GOD: The Failed Hypothesis

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

>Is light a wave or a particle?

Neither, it's a quantum particle

>Is that cat alive or dead?

Which cat?

>What is the position and energy of that neutron?

3.7 and 14.5. Position and momentum would have been harder.

Erm, accurately speaking, light (or rather photons) are an elementary particles, one of the gauge bosons.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[quade 3]

Quote

Oh i know what he's doing. So it's time to devolve the "argument" into simple yes or no questions.

At which point you fall into one of two camps; those that believe and those that don't.

Those that believe really have nothing that proves their point any more than those that don't.

Put that into a game theory box and what do you get?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[chasteh 0]

>He's using the ambiguities of language

Actually, terms like "certainty" and "truth" and "knowledge" are less than ambigious.

>in a logical argument to suggest there may be more to reality than we can ever hope to perceive and challenging us to prove that's not the case.

Sort of. There isn't room for science to challenge it, but I would enjoy watching you try.

>Great. Whatever. Just because I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist doesn't mean he does.

Right. However, it also means that were you to stipulate that Santa Claus doesn't exist, you would leave room for error, despite how inductively strong such an argument is. (Quite strong, I myself don't believe in Santa Claus. However, I cannot, no matter how crazy this sounds, say that he doesn't exist.)

[chasteh 0]

>Oh i know what he's doing.

Do you or don't you?

[chasteh 0]

>Those that believe really have nothing that proves their point any more than those that don't.

There you go.

Although you dont "have to" align yourself with either of them.

[chasteh 0]

I have to admit, your replies are starting to look more like a smear campaign than negations to my point.

[quade 3]

Quote

Although you dont "have to" align yourself with either of them.

If you "believe" science is an ever increasing ability to more accurately describe how the universe works, I think you do.

At the very least it systematically proves all previous religions are based upon stories that simply can't possibly be true.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Quote

We are moral and altruistic because we evolved to be; they are beneficial traits. That is all.

I agree. And it would appear the evolution occurs on a societal level. Internally altruistic and externally aggressive societies will tend to prevail.

Religious texts can be thought of as attempts by man to capture a snapshot of that particular society's morality and altruism (and occasionally external aggression) at a moment in time. Ascribing the details of this snapshot to a higher power is simply an example of taking Dennett's intentional stance.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Unfortunately, the necessity of a particular statement can be proven whereas the existence of the empirical world it purports to explain cannot be proven.

So if someone smashes your foot with a hammer, the pain and broken bones do not prove that both the hammer and your foot exist?

Sounds like one of those existential post hit-off-the-bong thought experiments; and nothing more. Or one of those Matrix-like mind fucks where you can not prove anything either way because it always rests on some other thing, and so on and so forth.

Fun thought experiments, but otherwise utterly useless. Or at least (as mentioned in Hitchhiker's Guide) only useful for keeping philosophers employed.

So what was this about? Ah yes, the failed God hypothesis. Maybe it should be the failed reality hypothesis. All perceptions of reality are equally valid since none can be proven or disproven.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[crwtom 0]

Quote

How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

you can only disprove the existence of things that are in any way defined.

I still have no clue what this "god"-thing is supposed to be.

Disproving the existence of "god" makes as much sense as disproving
the existence of "ij#f$hv7w*e8ino".

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[chasteh 0]

>If you "believe" science is an ever increasing ability to more accurately describe how the universe works, I think you do.

So which one is it, science presents an ever increasing ability to explain the universe, or will it eventually "figure it out?" Does it after all have the ability to explain whether or not it is the actual universe, or just representation of other "things?" I can't say. Neither can you.

>At the very least it systematically proves all previous religions are based upon stories that simply can't possibly be true.

Yep. Unfortunately for religion, it makes many claims about the content of the empirical world. Unfortunately, that is science's realm. Science, using its ability to record information about the empirical world, has the ability to assign truth-values to propositions, and uses logic in combination with those propositions to show that religious claims about the empirical world's content are false. Unfornately, it can't extend to a "God."

[chasteh 0]

>So if someone smashes your foot with a hammer, the pain and broken bones do not prove that both the hammer and your foot exist?

Absolutely not. IF someone smashes your foot with a hammer, then someone smashes your foot with a hammer. Reiterating the antecedent makes a valid argument, but you have only restated an assumption. It doesn't prove that it exists outside of an assumption.

Absolutely not. They depend on "sensory experience," which in many phases of our lives, including what we are sensing now, are very capable of lieing to us. Ever had a dream that you thought you were having sex? Woke up to find it wasn't true, but you ejacked anyways? Looks like your senses lie to you. That reason tells us that what is "broken bones" or "nerve stimulation" can all be false inputs. However, I do have an interesting theory on making knowledge of nerve inputs necessarily true, but we can leave that one for PMs.

edit:
I still believe that they are real, and that my boken bones are real. I believe I have had that experience, when I forced my humerous bone against my ribs in a motorcycle crash, but even with the horrible pain that I think I feel, it doesn't make it real. It may, however, show that there exists an "I" that is real, but it doesn't show that the "I" as in Chasteh are real, nor the pain that Chasteh "experiences."



>Sounds like one of those existential post hit-off-the-bong thought experiments; and nothing more.

Maybe. If you decide to attach Descartes meditations as such, that is fine. Unfortunately for you, he gave science quite a challenge. Prove sensory experience to be truthful. Ya can't.

>Or one of those Matrix-like mind fucks where you can not prove anything either way because it always rests on some other thing, and so on and so forth.

Are you able to describe a Matrix-like mind fuck without saying things like "and so on and so forth" to describe it?

The Matrix parallels the BIV scenario and Descartes points pretty well. It seems outlandish to think of it as true, but you cannot determine that it is false, just like I cannot determine it as true. It is merely possibility, one we can't eliminate.

>Fun thought experiments, but otherwise utterly useless.

Yep! Just like electrical engineers, computer programmers, and the philosophies that you endorse are utterly useless! Fabulous.

edit: Oh yea, the Logic that Philosophy and Math endorse are useless for you too, then. How are you able to argue with me here were that true? Uh oh.

edit(again) Also, without philosophy or logic, lawyers and judges wouldn't be employed. That could be a good and bad thing. Ask lawrocket how much philosophy he had to read for law school. It is a wee bit important.

>Or at least (as mentioned in Hitchhiker's Guide) only useful for keeping philosophers employed.

Philosophy and income are nearly oxymorons. They have been since Greece, and they probably will be forever. Does that discount what they say, or the philosophy that you might endorse?

>So what was this about? Ah yes, the failed God hypothesis. Maybe it should be the failed reality hypothesis.

Yea huh.

>All perceptions of reality are equally valid since none can be proven or disproven.

What does logical validity have to do with proven or disproven, again? Logical validity means that it is not possible for a set of premises to be true and their conclusion false. It is possible for religious and scientific premises concerning God to be true and their conclusions false, thus, they are invalid.

Blasphemy, right? Find a court case that doesn't use this method where the attorneys or judge aren't being subject to emotional conviction.

Find a functional electrical circuit that doesn't follow logic.

[champu 1]

Quote

Find a functional electrical circuit that doesn't follow logic.

Deep space communication links are electrical circuits that function probabilistically because they are subject to stochastic processes.

You can't really claim they "follow logic" without abstracting the problem to a trivial one.

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

Quote

Find a functional electrical circuit that doesn't follow logic.

Deep space communication links are electrical circuits that function probabilistically because they are subject to stochastic processes.

You can't really claim they "follow logic" without abstracting the problem to a trivial one.

Radio transmission != electrical circuit.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[quade 3]

Quote

Radio transmission != electrical circuit.

Oh really? This would have been news to Tesla.

Further, I'd love to hear chasteh's explanation of the inner working of a quantum computer.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Quote

Radio transmission != electrical circuit.

Radio transmission involves displacement current as opposed to free current, but an electrical circuit it is nonetheless.

[rivetgeek 0]

A circuit by definition returns to it's source. In radio you have a transmitter and receiver but together they are still not a circuit.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[rivetgeek 0]

Quote

Quote

Radio transmission != electrical circuit.

Oh really? This would have been news to Tesla....

Im pretty sure Tesla understood the difference between a circuit and transmission over the air. A tesla coil doesn't create a circuit until there's a path to ground, but it will still light up a fluorescent tube even if there isnt a single arc.

~Bones Knit, blood clots, glory is forever, and chicks dig scars.~

[quade 3]

Quote

A circuit by definition returns to it's source. In radio you have a transmitter and receiver but together they are still not a circuit.

So then you're telling us you believe in "action at a distance" yet, somehow that doesn't create a circuit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, the necessity of a particular statement can be proven whereas the existence of the empirical world it purports to explain cannot be proven.

So if someone smashes your foot with a hammer, the pain and broken bones do not prove that both the hammer and your foot exist?[/reply

not at all - BUT

quantum theory suggests that there is a small chance that the hammer may just skip your foot at the instant of impact (a VERY small chance) - so that means "I think nerdily, therefore it might not hurt"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

• Quote

[champu 1]

Quote

A circuit by definition returns to it's source.

As do radio transmissions... ...eventually.

But rather than argue about this any further, let's replace free space communications with a long distance coaxial cable run. Same stochastic processes and probabilistic behavior, only now we have a comforting ground*.

*This situation is less dissimilar to free space transmissions than you may think... but if it makes you feel better...

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Find a court case that doesn't use this method where the attorneys or judge aren't being subject to emotional conviction.

Jury trials.

Quick question - what practical purpose does this hypothesis/idea/theory that you're discussing serve? Not trying to be a jerk - I am genuinely curious.

[chasteh 0]

>probabilistically

You mean to say, they function on inductive probability? Blasphemy! Science using logical terms again, how is that possible!

>Deep space communication links are electrical circuits

Looks like there are a few here who disagree.

Also, deep space communication is more of a network than a circuit, is it not?

"An electrical circuit is a network that has a closed loop, giving a return path for the current. A network is a connection of two or more components, and may not necessarily be a circuit"

[chasteh 0]

>Jury trials.

Deductive validity, inductive strength, emotion. Twelve angry men illustrates this process quite well. They show how those arguing "guilty" in that case do not have deductively valid arguments. Then they are shown how their arguments arent even possible. Then the last man voting "guilty" ends up in an emotional rage, until finally he says "not guilty."

They still use logic.


>Quick question - what practical purpose does this hypothesis/idea/theory that you're discussing serve? Not trying to be a jerk - I am genuinely curious

In other words, "can you make your hypothesis seem attractive to me? I am concerned with pragmatism, and this doesn't look like it tickles me well."

Sorry. Venting.

What purpose does it serve? To show that religion and science use arguments based on assumptions. To show that scientists who try to "disprove" the existence of god are guilty of assumptions in the same light. You know, like "The failed Hypothesis" tries to do.

[chasteh 0]

>Further, I'd love to hear chasteh's explanation of the inner working of a quantum computer.

From what I can see, it functions on inductive probability. Still a logical process. Hmmmm