A Final Solution

[Welgaia]

I think I may have come up with an actual solution to the athiest vs. Christian debate. God exists, but only in the sense of Schrodingers Cat: He both exists and does not exist. If this does not make sense to you, allow me to explain. Schrodingers Cat is a cat placed inside a non-transparent, sound proof sealed box. Inside is a vial of toxic gas and a hammer, and when the box closes the hammer has a perfect 50/50 chance of falling on the vial and killing the cat or leaving it unharmed. So to people observing the box don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, so what is it? One person believes it's alive, because there is an ancient text that says it is alive. The other thinks it's dead, because there is no evidence of life. So who is right? They both are right and they both are wrong! Since no one has ever opened the box (seen and been able to show absolute proof of God/no God) no one can prove the other absolutely wrong. God exists based on perspective: however thoroughly you believe that cat is alive, however thoroughly you know that cat is dead, the other is right, and so are you, so get out and dance!

 

[peepnklown]

This might work if the God you are talking about is the “supernatural” and not a God based on dogma. I believe non-believers can prove the nonexistence of a God based on dogma but cannot prove the nonexistence of the “supernatural.”



It was a nice reflection though. (plus, if this was the final solution then the debate part of this forum would have to shut down)

 

[maha]

Schrodinger's Cat is an example about observation. The cat is either dead or alive. Just as there is a god or there is not. It's like the tree falling in the forest but no one being around to hear it or see it fall. So did it fall? My contention is yes. Just because humans aren't able to observe something, doesn't mean that it can't exist.

 

[psychedelicist]

Of course it fell. The question asks "Does it make a sound" which is completely up to interpretation. But for the sake of not hijacking the thread I won't go into any more detail.

I think maha is right, though. There is a god or there isn't. Your perception doesn't make you right.

 

[Phred]

This might work if the God you are talking about is the “supernatural” and not a God based on dogma. I believe non-believers can prove the nonexistence of a God based on dogma but cannot prove the nonexistence of the “supernatural.”

Funny, everything "supernatural" we've managed to observe so far has proven to be natural. It seems to me that anything "supernatural" is just something we don't understand, not anything that truly is outside of the laws of our universe.

So if there's no dogmatic deity and no supernatural to speak of, what's left?

Atheism and gaps. Oh joy, such a strong reason to subjugate yourself to priests, fanatics and fundies.

.
​

 

[jayem]

If I understand, it seems like you're stating a strong agnostic position. It's impossible to prove with absolute objective metaphysical certainty if God exists or not. So since the question is unanswerable, any answer can be both right and wrong. I do agree with that, but isn't that really just the status quo?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I think I may have come up with an actual solution to the athiest vs. Christian debate. God exists, but only in the sense of Schrodingers Cat: He both exists and does not exist. If this does not make sense to you, allow me to explain. Schrodingers Cat is a cat placed inside a non-transparent, sound proof sealed box. Inside is a vial of toxic gas and a hammer, and when the box closes the hammer has a perfect 50/50 chance of falling on the vial and killing the cat or leaving it unharmed. So to people observing the box don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, so what is it? One person believes it's alive, because there is an ancient text that says it is alive. The other thinks it's dead, because there is no evidence of life. So who is right? They both are right and they both are wrong! Since no one has ever opened the box (seen and been able to show absolute proof of God/no God) no one can prove the other absolutely wrong. God exists based on perspective: however thoroughly you believe that cat is alive, however thoroughly you know that cat is dead, the other is right, and so are you, so get out and dance!

Nice try, but I shook my box and the cat continues to move on His own inside. If you hold onto the box instead of just staring at it, you can feel the weight shift. (Beware the double entendres)

 

[Zaac]

I think I may have come up with an actual solution to the athiest vs. Christian debate. God exists, but only in the sense of Schrodingers Cat: He both exists and does not exist. If this does not make sense to you, allow me to explain. Schrodingers Cat is a cat placed inside a non-transparent, sound proof sealed box. Inside is a vial of toxic gas and a hammer, and when the box closes the hammer has a perfect 50/50 chance of falling on the vial and killing the cat or leaving it unharmed. So to people observing the box don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, so what is it? One person believes it's alive, because there is an ancient text that says it is alive. The other thinks it's dead, because there is no evidence of life. So who is right? They both are right and they both are wrong! Since no one has ever opened the box (seen and been able to show absolute proof of God/no God) no one can prove the other absolutely wrong. God exists based on perspective: however thoroughly you believe that cat is alive, however thoroughly you know that cat is dead, the other is right, and so are you, so get out and dance!

Huh??? I must be honest. I couldn't even read all of that. I got to Schrodinger's cat and had to stop.

There is no atheist vs. Christian debate. God and what He says is right and the atheists are wrong.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

I think I may have come up with an actual solution to the athiest vs. Christian debate. God exists, but only in the sense of Schrodingers Cat: He both exists and does not exist. If this does not make sense to you, allow me to explain. Schrodingers Cat is a cat placed inside a non-transparent, sound proof sealed box. Inside is a vial of toxic gas and a hammer, and when the box closes the hammer has a perfect 50/50 chance of falling on the vial and killing the cat or leaving it unharmed. So to people observing the box don't know whether the cat is alive or dead, so what is it? One person believes it's alive, because there is an ancient text that says it is alive. The other thinks it's dead, because there is no evidence of life. So who is right? They both are right and they both are wrong! Since no one has ever opened the box (seen and been able to show absolute proof of God/no God) no one can prove the other absolutely wrong. God exists based on perspective: however thoroughly you believe that cat is alive, however thoroughly you know that cat is dead, the other is right, and so are you, so get out and dance!

Give it six months - then you can be sure the cat is definitely dead

 

[Zaac]

Give it six months - then you can be sure the cat is definitely dead

Smelly cat, smelly cat
What are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat
It's not your fault

They won't take you to the vet
You're obviously not their favourite pet
You may not be a bed of roses
And you're no friend to those with noses

Smelly cat, smelly cat
What are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat
It's not your fault

 

[maha]

Jayhem wrote:

If I understand, it seems like you're stating a strong agnostic position. It's impossible to prove with absolute objective metaphysical certainty if God exists or not. So since the question is unanswerable, any answer can be both right and wrong.

If you hadn't adequately qualified that by saying "absolute objective metaphysical certainty," then I would've pointed out the flawed logic of that statement. Because there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that there is no god as well as no "metaphysical" proof of the existence of god. So to say that you can't draw a reasonable conclusion that there is no god is to use reason to undermine the use of reason. But since one cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain of it, then technically the statement is justifiable. Of course, I cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain that my mother is truly my mother...by that same rationale.

Zaac wrote:
There is no atheist vs. Christian debate. God and what He says is right and the atheists are wrong.

Ahh. Dogma at its finest.

 

[Welgaia]

Nice try, but I shook my box and the cat continues to move on His own inside. If you hold onto the box instead of just staring at it, you can feel the weight shift. (Beware the double entendres)

I didn't intend to spur animal abuse! The cat is strictly hypothetical. If you like to put your cat in a box and shake it, you should give your cat to someone who won't abuse it.

Zaac, you should read the rest. And as right as you know you are, there is still a debate.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I didn't intend to spur animal abuse! The cat is strictly hypothetical. If you like to put your cat in a box and shake it, you should give your cat to someone who won't abuse it.

Zaac, you should read the rest. And as right as you know you are, there is still a debate.

:o What?
Metaphors are only allowed by those that disagree (whether by large or small degrees) with Christianity? My expansion on your analogy was experience based. When I tested and accepted a little of God's word and in sincerity adjusted my life to be in alignment with that understanding, the promises that were not there before came to fulfillment. And more and more I test and add to my understanding, I receive more and more of what God promises. Not necessarily in material issues (though He is my Provider), but in all matters of life and spiritual fulfillment.
I don't know if you were returning the slight humor favor, but that should at least show that I intended some seriousness to my post.

 

[419gam]

But at one time there was a cat and everyone accepts this. That makes the answer a matter of speculation sense everyone envolved has a 50/50 chance of being right. In reality we have the equivalent of the box, but no one even knows if there was a cat to begin with. Also this seems to support agnosticism rather then either Christianity or athiesm. In such a situation, I think I strong belief towards a dead cat or live cat is absurd. There is no reason to believe on over the other.

 

[comana]

Smelly cat, smelly cat
What are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat
It's not your fault

They won't take you to the vet
You're obviously not their favourite pet
You may not be a bed of roses
And you're no friend to those with noses

Smelly cat, smelly cat
What are they feeding you?
Smelly cat, smelly cat
It's not your fault

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zaac again.

​

 

[Danhalen]

But at one time there was a cat and everyone accepts this. That makes the answer a matter of speculation since everyone involved has a 50/50 chance of being right.

Excellent point! The contents of the box are known prior to the closing of the lid. No one need assume that there is a cat inside it.

In reality we have the equivalent of the box, but no one even knows if there was a cat to begin with.

This is where having a preconceived answer comes in handy. If we assume that there must be something inside it, we can find proof that there may be. Remember Geraldo Rivera and Al Capone's vault?

Also this seems to support agnosticism rather then either Christianity or atheism. In such a situation, I think strong belief towards a dead cat or live cat is absurd. There is no reason to believe one over the other.

I don't think that atheism goes unrepresented in this scenario. Atheism is a statement of belief, and agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I don't have any knowledge concerning the existence of deity (agnostic). Therefore I do not believe that deity exists (atheist). I think the real absurdity is to make assumptions on whether or not there is something in the box before we have any evidence.