I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 9656

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

August, Fullerenes have always been logically possible. They were considered physically impossible by many people, perhaps, owing to the seeming difficulty in creating them, but there was obviously no logical reason they couldn't exist, since, in fact, they always have. That particular arrangement of carbon atoms in no way violates the principles of chemical bonding. This example is moot.

 

Wave-particle duality is a better example, but since wave-like behavior and particle-like behavior are not exhibited simultaneously, this doesn't constitute a logical contradiction. This is like saying flying cars are logically impossible because sometimes they drive and sometimes they fly.

 

Logic is not dependent on perspective. What a thing looks like is dependent on perspective.

Oh, and you say, "Any hypothesis can be tested with the scientific method." How about this one: Red light and blue light use exactly the same wavelength. Is that testable with the scientific method, or is it just nonsense? (Hint: It's just nonsense.)
I disagree that it is nonsense because it is testable. We can test to see the difference in Blue and Red light.

It is nonsense by definition, because red != blue. Testing is not required, because testing can't possibly produce any other outcome than that red != blue, because they are not equal by definition. You guys are working waaaaaaay too hard if this is how you want to approach things. There is a vast class of things that we need not bother with, because we know for sure up front that we don't need to.

 

This is different from the case of things being considered extremely unlikely until found. Science is full of surprises. It is not full of contradictions and impossibilities.

I forgot to mention again that in science you can be right or wrong, in logic your idea can be possible, existent, or impossible.
Logically, it was true in the years around 1900 that the universe was static, always been there, and always will be there. Logically possible, but entirely wrong.
Not entirely. The universe, while not static, has always been here and always will. A state of nothingness is not compatible with reason. For 0+0=0 and something cannot come from nothing. Also, a static universe is not logical, unless you mean something else, but the universe is in a continual state of change. Despite what someone might have thought, it has never been logical to have an unchanging universe.

And once again, you confuse logical possibility with widely held (and not-as-yet-informed) opinion. The Ptolemaic universe was never "true", apart from being a reasonable approximation given the data available. There's nothing inherently illogical about either a static or a dynamic universe. Your weird definition of logic is confusing the hell out of you, Cane. Logic does not simply mean "thought experiment" or "axiom" or "uninformed opinion arrived at solely by thinking".

 

Actually, Michael is correct. The "static universe" idea never made any sense, given the fact that we could always see things moving around. Why should they stay stuck on the same tracks forever?

Fullerenes were predicted before their discovery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene#History.

 

C-C bonds in diamond do not strike me as planar, though I may not understand the structure properly.

 

The point is that there is nothing logically contradictory about Fullerenes and our pre-existing knowledge of chemistry. As very large and relatively geometrically simple molecular structures (unlike say, proteins), they would have been considered unlikely, but I fail to understand your assertion that they would have been considered logically impossible. I think you, like Cane, persist in confusing logical impossibility with extreme unlikelihood.

 

As you say, "simultaneously" is not a good word to use in the context of quantum mechanics (few words are, apparently). But the Copenhagen Interpretation at least seems to suggest that you can get quantum effects to behave like waves or like particles, but not at the same time. It may be entirely a semantic distinction, but I think we could also say that measuring (resolving) a quantum effect forces it to exhibit one or the other behaviors, but not both. Either way, I think my flying car analogy is reasonably apt. I see no logical contradiction in quantum effects, just multiple behaviors. Surprising and weird, but I don't see why they would logically preclude each other.

 

And logic requires causality. A person's perspective affects that person's understanding, but the logic exists externally to be discovered by anybody. I do not subscribe to the "person creates his own reality" idea.

If you are suggesting that something that has now been verified was actually once impossible, that is crazy!!

 

Things at the limit of our perception, like EMR, have a nature, they must, but to say that we understand it enough to report knowledge of its nature, other than that it appears to act like a wave when look at it one way and as a particle when we look at it another, is premature, at best.

Do you think Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead at the same time?

Hey, just because cognition entails the use of a singular limited mind, does not mean that it can't have objective knowledge. Subjective perceptions become objective when conceptualized. That's how this process of logic and abstraction works. It's the objectification of subjective perceptions into concept and then knowledge by use of reason. It matters not from which angle or perspective I see a chair. I can recognize it from a small piece and know what it is. I obtained objective knowledge of chairs' existence when I was very young, still forming basic 1st order concepts. I used logic to do that. The concept of a chair is the same in China.

Canes ideas start at about page 81. 

 

In the bottom right hand corner, just after the last posting, of this page there is a text box. Type 81 in the text box. Press Go. This will take you to page 81 of this sub-thread and the beginning of Canes thoughts. 

 

Please read Canes thoughts from page 81. You don't have to read the replies given to him, just read Canes posts. 

 

After reading Canes posts, please start anew with your posts in this particular sub-thread.

or

you could continue to ignore everything Canes has written previously.

 

 

When people start floating up into the air during a 'rapture', then I may start to believe. Or I see ghosts, whichever comes first.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service