patrick.net

The cat was just a thought experiment to illustrate quantum entanglement.

Too many people try to apply this to our real world and make sense of it when they should not.

That damn cat is dead, I opened the box and force-fed it the cyanide.

IT's useful in this case for spelling out a simple logical fact to some who otherwise for whatever reason might not be able grasp it.

You're thinking of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and specifically the concept that the observer affects the observed. While it's true in some ways maybe, that is what people are talking about when they say QM inferences about particle physics don't apply at our gross level.

MY example here is just a very simple easy to understand point about logic, and the aliveness of the cat, and was meant to be 100% independent of any connection to particle physics.

Haha, good luck with that. 99% of humanity is perfectly comfortable with a head full of paradoxes. They don't care to reconcile anything as long as most of it gets them through the day alive.

MAybe I should have stuck to the thread. In another thread Dan said.

Dan8267 says

First, one does not need to prove something that cannot be disproven by definition. Anything that cannot be disproven by definition is false.

Worded awkwardly, but I'm pretty sure he is using some fallacious reasoning that I attempt to dispel above in as simple and clear a way as possible.

Meanwhile, you're right.

http://www.HCOE__N6v4o

I don't even own a cat!

Ah, Schrödinger's Cat, the most misinterpreted experiment, thought or otherwise, in the history of the world. This is quite ironic since Erwin Schrödinger made up this experiment to demonstrate how confusing and misleading some fancier interpretations of quantum mechanics are. Schrödinger's concern was that the general public would misinterpret quantum mechanics to be some kind of voodoo magic, and then the general public completely misinterpreted his thought experiment.

All right, I will try to clarify this subject matter. First off, mechanics is the study of basic physical properties like energy, mass, and how bodies behave when subjected to forces. Mechanics includes studying things like tools (levers, pulleys), friction, and acceleration of bodies including orbits. Quantum mechanics studies similar things as they apply to the very small in size and mass, for example, atoms, protons, electrons, etc.

Ok, now imagine that for a course in mechanics you wanted to measure the temperature of a bucket of ice water. Now, of course, we all know that the temperature of a bucket of ice water at atmospheric pressure is, by definition, 0 degrees Celsius. So we expect our thermometer to read zero when we take the temperature.

But let's say the thermometer we use is an industrial strength thermometer designed to measure the temperature of molten iron. We take the thermometer out of a vat of molten iron and stick it into our small bucket of ice water. Immediately, the water begins to steam and the ice melts and evaporates. We're left with a partially melted bucked containing no water or ice by the time the thermometer settles on a temperature. We read the temperature as 200 degrees Celsius and conclude that an ice water mixture has that temperature. Good science, right?

Well, no. You see, we fucked up. We forgot that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" and what that means. Well, for one thing, it means that any thermometer we use, any at all, will itself have a temperature and some heat. Normally, we can easily discard the effect on temperature that the thermometer will have on what it's measuring the temperature of. We can normally discard this effect because it is utterly insignificant.

However, in our faulty experiment, we took a thermometer whose temperature and heat content were "big" relative to the temperature and heat content of the thing it was measuring. As a result, the temperature had a comically large effect on the object it was trying to measure a property of. Of course, common sense would keep us from doing something so ridiculous in the real world.

So, what does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Well, everything in quantum mechanics is small, damn small. In fact, quantum mechanics deals with the very smallest things in the universe. That's kind of the whole point of quantum mechanics. And since we're dealing with the very smallest objects in the universe, any thermometer we use will be "big" relative to the thing it's measuring.

And wait, that's not all. It's not just thermometers that cause a problem. Any device at all which measures any physical property (location, speed, electric potential, mass, anything) will have a significant effect on that object. We can't even measure the kinetic energy of an electron without significantly affecting the electron.

Fortunately, there is a simple equation that describes how much error our attempts to measure something will introduce. It's called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and it calculates a maximum error in the same way that your calculator uses Taylor Series Approximations to calculate sins and cosines and the upper limit on the error of these approximations. Ah, brings me back to high school calculus.

So the practical side is that in quantum mechanics, you can indeed make the same kinds of measurements that you do in macro-mechanics -- you know, high school physics -- except that in quantum mechanics you have to keep track of the upper limit of error (or uncertainty) in all your calculations because this uncertainty is significant since you're dealing with really small things.

Well, that doesn't sound too bad. It's pretty pedestrian. Hardly seems relevant to the discussion of god or anything mythical. It sounds down right mundane. Enter the people with overactive imaginations…

One of the practical consequences of the uncertainty of quantum mechanics is that you don't know when some particular unstable atom is going to fission itself into a more stable configuration by performing radioactive decay. This is why we talk about the half-life of various isotopes of elements. We don't know when each particular atom is going to decay, but we know that statistically and predictably half of the atoms in a sample will decay in time T. So we call that time the half-life.

Now we're getting close to Schrödinger's thought experiment, so bear with me -- or, if you prefer, bare with me, I won't mind.

First, let me clarify that The Theory of Quantum Mechanics is a very successful theory that has with great precision been verified. It is both a theory and a fact just like evolution and gravity. Theory does not mean "guess". Quantum Mechanics has also proven to be extremely useful in practical matters such as computing, encryption, fuel efficiency, etc. It is a well-established theory that has already bore much economic fruit.

That said, we are dealing with the forefront of scientific understanding. And at that forefront is always brain-storming, imagination, and conjectures. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you can distinguish between "what might be allowed by our theory" and "what we know to be true according to the theory". These are two entirely different things. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted black holes and we now know these to exist. Relativity also allows, in that it doesn't out-right prevent the existence of, wormholes. Now wormholes might exist, or they might not. Maybe we'll even expand Relativity to the point where we either prove the necessity of wormholes or the impossibility of wormholes, but that hasn't happened yet. Wormholes are just a conjecture, not something we know for sure exists.

Having clarified that, I will let you know what led Schrödinger to come up with his experiment. Yes, it all ties together.

A very bright and successful physicist, Niels Bohr, was dealing with the troubles that uncertainty introduces in physics -- yes, I'm dumbing this down, but I'll link to a more detail discussion. To deal with these problems, Bohr developed the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which is a kind of paradigm for dealing with the counter-intuitive world of quantum mechanics -- quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive because our intuition evolved to deal with problems on our scale and not the scale of the very small. The link above goes into more detail, but the important idea to understand for this discussion is that the Copenhagen Interpretation is not the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, but rather a mindset used to deal with quantum mechanics.

Side Note. Copenhagen is not the name of some long dead physicist. Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark and a city in which a lot of physics including the early works on quantum mechanics took place. In fact, the Niels Bohr's Institute for Theoretical Physics is located at the University of Copenhagen.

So, once again I need to simply things as much as I can without distorting their meanings. One of the most direct consequences of the Copenhagen Interpretation is the philosophical principle that a property of an object (say velocity) has every possible value until it is observed. This is different from the Uncertainty Principle which only says we cannot measure properties without affecting them and other properties and thus introducing an error or uncertainty.

Some people, including Schrödinger, had objections to this philosophical interpretation of a physical theory. So Schrödinger devised the following thought experiment to demonstrate the "silliness" of the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Schrödinger Cat experiment is actually a standard argument form (I forget the name) in which you get the proposer of an idea to reject a necessary (even if extreme) consequence of the idea and in doing so discredit the idea. As readers know, I do this all the time.

Schrödinger's Cat Thought Experiment (kids, don't try this at home)
1. Get a box, a cat, some poison, a hammer, a radiation detector, some scrap electronics, and one radioactive atom.
2. Put the cat in the box with a vial of poison and the radioactive atom.
3. Set up the sensor to detect the radioactive decay of the atom and to use the hammer to break the vial when the decay happens. The poison will be released and the cat will die.

The whole purpose of this experiment is to reject the Copenhagen Interpretation by showing that its consequences are ridiculous. Unfortunately, the Copenhagen Interpretation deals with quantum mechanics and everything in quantum mechanics is ridiculous -- true, yes, but ridiculous nonetheless. So, Schrödinger had the brilliant idea to transform the quantum uncertainty into macro-uncertainty.

Remember, that the Uncertainty Principle says that we can't know when or even if the particular unstable atom in our box will decay. The Copenhagen Interpretation says that means the atom is both in a decayed and not decayed state (the only two possible states in our case) until it is observed. Well, as long as we keep the box closed, we're not observing anything. But if the atom is both decayed and not, then the sensor has both gone off and not have gone off. So the poison has both been released and has not been released. So the cat is both dead and alive, but not in the good zombie way.

Well, no one is going to accept that the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box and then it spontaneously and randomly assumes one and only one of those two states. So clearly the Copenhagen Interpretation is wrong.

But wait, the advocates of the Copenhagen Interpretation rebut. The interpretation merely says the event must be observed, not necessarily by humans. So, the cat is either dead or alive because the non-sentient sensor observed the event. No problem. You can't trigger the poison to be released without observing the event and that collapses the wave function -- I'm dumbing things down, but that's the basic point they make.

Fair enough, but everything is always being observed if you include every non-sentient particle in the universe. You are constantly reacting with photons, electrons, and atoms. So if our sensor is enough to render the Copenhagen Interpretation impotent, then wouldn't the mere presence of all the stuff in the universe in effect always render the Copenhagen Interpretation mute?

Put simply, the idea that uncertainly means that a property takes on all possible values simultaneously is utterly meaningless if you also add that once that property has any effect on the universe it is no longer "all possible values" but some particular value. What have you really added to the understanding of quantum mechanics? What phenomenon are you explaining? What would be the difference between a universe in which the Copenhagen Interpretation operated and one in which it didn't? The answer: nothing.

I hope this explains the Schrödinger's Cat experiment and why that thought experiment does not mean "a god that is undefinable might exist" or "a statement that is unprovable by design can be true". What the Schrödinger's Cat experiment demonstrates is that just because we don't know what the value of a property is, doesn't mean the property takes on all possible values. And please, don’t misinterpret the experiment as so many do as believing that the cat really is both dead and alive. That is not the right answer.

Dan8267 says

And please, don’t misinterpret the experiment as so many do as believing that the cat really is both dead and alive. That is not the right answer.

Gawlleee Dan, your smart. Nice job trying to obfuscate my point.

I said very explicitly my point had nothing to do with particle physics.

Even here when I make a point about logic that any smart 10 year old can understand, Dan doesn't even try to understand my incredibly simple point. Instead, he launches in to an effort to show us all how smart he is.

Here:

You are right. If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom,

Then the statement God exists is false.

My point:

The statement God does not exist is equally false.

My apologies if I didn't make that clear enough. Also my apologies for thinking that this simple and elegant thought experiment might be used to illustrate a logical point outside of the quantum mechanics context it's known for. I'm such a fool sometimes.

I will admit his response was predictable, but not what I was hoping for. Next prediction: My New "Enlightened Atheist" Thread which is meant to be appreciated in it's entirety will be broken apart in a statement by statement, phrase by phrase, Shrek like manner, probably before he even reads the whole thing.

marcus says

Nice job trying to obfuscate my point.

To even suggest that I attempted to obfuscate your point or anyone else's is clearly disingenuous. Frankly, I would have thought by now, Marcus, that you would have at least understood the basic philosophy of men like me. We believe that no lies or trickery are necessary to defend the truth and nothing false is worth defending. It therefore goes against our core beings to obfuscate any opposing idea, make any straw man arguments, or use any deception of any kind to make a point (unless, of course, we then reveal the deception to demonstrate a greater truth).

You just don't get it, Marcus. For me, it's not about being right. It's about what is right.

If an opponent were to show me that I was wrong about an idea, I would then immediately correct my worldview to correct the mistake. By my standard, I win any debate which ends with me saying, "You're right. I was wrong.". After all, I come out of such a debate more knowledgeable than I went in. You really don't understand that, do you?

marcus says

I said very explicitly my point had nothing to do with particle physics.

And that has nothing to do with my reply.

marcus says

Even here when I make a point about logic that any smart 10 year old can understand, Dan doesn't even try to understand my incredibly simple point.

I'd like to put that hypothesis to the test, but I get to design the experiment.

marcus says

Instead, he launches in to an effort to show us all how smart he is.

I don't consider myself smart. I consider other people dumb. In my head, you all should know the stuff I discuss simply on the basis of graduating from high school.

Nevertheless, your misinterpretation of my posting says far more about you and your insecurities than it does about me. I merely explained as clearly, concisely, and completely as I could what Schrödinger's thought experiment means and the background on why it was created. You were supposed to come out of this experience with a better understanding of what quantum mechanics is, what the Uncertainty Principle says, how the Copenhagen Interpretation differs from the Uncertainty Principle, and what Schrödinger was trying to convey. I have no idea why you would interpret that as intellectual bragging, especially when none of these things have anything to do with me personally. If I pointed out that someone's proof that the square root of two is rational is incorrect and provided the correct proof that it was irrational, would you call that bragging, too?

marcus says

If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom,

Then the statement God exists is false.

My point:

The statement God does not exist is equally false.

My apologies if I didn't make that clear enough.

I hate to break this to you, but you're still not being clear. The statement "We cannot know whether or not X exists." cannot be an axiom regardless of what you substitute for X. Perhaps it could be a conclusion, but as a premise it makes no sense. The best you could do is make it an assumption, but assumptions can be incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate.

We cannot know whether or not lunar water exists.

Wait, we could crash a spacecraft and see if we detect any water vapor. And, in fact, that's what NASA did. And even if it were not technologically possible, the assumption itself would have either been correct or incorrect. So, your conclusion is still wrong.

Perhaps the whole English language thing is tripping you up. I suggest using the language of mathematics to demonstrate your point. Math was made to precisely to discuss such issues. Might I suggest Finite Model Theory and First-Order Predicate Logic? The precise nature of that language leaves no room for bullshit or inconclusiveness about the correctness of a logical argument.

Do be aware, though, that I do this shit for a living. Why just today I wrote a recursive stored procedure in TSQL, Microsoft's implementation of the Structured Query Language, and SQL is just sugar-coated first order predicate logic. The sproc does content composition through macro expansion allowing you to plug in different content independent of its structure. Here's a taste of what real, hard-core logic looks like. So if you can't handle the stuff below, don't be surprise that you can't beat me at logic.

marcus says

I will admit his response was predictable

Of course, you clearly wrote this thread in response to another one in which we were discussing metaphysics. I would be disappointed in you if you didn't only anticipate my replying to the thread, but in fact were counting on it.

marcus says

but not what I was hoping for. Next prediction

Sorry to disappoint, but I really don't know what you were hoping for. I'd likely be willing to oblige though as long as doing so doesn't involve deception.

marcus says

Next prediction: My New "Enlightened Atheist" Thread which is meant to be appreciated in it's entirety will be broken apart in a statement by statement, phrase by phrase,

Of course, I always do you the favor of being systematic and precise in addressing each statement in your logical sequence no matter how misguided that sequence is. The corrections I give to you are always specific, just like what your math teachers used to do.

marcus says

Shrek like manner

Nothing I do is Shrek-like in manner, a point even Shrek himself would agree with. Just take a look at some of the Shrek/Dan arguments. I've trounced him far worse than you. I do not discriminate based on political views. Bad logic is bad logic regardless of its conclusion.

marcus says

probably before he even reads the whole thing.

Actually, I do tend to read all your entire posting before tearing it apart. However, for clarity I follow the argument line by line rather than jumping around randomly. Also, it is not necessary to read an entire mathematical proof before pointing out where it is wrong. A proof is a very sequential thing by nature. As soon as you come across the first incorrect statement, you can discard the proof in its entirety. A single mistake kills a proof. If you don't believe me, ask one of your old math teachers.

Marcus, don't take it personally. I'm not picking on you. I hate for any bad idea to spread and do my part to snuff them out no matter where they come from. If you look at the totality of my postings, you'll see that I tear down bad arguments from both the left and the right. I even tear down arguments in favor of my own conclusions if those arguments are flawed. Reaching the right answer for the wrong reason is also bad.

marcus says

If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom

If I may help you marcus -- the starting point on any of these discussions has to be 'let us define God'.

For most people (as the Genius George Carlin rightly observed), God means 'Old man in the sky'. This definition is obviously false and delusional. Dangerous too, as we fight wars based on delusions.

Dan's point is: Take all the definitions of God ever existed (as stated by humans over the course of human history). They should be subject to scientific scrutiny as much as anything else. This scrutiny is the best method we've had so far to eliminate BS and get to the truth.

marcus says

Then the statement God exists is false.

My point:

The statement God does not exist is equally false.

You haven't even defined what God is. Is God Schrodinger's cat? Is it something else?

I think atheism by definition has the ability to doubt and be skeptical about anything.

Could there be a definition of God that we're not aware of that may come up in the future? Sure, but that definition is subject to the same scrutiny as everything else.

http://www.YltEym9H0x4

"I find it much more interesting not knowing" - Feynman

Being comfortable with the unknown is a foundational aspect of science. Because as Feynman says, we're trying to find out.

Dan, if you just sat down and wrote that out yourself, then you must be a very good teacher or professor. I understood the information completely.

Truthplease says

Dan, if you just sat down and wrote that out yourself, then you must be a very good teacher or professor. I understood the information completely.

I'm not a teacher, but I have been accused of thinking like a mathematician.

I did just sit down and cranked out the explanation of Schrödinger's Cat, but I could do that because I have read a lot about physics. And I've read a lot about physics because I find it very interesting. It's amazing how much curiosity can motivate a person to learn about a subject, but you have to be curious.

The more you're curious, the more you learn, the more you understand, and the better you can explain a subject matter. In this respect, curiosity is more important than intelligence.

Still, it's great to hear that my explanation was indeed clear. I was afraid that I was omitting too many details about a rather complex and deep subject matter.

Dan8267 says

I hate to break this to you, but you're still not being clear. The statement "We cannot know whether or not X exists." cannot be an axiom regardless of what you substitute for X. Perhaps it could be a conclusion, but as a premise it makes no sense. The best you could do is make it an assumption, but assumptions can be incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate.

Of course we can make that an axiom, if we agree to, and if you knew what an axiom is. Note my use of the word "if"(in "If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom"). You can of course say that you reject that as an axiom, that is that for the purposes of our discussion you will not accept it as an axiom.

But yes, of course it could be used as a starting point (if we agree (again that's why I said "if"))from which a logical argument can be built. Yes, it is basically an assumption. This is what an axiom is - something you assume to be true (something that can not be proven true, but which seems to obviously be true) to be used as a starting point, for building other provable truths which use the axioms as their basis.

Okay. I have given up before, and I will again. Should have stuck with my instincts. The funny thing, and what makes me not want to even participate in this forum anymore, is that I doubt there is anyone reading this that even comprehends how full of it (and yourself) you are. Well, God only knows they must see the latter.

I've rarely in my life (an I'm an old man compared to you) witnessed such trollish and adolescent like arrogance. I said before that I thought you are a teenager or perhaps in college. I really hope, for your sake, that you are.

marcus says

I've rarely in my life (an I'm an old man compared to you) witnessed such trollish and adolescent like arrogance.

You haven't been around the block if I'm the worst thing you've ever encountered. Marcus, just admit that you suck at reasoning and try to find something else that you might be good at, like being a grumpy old man.

I've actually tried to enlighten you by showing you precisely where your logic fails and how to correct it. A mature adult would have welcome that help. Instead you throw these little tantrums and get all emotional like a 6-year-old.

Luckily, any objective person reading the various threads on patrick.net will clearly see that your illogical rambles are well refuted by the more rational of us. So, although I have failed to bring you up to the level of adult conversation, I believe my responses may have saved countless others from taking the descent into your lavatory of misreasoning and blatant falsehoods. And I count that as a victory.

marcus says

I said before that I thought you are a teenager or perhaps in college.

No, but I do date college-age women.

Quantum Mechanics are not real, it only acts to serve as an abstract thought compiler. With out Quantum Mechanics, thought processes that would otherwise be gobbledygook can be placed in context parsed and compiled. You get micro processors the size of a flake of dandruff, but no where in Quantum Mechanics is there a blueprint for such technology. It only served as an abstract modeler.

Much like religion has kept mankind from flogging its self into oblivion, with a fetid bacterial tainted morning star. It creates a moral boundary, a frame work that says such atrocities are wrong. Unless of course you are doing it in the name of God.

Obviously it was a mistake for me to use Schrodengers Cat for my simple point. And I think that I already apologized for using it totally out of any particle physics context.

It is true that there are different types of logic. But if we say that a statement has to be either true or false, and if we assume that we can not know with certainty whether God exists , then if someone says "God exists" that is indeed a false statement. Likewise if someone says "God does not exist," that is a false statement.

Some would limit their definition of God so as to say that it is such an outlandish possibility, that they can deny it out of hand, and that this is logical. Just as it would be logical to deny that there are tiny living unicorns in the clouds (without proving it).

But this denies that that there are many definitions of God, some which are relatively sophisticated and subtle and or vague, or even intentionally somewhat undefined. I think it can reasonably be argued that since a majority of humans believe in God in some way, including millions of humans that are more intelligent than any atheist reading this, it is therefore questionable to equate belief in God as being as out there as belief in unicorns in the clouds or leprechauns.

If you still don't get the context of my point or what I was responding to, at this point I'll let it go. Basically I was arguing with someone who had no intention of understanding my point of view and truly responding to it, which interestingly, for some people is a good substitute for an argument. I'll admit, as a trolling tactic it is very effective (see Shrek).

I'm not going to do this anymore:

PersainCAT says

That's y something like god who by definition cannot be measured

Please define god. And make sure your definition includes that god cannot be "measured" and what "measured" means.

marcus says

Obviously it was a mistake for me to use Schrodengers Cat for my simple point. And I think that I already apologized for using it totally out of any particle physics context.

The fundamental mistake you made was trying to use the Schrödinger's Cat experiment to support an argument when you did not actually understand Schrödinger's Cat, and the reason you did not understand the experiment is that you never even heard of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. (Let's be honest. Before I explained the Copenhagen Interpretation, you never heard of it, like most people.)

It is impossible to understand Schrödinger's Cat without first knowing and understanding the Copenhagen Interpretation. In general, it is impossible to understand any specific argument of a subject matter without first being familiar with the background of the subject matter and the context in which the specific argument was made. This is true not only of physics, but for all subject matters.

The way to get the background information and the context is to read about the subject matter in detail. For Schrödinger's Cat and the Copenhagen Interpretation, the links I provided are sufficient. For subject matter in general, the Internet provides almost all of humanity's knowledge at your fingertips and Google makes searching almost trivial as long as you have the wisdom to skip over Wikipedia links and read skeptically to filter out bad or misleading information.

marcus says

It is true that there are different types of logic

Logic is universal like any branch of mathematics. You don't get to willy-nilly make your own flavor. The set of logical rules is well known, published throughout the Internet, and indisputable. You could discover/create a new logical rule, but its acceptance would be determined by peer review and whether or not it is accepted as valid is not a subjective matter. Either it works or it doesn't. Logic is "hard" like algebra or calculus, not "soft" like philosophy.

marcus says

But this denies that that there are many definitions of God, some which are relatively sophisticated and subtle and or vague, or even intentionally somewhat undefined.

There aren't that many different definitions of god. If there were, there could be no discussion about god. There are minor variations of what constitutes god or what properties god has, but throughout the past 3500 years monotheism has consistently presented one image of god, the Standard Monotheist God (SMG) or the Benevolent Sky Daddy.

The religion was founded by Zarathushtra in Persia -- modern-day Iran. It may have been the world's first monotheistic faith. It was once the religion of the Persian empire, but has since been reduced in numbers to fewer than 200,000 today. Most religious historians believe the the Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs concerning God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, the virgin birth of the savior, slaughter of the innocents, resurrection, the final judgment, etc. were all derived from Zoroastrianism.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr.htm

A billion minor variations of SMG does not fix the inherent problems of SMG. As such all SMGs are disprovable and I have repeatedly disproven all possible SMGs. The only significant alternative to SMG ever presented by any monotheist in history is Clock Maker God (CMG), and I have proven that CMG is no god, but rather Sheldon Cooper.

Whenever some monotheist or agnostic claims that god is undefinable or must be defined in a super vague way, that monotheist or agnostic is being disingenuous. He has a specific image of god, but cannot defend it, so he tries to leave open the possibility of his specific god through trickery. He argues meaningless nonsense on the belief that if he is vague and meaningless enough, no logical argument could touch his position. What he fails to realize is that this vague and meaningless nonsense can be called out as the bullshit it is. Furthermore, his vague and meaningless nonsense does not leave open the possibility of his or anyone else's very specific god, usually SMG.

Put simply, as soon as some believer says god wants you do behave this way, all those vague arguments for god go out the window. If we cannot know whether or not a god exist, we certainly cannot know that the god is against raping babies. And why would anyone worship or pray to such a god or base legislation on it?

Whenever any priest, politician, or faithful believer talks about god, he is not talking about some meaningless, unknowable god. Nor is he talking about some CMG. He is talking about SMG because only SMG can place demands on human behavior. Only SMG is useful to control people, to get them to vote some way, to get them to refrain from killing each other or having premarital sex, to get them to abolish gay marriage, to justify or denounce slavery, to pray or go to church/temple/mosque, or to make any moral statement. Whenever someone states that America is founded on god's law or is one nation under god, they are always talking about SMG.

Sure, you could define god as "a brown puppy", but no one else in the world is talking about what you're talking about when they talk about god. No one is saying, "I pledge allegiance to the flag… one nation under a brown puppy with liberty and justice for all. Brown puppy bless America." It is utterly ridiculous to try to justify three and a half millennia of monotheism by using a definition of god that is completely incompatible with the entire 3500 year history of monotheism, a definition that would be violently rejected by almost all of the people whose beliefs you are trying to defend.

marcus says

Basically I was arguing with someone who had no intention of understanding my point of view and truly responding to it, which interestingly, for some people is a good substitute for an argument.

One can only refute an argument after understanding it. I was able to refute everything you said because I understood what you were saying. Furthermore, had you made even a single correct statement, I would have gladly acknowledged it. For me, this was never a "you vs. me" thing. It was a "chaos and misconceptions vs. order and understanding" thing.

It should be clear to anyone of even modest intelligence that I have gone out of my way to understand your arguments and address in very specific detail precisely what was wrong with them. Just because I do not accept your arguments does not mean I did not read them with the intent of both understanding them and determining their truth. I have given you a more fair hearing than you will ever get anywhere else. It is simply that you did not make a good case.

Since you claim that I "no intention of understanding my point of view", I know that at least one of the two following statements must be true.

1. You are an idiot who cannot understand the intentions of others and assumes that people who reject your ideas must have bad intentions.

2. You are a liar and a poor one at that. The lies you tell are clearly false, but you are so used to speaking with morons that you believe people in general will believe your lies. You feel compelled to lie about anyone who shows that you made a mistake in order to protect your fragile ego.

I don't like reaching either or both of these conclusions, but the evidence clearly supports them. I much rather the result had been that you realized that the ground you were trying to defend isn't defendable and that even the most hard-core atheist is arguing for what he realizes to be an important truth whose acceptance would make the world a far better place. Unfortunately, your pride prevents you from acknowledging your mistakes and then correcting them, whereas my anal retentiveness insists on constantly detecting and correcting errors in my world view. Ironically, "pride is the root of all evil" according to your religion.

marcus says

Here:

You are right. If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom,

Then the statement God exists is false.

My point:

The statement God does not exist is equally false.

This was my primary point in this thread. I have digressed here and there, but this was actually intended to be my one and only only point with this thread. Simple logic, and totally unrelated to the well known (or not) scientific context of the famous thought experiment. Again, my apologies that some found it impossible to remove the concept of SC from it's historical context.

(Note: For anyone who for whatever reason has a problem with my use of the word "axiom" here, please look it up, or better still just substitute the word "assumption.")

marcus says

Here:

You are right. If we take the fact that we can not know whether there is a God as an axiom,

Then the statement God exists is false.

My point:

The statement God does not exist is equally false.

PersainCAT says

The only "logic" that u can hold hard fast to and apply to god are things like Pascal's Wager. Everything else is faith.

You would be hard pressed to find me trying to use logic to prove God's existence or non existence.

My truth is that I don't know.

To the extent that I lean a little toward the belief side of agnosticism is really about my personal subjective beliefs, that I have no interest in arguing for.

All I have argued here (and evidently not very well), is against the idea that believing there is no God can be backed logically.

That is in this thread, I have only wanted to address something very very very specific.

And that was an assertion I have heard (multiple times) that essentially said, that since by definition we don't know whether there is a God, the statement God exists is false.

But the statement God does not exist is just as false (at least if we are truly using anything close to formal logic).

That's it. That's really the context in which I brought up the term "simple logic."

And again, my truth is that I don't know. Call me wishy washy wimpy relativist. But at least I am on extremely solid ground when I assert that I don't know.

I have problems with fundamentalists who think that others should have beliefs like theirs, and when they judge others. But it is somewhat understandable, or at least not surprising

But when an atheist takes the extreme position that they can prove that there is no God, and that any type of spiritual belief is bad, and that others need to be like them to improve the world, and they assert that it is their intelligence and logic that brought them to their beliefs rather than mostly ego, I figure they must be kidding (or trolling).

(which makes me a fool to respond,...right ?)

It just doesn't seem possible to me that any half way sensible person could be that arrogant.

marcus says

But when an atheist takes the extreme position that they can prove that there is no God, and that any type of spiritual belief is bad, and that others need to be like them to improve the world, and they assert that it is their intelligence and logic that brought them to their beliefs rather than mostly ego, I figure they must be kidding (or trolling).

1. The position that you can disprove a ridiculous hypothesis is not extreme.

2. Any type of spiritual belief is bad. Spiritual belief is just a euphemism for superstitious belief. And we have explained in detail why superstitious beliefs are bad. To remind you, they are bad because they promote irrationality, xenophobia, and bad decision-making. This is especially bad when we need rational behavior to prevent WWIII and to make sure we don’t destroy our planet’s ecosystem.

3. Atheists have never, ever claimed that others must be like us. It is a nonsensical claim since all atheists have in common is disbelief. There is as much variety in the population of atheists as there is in theists. What we have claimed is that the world would be a much more secure, safe, and free place if people stopped believing in Bronze Age myths and started thinking critically. And we have repeatedly proven this as well. For example, Bush said, “god told me to invade Iraq.” The result: about a million dead Iraqis including women and children.

4. It is reasoning that causes someone to become an atheist. And no matter how many times you hypocritically accuse atheists of being arrogant, you Marcus, are clearly the arrogant one.

Arrogant: The idea that man is made in the image of god.
Arrogant: The refusal to accept that man is descendant from monkeys, rodents, fish, etc.
Arrogant: The idea that your so important that your consciousness must continue to exist after you die even though there are no other animals on this planet that get that privilege. Hell, I say puppies are far more worthy!
Arrogant: The idea that a supreme that created the universe would take the time to listen to your petty little wants when you pray.
Arrogant: That there is anything at all special about your existence or the existence of mankind. The refusal to admit that even a tiny change in history a few million years ago, say a rodent getting eaten by a dinosaur 70 mya, would have prevented our species from even existing.
Arrogant: The refusal to listen to logic no matter how clearly it is explained.
Arrogant: The refusal to accept hard evidence including fossils, DNA, and carbon dating.
Arrogant: The presumption that your belief in some crazy shit should some how be respected more than someone’s belief in other crazy shit like aliens landing in Roswell or the Lock Neck Monster.
Arrogant: The presumption that religious people are more moral than atheists even though the religious are good out of fear of punishment and desire for a reward.
Arrogant: The belief that you could ever do anything to earn eternal bliss.
Arrogant: The belief that anyone else could ever do anything so terrible as to earn eternal torture.
Arrogant: The belief that your god is the one and only god.
Arrogant: Trying to convert others to worship your god instead of theirs when you have no evidence or reasoning that your god is better.
Arrogant: Claiming to have an absolute truth without a shred of evidence.
Arrogant: Claiming to have the power to forgive sins.
Arrogant: Claiming to speak on behalf of the alleged supreme being.
Arrogant: Subjecting children to brainwashing and abusing their natural trust of adults.
Arrogant: Creating dogma.
Arrogant: To use the Bible to justify slavery.
Arrogant: To look at the Milky Way galaxy, composed of some 400 billion stars, and the trillions upon trillions of other galaxies in a universe that is 13.8 billion years old and an estimated 90 billion light years in size, and conclude that all of this was created for man, the one beloved creature of god. How self-centered in the most literal sense.

No, Marcus, it is you and your brethren who are arrogant. Atheism is the humble philosophy that all of existence doesn’t revolve are you, and that you should be grateful for the tiny flickering of consciousness you get in a much larger time scale in which you don’t exist. For you to call us arrogant is the most ludicrous example of hypocrisy mankind has ever seen.

Even Dan has a

Dan8267 says

tiny flickering

Dan8267 says

you should be grateful

Wow. Interesting. Well said. I guess he's grateful to the universe. "Thank universe, I exist."

He's still an idiot though. And by the way, Dan, I agree that many atheists are humble (unlike you). But those many don't go beyond asserting what they believe, or actually, only what they don't believe.

Dan8267 says

you and your brethren

What is my position Dan ?

I'm just the objective agnostic, observing the ridiculously religious atheist you are.

Dan8267 says

There is as much variety in the population of atheists as there is in theists.

True, and you are to athiests what a islamic fundamentalist (or extreme Christian fundamentalist) is to the theists.

Dan8267 says

Any type of spiritual belief is bad.

Dan8267 says

your so important that your consciousness must continue to exist after you die even though there are no other animals on this planet that get that privilege.

I don't believe this, and I guarantee that many adult Christians either outright don't believe it, or they at least seriously doubt it.

Here's the biggest flaw in your "logic."

On the one hand, not only do you not believe in God ( the true humble atheist position), you take it further, asserting there is no God, and that you magically know that the bad done by religion is greater than the good. Apparently, your argument here is that there is bad, therefore it is greater than the good.

On the other hand, since you don't believe, you don't really know what an adult belief in God would be. You haven't experienced it. You haven't tried it on for size. Or if you did it was a silly childish view of heaven, and of sky Daddy etc.

Well congratulations if you can reject that. I'll give you this. You understand the flaw here, so you assert that any kind of belief other than the sky Daddy belief is no belief at all.

But if you read the writings of famous Catholic, Protestant or Jewish mystics you will find that their belief is nothing like a belief in a sky Daddy. They are mostly blown away by the *mystery and they believe there is something (besides the universe itself - although you might think of it that way) that we don't have words for, that is both external to them and internal, which is where they direct their gratitude.

Where is your gratitude directed Dan ?

(note: my use of the word mystery is not meant to imply a substitute for uderstanding or seeking scientific knowledge - but what kind of fool thinks that humans could get to a place where there is no mystery to our universe and our own existence ?)

Dan8267 says

This is especially bad when we need rational behavior to prevent WWIII and to make sure we don’t destroy our planet’s ecosystem.

If you had any common sense at all, and a little less ego, then you would be arguing only against the most ignorant fundamentalist point of view.

I'm guessing you have no clue how many mainstream Christians would agree with you.

Instead you want to alienate them, supposedly in your quest to positively influence the world ?