The gig is up.

I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible. The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.

Source: http://davidpratt.info/jse.htm

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of "potentia". If I'm correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But..........

If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn't really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kind of fitting that you cite the authority of your deluded authority.... yada yada .... Jeez, you haven't even seen an electron have you, yet here you go blindly believing.... yada yada ... yrfullashit ..... yada yada

see how easy that is?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific. One must present belief in god as a possibility to discourse with sane people. Dope.

Your semantics is all out of whack. Philosophers do not frame that god definitely exists. If they do they are going to be reminded that there is no proof for the stance.

Ideas are fine. Belief is reserved for that which is PROVEN.

We could say IMAGINE god exists as a philosophical exercise, but this doesn't change the stance a sane person is required to maintain underneath.

Y'all just got carried away by the BS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is science scientific?

 

Ha ha. No scientist fully understands Quantum Physics. This field is still under review. There are certain aspects which are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Other areas are fringe science under the kosh of conjectural hypothesis. (This is really basic stuff you don't grasp I see).

But to then leap to belief in consciousness acting on these systems smacks of desperation; indeed inability to wait on definite proofs instead of focusing on one possible conclusion reached with insufficient understanding of the system in question.

Just proves how UNscientific belief is.

 

You know, this definition of science as the study of the natural world is a new definition, it's a common use that's sprung up in the last century. Dictionaries don't actually tell us what words mean, they tell us what people mean by the words when they use them. So what definitions appear first, (most common use) changes over time as cultures evolve.

This is from an online site:

Philosophy and Theology are also, properly, a science. Note "facts or truths" or "principles" in the bolded part. Those who study the natural world have, over time, distanced themselves from religion is order to be able to objectively pursue knowledge without interference from churches. Galileo is probably the classic example.

Those who pursue knowledge and truth, aren't themselves necessarily objective. (see: Dawkins or any Creationist)

 

Enlighten me.

 

I understand the etymology of the word Science.

Dawkins is a blinded crackpot that assumes using insufficient evidence just as a god believer does. He has risen to prominence on the backs of extreme atheism. I do not share his stance.

 

Everything is not explainable by science.

 

Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term "science" was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.

 

You could look at it that way. Doesn't effect my stance in the slightest.

I like to think Religion is a science (broad use of the word), a dysfunctional science that comes to conclusions without proof, and chooses to ignore proof when it wishes.

 

Logic is a useless system when it comes to the subject of God, and that isn't the only thing it's useless for. It has been demonstrated time and time again, including here at this forum, that logic cannot produce results that prove or disprove anything about the subject of God.

But then, you have to believe that there are things in the world which defy logic, and that logic is only useful in a restricted setting. For instance, logic is axiomatic and axioms are a priori "facts" which are assumed to be complete. But they're only complete within the axiomatic logic. Logic can only be logical, so its usefulness is limited.

Logic is not what you appear to believe it is.

 

Dumb. Logic is not at fault. Your believing in unproven BS is. Go figure.

Clutching at theoretical straws I think.

You still offer no PROOF LOL.

When will you concede that my stance is unbreakdownable.

 

The OP asks a simple question. You CANNOT answer it. The End.

 

you just don't like the answer. it doesn't fit in your box. :shrug:

 

Logic is a PROVEN system of review that is used with evidence to PROVE things.

This context holds.

 

I don't like the lack of proof within the answer.

For a question to truly be answered the answerer must address its context. All you lot do is whine and moan about how you can't answer it.

 

there IS NO proof in the answer! the proof comes from god itself, so if you're asking anyone else for proof, YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

 

Laugh all you want.
What compels you to believe that I "need" to offer a proof? What does that even mean?

If it means: use a logical argument to prove that God exists, that is impossible. It's been impossible for thousands of years. That you insist it is possible only demonstrates that you don't understand what logic is, although it seems you like to think you do.

The OP asks a question which cannot be answered. Except, you can answer it for yourself, and you don't need logic to do it, all you need (really!) is the ability to concentrate, forget about logic, forget even about thinking ... it's like that.

Then, if you do experience something--it could take a bit of effort and practice--you can revisit your contention that personal proof "is not scientific". If you find, for example, that this practice makes you feel relaxed and "at peace", you can analyse this feeling as an unscientific result which has no bearing on your intellectual grasp of reality . . .

 

hence the gentle reminder that there are a host of knowable claims (such as identifying one's parents for example) that similarly use philosophy in an "unscientific" manner