Quantum Mechanics and the Incompetence of Atheism.

[EnemyPartyII]

"Pre-determined area of the screen."

Regardless of the amount of faith you have, the photon will hit the screen, and it can be predicted what the probability of it hitting the screen at any point will be. The exact location it will hit cannot be known, but that has nothing to do with one's faith

 

[Holy Roller]

Sorry, but I don't agree that this type of 'uncertainty of existence' is fundamental to QM. It's no different from classical physics -- if you send a ball off into space and don't look at it for 100 years, you don't REALLY know it's there. Similarly, there's nothing fundamental about QM that suggests a particle you send off will not continue to propagate.

You're building an argument based on the philosophical claim that we can't know anything until we measure it. Your conclusions are based on this assumption, not on anything related to quatum mechanics.

Either way, it seems the 'problem' is just as much a problem for Christianity as atheism. If you can't prove that God exists, why believe in God? That question has exactly the same bases as what you're asking: "if you can't know everything, how can you know God doesn't exist."

Of course, most atheists are weak atheists anyway and don't claim God CAN'T exist, but just that there's no REASON to posit a God without evidence.

You're losing me, Deamiter, but certainly not by any fault of your own.

I stated at the outset:

It necessarily means he has to admit that QM has to be explained away by means of faith--faith in the unobservable, ethereal mechanics of uncertainty. Faith that this uncertainty will bring about a certain, cause-and-effect outcome to phenomena in physical reality.

That the Atheist has to have faith that uncertainty will bring about a cause-and-effect relationship. This is as valid on Page 15 as it was when the thread first started.

How so?

Because you forgot that faith is needed to predict the photon will strike a pre-determined part of the screen.

I believe I may have derailed your thinking by stating:

I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-evidence, then Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have uncertainty-of-existence at their core.

When I should have stated:

I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-certainty, then Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have lack-of-certainty at their core.

Thus the matter turns into a matter of semantics. You are losing me because I prematurely tried to associate lack-of-evidence and lack-of-certainty and for that I apologize.

 

[Holy Roller]

Regardless of the amount of faith you have, the photon will hit the screen, and it can be predicted what the probability of it hitting the screen at any point will be. The exact location it will hit cannot be known, but that has nothing to do with one's faith

lol, cute kitty... "Yays!"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-certainty, then Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have lack-of-certainty at their core.

Except you misrepresent what the photon will do here...

The photon WILL hit the screen... this is not subject to uncertainty. Predicting exactly where the photon will hit is impossible, but no one is attempting to do so.

No one is saying that the photon doesn't exist because of this element of uncertainty, because there is other, observable evidence that the photon exists and it will behave in a certain fashion.

God does not provide similar evidence.

 

[Braunwyn]

I always figured faith was far more involved than acknowledging a probability calculation. If I have this right- we know the photon will hit a screen. We don't know exactly where but there's a probability it can hit one area, or another or another. If I flip a coin, there's a 50% chance it will turn up heads and this is somehow related to faith. The ultimate conclusion to be reached? I simply cannot "NOT" believe in HR's deity of choice.

 

[plindboe]

What part of quantum mechanics requires one to take on faith that the photon will hit a predetermined part on the screen? It seems to me, from reading this thread that all one has to accept is the well-evidenced belief that it will hit the screen somewhere, but not any particular part.

That said, as an atheist, I've no problem with uncertainty. I view everything in a probalistic light, so there's never any absolute certainty about anything. Holy Roller appears to subscribe to a definition of atheism that I don't think anyone else does, which might explain the lack of mutual understanding in this thread.

Peter

 

[Naraoia]

Because you forgot that faith is needed to predict the photon will strike a pre-determined part of the screen.

Not trying to confuse things even more, but why does it have to be pre-determined?

 

[thaumaturgy]

What part of quantum mechanics requires one to take on faith that the photon will hit a predetermined part on the screen? It seems to me, from reading this thread that all one has to accept is the well-evidenced belief that it will hit the screen somewhere, but not any particular part.

That said, as an atheist, I've no problem with uncertainty. I view everything in a probalistic light, so there's never any absolute certainty about anything. Holy Roller appears to subscribe to a definition of atheism that I don't think anyone else does, which might explain the lack of mutual understanding in this thread.

Peter

Holy Roller fancies himself the "Atheist Hunter" and appears to be hunting something other than atheists. As if I were to call myself a lion hunter and then only go out and shoot pictures of anteaters claiming they are lions.

He draws a caricature insists it is what he calls it and then ridicules the caricature. His aggressive attitude has already helped close down his own thread on "Is Atheism a Religion" by riling up people so much (myself included) that we all ended up breaking so many rules that they closed the thread.

When I was young my dad and I would go hunting (like for real hunting, my dad's passion was hunting, I couldn't really care less about it.) What I noted about a "real" hunter like my dad was that he actually Learned what the prey would do and how it reacted and lived. As a child my memories include hours of my dad wandering around the house doing his chores while constantly making turkey noises using an in-mouth membrane turkey call. That means I have this vague notion that turkeys actually live in the garage and work on the truck's carbeurator.

My dad "immersed" himself into learning the ways of the Turkey. To that end when it came time to actually hunt the Turkey, my dad was pretty durn good at it.

Me? I could, with some small amount of statistical unlikelihood ("uncertainty" if you will) hit a squirrel in a tree with my .410. I didn't enjoy eating squirrel, I didn't particularly enjoy hunting. It wasn't worth my while. But if I were to call myself the "Squirrel Hunter" I'd be woefully mislabeling myself.

Perhaps Holy Roller is an "Atheist Hunter" in the same "statistically unlikely way" that I am a "squirrel hunter". Only differnece is, I learned I don't technically care to learn how the squirrel lives or thinks enough to hunt them.

 

[Belk]

Holy Roller fancies himself the "Atheist Hunter" and appears to be hunting something other than atheists. As if I were to call myself a lion hunter and then only go out and shoot pictures of anteaters claiming they are lions.

Ooohhh! Obscure Monty Python reference! Yays!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ooohhh! Obscure Monty Python reference! Yays!

Thanks for noticing! It's one of my favorite sketches. Almost made me want to go into accounting!

 

[Belk]

I contend that if Atheists reject G-d based on lack-of-certainty, then Atheists must, by default, reject any and all concepts that inherently have lack-of-certainty at their core.

Contend it all you want. You have conflated lack-of-certainty (why the dashes?) with lack of evidence. You then go on to tell me because I reject one uncertain claim I must reject anything that has uncertainty in it. Then you conflate statistical likelihood with uncertainty. What are you going to tell me next, that I can't believe in poker? Your argument contains several fallacies and, as is plainly evident, it causes you to reach an incorrect conclusion.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Contend it all you want. You have conflated lack-of-certainty (why the dashes?) with lack of evidence. You then go on to tell me because I reject one uncertain claim I must reject anything that has uncertainty in it. Then you conflate statistical likelihood with uncertainty. What are you going to tell me next, that I can't believe in poker? Your argument contains several fallacies and, as is plainly evident, it causes you to reach an incorrect conclusion.

I think this is core to the debate. Indeed, a weak atheist, such as myself, uses statistical hypothesis testing formalisms to arrive at my atheism. It is never incumbent to disprove something but rather to prove it positively.

To that end I (and everyone on the planet) use statistically based assessment of "risk". We hold beliefs or fail to believe in something based on what we know is limited information. We are, after all, merely humans and can only take in so much information.

I choose not to believe that the "too-good-to-be-true" advertisement on TV selling me super-success with no effort. Sure there's a vanishingly small chance that I can make CEO-level cash by merely sitting in my skivvies at the computer all day...but it is statistically unlikely that I will. So I choose not to believe that I will be making millions of dollars a year and instead go off to my regular job to toil away for a livable wage.

We all do this. As an atheist I can do no other. It is not that I can't believe in anything with a level of "uncertainty" but rather that I can't not believe in anything that doesn't have a built-in level of uncertainty. I could easily be making a Type I or a Type II error. In trying to avoid one, I tend to increase the chance of making the other.

As an aside:
This is also one of my personal incredulities with a "loving God" hypothesis. God surely knows we are limited in our ability to ascertain all data. Why would the single most important "fact" of the universe (God's existence) be so hard to find unless relying simply on "blind faith"? Why must belief in God be "blind"?

 

[Holy Roller]

I think this is core to the debate. Indeed, a weak atheist, such as myself, uses statistical hypothesis testing formalisms to arrive at my atheism. It is never incumbent to disprove something but rather to prove it positively.

To that end I (and everyone on the planet) use statistically based assessment of "risk". We hold beliefs or fail to believe in something based on what we know is limited information. We are, after all, merely humans and can only take in so much information.

I choose not to believe that the "too-good-to-be-true" advertisement on TV selling me super-success with no effort. Sure there's a vanishingly small chance that I can make CEO-level cash by merely sitting in my skivvies at the computer all day...but it is statistically unlikely that I will. So I choose not to believe that I will be making millions of dollars a year and instead go off to my regular job to toil away for a livable wage.

We all do this. As an atheist I can do no other. It is not that I can't believe in anything with a level of "uncertainty" but rather that I can't not believe in anything that doesn't have a built-in level of uncertainty. I could easily be making a Type I or a Type II error. In trying to avoid one, I tend to increase the chance of making the other.

As an aside:
This is also one of my personal incredulities with a "loving God" hypothesis. God surely knows we are limited in our ability to ascertain all data. Why would the single most important "fact" of the universe (God's existence) be so hard to find unless relying simply on "blind faith"? Why must belief in God be "blind"?

Because then we'd have unyielding, unholy, unloving, inconsiderate, incredulous, unkind, impatient, unjust and just plain ol' unsavory individuals worshiping a holy, kind, loving, yielding, considerate, and just G-d without taking heed to G-d's message.

 

[Holy Roller]

You have to understand that in G-d's world, everything is centered around concepts like love, justice and grace (forgiveness). This is different than man's world, where everything centers around concepts like upward mobility, procreation and competition.

This should tell us that as the species gets more 'advanced', said species takes on more attributes characteristic of G-d. You'd expect us to take on a higher level of intelligence--after all, as time moves forward, so does the intelligence of evolving species. However, I believe we're at the cusp of our intellectual development, leaving only one area left undeveloped and non-evolved: G-d-like kindness and love. Thus, we will likely evolve or otherwise develop into a species that's more loving, kind and forgiving as time moves on.

 

[Holy Roller]

But before any of this will happen to a significant degree, large numbers of people will have to die. A nuclear war is the most likely scenario; biological warfare is the second probability.
It'll likely happen during this Century, and occur between China and the United States.

 

[Chalnoth]

I see you've abandoned your quantum mechanical woo, Holy Roller. Congratulations! You're one step closer to recognizing that science doesn't even remotely point in the direction of any deity, and particularly not the sort you believe in.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Because then we'd have unyielding, unholy, unloving, inconsiderate, incredulous, unkind, impatient, unjust and just plain ol' unsavory individuals worshiping a holy, kind, loving, yielding, considerate, and just G-d without taking heed to G-d's message.

Hey, "Atheist Hunter", kudos on ignoring the important part of the post (ie the stuff about uncertainty and statistical hypothesis testing which is directly germane to you ostensible point) and going right for the "Aside"!



Guess you aren't too serious about "Hunting" Atheists are you? I mean, if you can only function on the little side topics that don't really have bearing, well then, I suppose we know what kind of "Atheist Hunter" you actually are.

Do try, next time, to stay on topic with your own topic being the topic at hand!

 

[Belk]

But before any of this will happen to a significant degree, large numbers of people will have to die. A nuclear war is the most likely scenario; biological warfare is the second probability.
It'll likely happen during this Century, and occur between China and the United States.

That's nice. <smiles, nods, and backs away slowly> No really, I would love to stay and hear more, but I have this....thing....with this guy....so....

 

[[serious]]

Thread closed at OP request