Proof of Strong Atheism

Darat said:
If people want to use that good old explain-away-every-mystery-with-a-bit-of-quantum then I like to say "show the maths". So if you want to claim that that gods or consciousness are hidden in "the quantum" fair enough - just show us your maths.
Click to expand...

Did i claim that god or consciousness are hidden in the quantum? I thought we were just discussing what existence means......
 
andyandy said:
are we supposed to brush the sub-atomic under the rug? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No.

andyandy said:
why would an appreciation of the subatomic not be pertinent to questions of existence?
Click to expand...

Never said that. However since we know that those theories are at best incomplete if not just wrong then it is rather presumptuous to use those theories to claim that "so to define existence in terms of phenomenal senses seems deficient..... "
 
Darat said:
Never said that. However since we know that those theories are at best incomplete if not just wrong then it is rather presumptuous to use those theories to claim that "so to define existence in terms of phenomenal senses seems deficient..... "
Click to expand...

my statement was qualified by seems - I don't remember that being an absolute statement, rather it's something which you say when supported by the weight of evidence - which it is. When you say that these theories are incomplete what exactly do you mean? In what way do you regard them as incomplete? That wavefunction collapse does not occur upon measurement? That the universe is actually local? That sub-atomic particles actually can be described through Newtonian mechanics?
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
subatomic particles have a non-zero chance of being found anywhere in the universe until their wavefunction collapses upon measurement
Click to expand...
No, not "anywhere in the universe". Go read Feynman.
 
Hyparxis said:
My observation after having read many a philosphical thread here, is that 20th century Science is not welcome in most discussions. You will have to stay within Classical limits. ;)
Click to expand...
I have no problem discussing modern science. If you doubt that, check out this thread, especially after post 117, when I stop being a jerk toward ynot. However, if we bring science into it, it must be accurately described, and shown to be relevant. Bogus "Dancing Wu Li Masters" type interpretations of QM have no bearing. And in fact, I don't see that QM has any bearing on the OP at all, even when properly interpreted.
 
andyandy said:
are we supposed to brush the sub-atomic under the rug? :rolleyes:

why would an appreciation of the subatomic not be pertinent to questions of existence?
Click to expand...
Again, andyandy, if you want to start a tangent on some philosophical or metaphysical definition of existence, then please take it elsewhere. I'd rather not have this thread hijacked.

Thanks.
 
Piggy said:
I have no problem discussing modern science. If you doubt that, check out this thread, especially after post 117, when I stop being a jerk toward ynot. However, if we bring science into it, it must be accurately described, and shown to be relevant. Bogus "Dancing Wu Li Masters" type interpretations of QM have no bearing. And in fact, I don't see that QM has any bearing on the OP at all, even when properly interpreted.
Click to expand...

Everything as described is done so by Brian Greene - in what way do you disagree with the interpretations? Where are the "Dancing Wu LI Masters" interpretations with which you take issue with? And if you ask "does god exist" then you should certainly be willing to discuss what "exist" means.
 
Piggy said:
Again, andyandy, if you want to start a tangent on some philosophical or metaphysical definition of existence, then please take it elsewhere. I'd rather not have this thread hijacked.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

how is discussion of QM on a fundamental level either philosophical or metaphysical?
You seem to set very narrow constraints in which your "proof" of hard-atheism can be considered......
 
Ok, i'm reading Feynman (and Greene) right now.....

seems Feynman was a fan of configuration space, and so the wavefunction would be regarded as a function on configuration space rather than specifically real space. So that whilst a single particle's configuration space would be isomorphic to real space (with 3 dimensions), a multi particle (N) system would have 3N dimensions....and thus would not be isomorphic to real space....

is this what you're talking about? Although this appears to concern multi-particle rather than single particle.....
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
you're such a friendly chap piggy :rolleyes: In what way would Feynman disagree?
Click to expand...
Please take this elsewhere. It's irrelevant. But to be brief, if a photon, for example, travels from A to B, it's still limited in the paths it can take. If you want to discuss this further, please start a new thread in the science forum.
 
andyandy said:
Everything as described is done so by Brian Greene - in what way do you disagree with the interpretations? Where are the "Dancing Wu LI Masters" interpretations with which you take issue with? And if you ask "does god exist" then you should certainly be willing to discuss what "exist" means.
Click to expand...
If you want to discuss QM, please take it elsewhere. Start a thread in the science forum. If you have a relevant question about existence, please post it. Thanks.
 
andyandy said:
Piggy said:
Again, andyandy, if you want to start a tangent on some philosophical or metaphysical definition of existence, then please take it elsewhere. I'd rather not have this thread hijacked.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
how is discussion of QM on a fundamental level either philosophical or metaphysical?
You seem to set very narrow constraints in which your "proof" of hard-atheism can be considered......
Click to expand...
Discussion of QM is irrelevant. And if you notice, in the bit you're responding to here, I don't mention QM. I'm not calling QM metaphysical, although it certainly is abused by metaphysicians.

I do set constraints -- they end where b**ls**t begins. Metaphysics and philosopy are b**ls**t. I'm not discussing whether the concept of God exists, but whether God exists.

If you care to indulge in philosophical musing or metaphysical mental gymnastics, that has no bearing on the question of whether God is real.
 
andyandy said:
If existence is phenomenal then something must have the potential to be sensed to be said to exist? In this case existence is mediated through the human consciousness. But what we sense is not what is actually there - it's merely an interpretation. In the example of sight, photoreceptors collect light. they send signals to neurons -and these generate electrical impulse which are processed by the brain. But the time it takes for light to travel from an object which we view to our photoreceptors means that we don't see what is there - but what was there at some moment in the past. So a phenomenal reality must necessitate existence as a construct of the human mind.
Click to expand...
This is actually worse than Lifegazer's example with the clock. I didn't think that was possible.

Or on a broader sense, we could ask why we should adopt such a anthropocentric view of existence? If the universe exists independently of human consciousness, why should it only be conceived through such a narrow viewpoint?
Click to expand...
The universe may exist independently of our consciousness but our consciousness certainly does not exist independently of the physical universe. Consciousness caused by physical brains whose every action and thought is determined by physical laws cannot have access to some other non-physical realm.

How do we resolve a phenomenal reality with that which is altered by the measurement of being sensed?
Click to expand...
Are you talking about quantum uncertainty here? No one thinks that this could make us fundamentally mistaken about the kinds of things that exist in the universe.

How can you hope to talk about god without recourse to metaphysics? How can philosophy be irrelevant to a proof of strong atheism?
Click to expand...
But you think metaphysics just involves people believing stuff because they want to and not having to back it up. That's an understandable misconception given the way some philosophers carry on, but that's not how its supposed to work. You still need rational arguments, you still need to define your terms precisely.
 
andyandy said:
*sigh*
I'm not arguing "for" god. I'm arguing that in general terms the word is meaningless.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem more meaningless than any other word to me. There are several distinct definitions, and for any particular definition there are grey areas and uncertainties, but that's true for most words. I think I can talk about it as well as I can talk about anything. What's the problem?

When you argue against god, what god is it that you don't think exists?
Click to expand...
In his recent book Dawkins says:

if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is "appropriate for us to worship".
Click to expand...
That's the god that I think doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
chriswl said:
This is actually worse than Lifegazer's example with the clock. I didn't think that was possible.
.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

if you think it's a bad example, then please explain why - i have no problem with constructive criticism, and i certainly have no pretensions as to always being right. But such a quote merely comes across as rude.

seeing as piggy no longer wants this discussion on his thread, perhaps you could PM me? Or i can start another thread on which it can be discussed.....
 
CapelDodger said:
This thread was much better when it was Piggy and that other guy.

Philosophy and metaphysics are the overlapping playgrounds of dilettantes.
Click to expand...

and where do the professionals like yourself play? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom