse with a god or gods, they claim they communicate with messengers from god or gods, they say it's less belief, more truth.. So there's an entire landscape of believers and backings for beliefs.Ashes1396 said:
The simple truth is that people like to be mysterious, they like to show off their awesome secret red phone with which they talk to the big guy, and furthermore, they believe whatever's been told to them the earliest, they take for real the myths that are the most fuzzy, all that. It's really the same thing with ghosts, the afterlife, manifest evil, aliens, Â… The fuzzier, the better.
If you take a hard look at the guy, the Christian God doesn't really give much to define him with. What is it, all-powerfulness, independence of space and time, agelessness, being the prime mover, love, some pretty obvious rules, exclusive rights as a godÂ… Altogether pretty weird things to define an actual being with.
So what are you left with? People talking about a weird being noone can actually work with unless one's dead, the world has ended, a miracle's going on or other things you can't really deal with in terms of observation, data and so on. Sweet. So that's something you wouldn't want to bother science with, it's another realm altogether.
GoldenEye 007
Member
What basis? Nothing more than faith obviously. Nothing objective can be measured as we know it.Stumpokapow said:
I was just addressing that you can hold a belief in a higher being without being part of a "religion."
womfalcs3
Banned
How can the universe and our existence be based on randomness from the start if everything is governed by physical laws? When we, as humans, make any simulation-type software, or a virtual world, or even robots, everything must be programmed, and everything must be place and/or governed by physical equations.
It's not random. There's a design for everything that exists.
Einstein said nothing is an accident. I agree with him. There are no accidents, because every phenomenon in this universe is governed by mathematical and physical equations.
It's not random. There's a design for everything that exists.
Einstein said nothing is an accident. I agree with him. There are no accidents, because every phenomenon in this universe is governed by mathematical and physical equations.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Does the principle of superposition imply that Rifftrax are overrated garbage made by unfunny douches?
No. Rifftrax would suck even in a purely Relativistic universe.
The questions not only have nothing to do with one another, but the discoveries made in the field of Quantum Physics have actually led otherwise perfectly reasonable people to posit non-scientific hypotheses like the Strong Anthropic Principle (based on a misreading of the point Schroedinger was trying to make with his cat example) or the Best of All Possible Worlds thing that takes the principle of Superposition and the Many Worlds hypothesis and posits that it just doesn't get any better than this path in all of space-time.
The questions not only have nothing to do with one another, but the discoveries made in the field of Quantum Physics have actually led otherwise perfectly reasonable people to posit non-scientific hypotheses like the Strong Anthropic Principle (based on a misreading of the point Schroedinger was trying to make with his cat example) or the Best of All Possible Worlds thing that takes the principle of Superposition and the Many Worlds hypothesis and posits that it just doesn't get any better than this path in all of space-time.
krypt0nian
Banned
If logic doesn't stop them from believing in nonsense now, why would new logic do so?
wolfmat
Confirmed Asshole
The simulations humans make would actually involve the randomness factor without the need to specifically model it. And the randomness usually doesn't play out in a scale we can easily observe; when it does, it's mostly in optics.womfalcs3 said:
Anyway, very often, randomness is treated wrong. You can have high randomness with a very small variance, for instance. If the variance exceeds your observation detail, you won't be able to properly measure it, but it would still be there. So a simulation could or could not involve such a randomness and deterministically lead to the same outcome.
plagiarize
Banned
Einstein made some great scientific discoveries. That doesn't add scientific weight or truth to everything he says.
or another way of putting it, i don't have to surrender everything i hold to be true just because someone with a higher IQ than me holds different things to be true.
if someone is saying 'a clever person agrees with me' it makes me instantly skeptical, whatever statement they're trying to support.
or another way of putting it, i don't have to surrender everything i hold to be true just because someone with a higher IQ than me holds different things to be true.
if someone is saying 'a clever person agrees with me' it makes me instantly skeptical, whatever statement they're trying to support.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
MaddenNFL64 said:
Pretty much. We could discover the exact chain of events that lead to creation of the universe and life on earth and religious types would just note that God gave this to us or wanted us to find out.
(No offense if you do believe)
Always-honest
Banned
it doesn't care about god.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
There are perfectly logical arguments that can be made regarding the existence of a deity. It just depends on your assumptions going in.vordhosbn said:
Logic is a mix of mathematics with a bit of philosophy thrown in - not Science. Science uses both logic and mathematics, but they're not the same thing.
So what's your evidence for ID? Because right now it seems to merely be a lack of evidence supporting current abiogenesis theories. That's not evidence for ID.
ID shouldn't be in science classes because ID doesn't follow scientific principles. You can't "test" for God. It's more of a philosophical or religious concept.
Back on topic, there's so little that's understood about the way our universe works that currently nothing can disprove the concept of God, yet.
DefectiveReject
Banned
God is but born of the imagination of story tellers many moons ago, when they had no Timey Wimey programs to keep them occupied. I mean ALL the tales and stories born of the same period are true ..........right?? When people trying to make medicines and stuff where crucified for defying God's will. Lol.
You don't need quantum physics to disprove God.
You don't need quantum physics to disprove God.
krypt0nian
Banned
Azih said:
Hee. The same that says there are no unicorns, or blue moon fairies, or reptilian drudge pirates that live in your nose.
Lazy Jones
Member
Both yes and no.
Atramental
Banned
edit: I need a drink.
Atramental said:
No right, only things that can produce evidence can be said to be proved within limits of error. But the concept of god is utterly abstract (and again, has no fixed meaning). Additionally, it is a concept that can never be quantified. Thus, there is no hypothesis that can be tested. And since it can't be tested, nor can be semantically fixed, it can never be proved nor disproved.
My response was to a statement that summarizes as "because a conception of god was forged by imaginative story-tellers in the past - god does not exist". My statement was not to prove the existence of god, but to point out the error in the reasoning of the post I quoted.
foodtaster
Banned
lol, he madAtramental said:
You say there's no way of proving one way or another but then say you need evidence... which is it?
plagiarize said:
I agree with you, but with that being said you would also have to accept that many other claims out there are not science.
Every current concept about the beginning also has to explain where it came from. You can only go back so far before something had to come from nothing. At which point you have to take that on faith.
You either accept that something came from nothing based on faith.
Or you accept that a creator must have always existed and created the universe.
Either way you are relying on something that cannot be proven.
Science cannot and will not ever explain the beginning of the universe. It is unscientific to claim you can spontaneously have something from nothing.
- Status