Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests

GOD EXISTS

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:44 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

cthia wrote:It was a joke gcomeau. And, perhaps I better explain the punch line. Schrodinger's cat is his woman who doesn't want to be caught in the act(observed) and killed.

But you are right, I shouldn't have assumed that everyone was aware of that joke.


Perhaps you should have told the joke. You do realize there is nothing remotely resembling the joke you are describing in the post you made? No cats. No women. No 10 repeats of an experiment. No humorous plays on the ways we can confuse binary and decimal numbering systems when the numbers involved are comprised of only 1s and 0s. No seduction. Nothing. Not a word about any of it.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by cthia   » Mon Jun 08, 2015 9:58 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

gcomeau wrote:
cthia wrote:It was a joke gcomeau. And, perhaps I better explain the punch line. Schrodinger's cat is his woman who doesn't want to be caught in the act(observed) and killed.

But you are right, I shouldn't have assumed that everyone was aware of that joke.


Perhaps you should have told the joke. You do realize there is nothing remotely resembling the joke you are describing in the post you made? No cats. No women. No 10 repeats of an experiment. No humorous plays on the ways we can confuse binary and decimal numbering systems when the numbers involved are comprised of only 1s and 0s. No seduction. Nothing. Not a word about any of it.

I agree. The joke needs to be told. I assumed everyone that is discussing physics knows it. It is such a popular joke and it keeps resurfacing. It is one of the most parodied jokes.

But it isn't the type of joke to be told on this forum, and certainly not in this thread. Schrodinger's Cat is descriptive enough. And perhaps I should have restructured the post. Actually the observer effect part was included as an afterthought for those not aware of it.

It is humorous to me in yet another way. When the professor told it, he said afterward, "if you don't get the punch line here get in line for your punch after class."

A punch in those days meaning a recommendation to drop the course without prejudice.

And many didn't get it. But the guys had no problem explaining it to the girls. Well, some of us anyways.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:27 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

You truly don't pay attention to anything anyone posts, do you. Good bye.
gcomeau wrote:
PeterZ wrote:If the laws of physics are a product of His will, they are not violated when He expresses His will. That's simple enough to understand. It is also simple enough to understand that He can change the laws of physics in a limited area. .


Thank you for proving my point. You are simply defining anything God does as "not a violation of the laws of physics because God is doing it". But that's just playing word games. Saying the 2nd law of thermodynamics suddenly stops working "because it's been violated" and saying the second law of thermodynamics stops working "because God willed it to be so" don't make one tiny bit of difference to the fundamental problem that the law stopped working.

You already conceded here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6469&start=464

...that demonstrating the existence of anything requires reliance on the reliability of observational data and that the reliability of observational data requires the baseline assumption that the basic laws of physics that govern those observations freaking HOLD. Which you have just admitted they don't if we consider God to be part of the equation.


So my argument is upheld. God's existence *cannot* be demonstrated because introducing the hypothesis that the laws of physics can be violated at will by the entity you are trying to demonstrate the existence of invalidates all observational evidence. Nothing you observe can be declared definitive because God might have mucked with the laws of physics while you were making your observation.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:23 am

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:You truly don't pay attention to anything anyone posts, do you. Good bye.



Since I just responded in detail to what you wrote I'm going to translate that as "uhoh I'm backed in a corner, time to flee."
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by peke   » Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:24 am

peke
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:24 pm

Moderators, I agree with the old coot that it's probably time to close this thread. It's gotten to the point where there's no productive debate going... just people talking past each other.

PS. Oh, and just in case any creationist accuses me of running away... do so after refuting at least one of my previous posts. No one has even attempted to.
------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem so complex that it cannot be solved through the judicious application of high-power explosives.
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Duckk   » Tue Jun 09, 2015 9:33 am

Duckk
Site Admin

Posts: 4200
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:29 pm

After getting two reports about this thread, I think it's time to lock it.

EDIT: Note this is not a censure of religious topics in general. Just that this particular discussion thread has gotten out of hand.
-------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...