a2 = b2 + c2 - 2bc * cos(θ)
The Forum > Philosophy & Religion > Obligatory "Existence of God" Thread
Page: 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17 18 ... 30 31 32
 My curiosity says that there are new posts therefore I must view them. I think Schrodinger is a fairly good compromise for both sides... [Quote] [Link]
 Schrodinger's Cat is a different problem than Pascal's Wager. Schrodinger's Cat is both alive and dead at the same time. God is either real or he isn't because the definition of God requires existence (Ontological Proof). While existence isn't a primary attribute, meaning the ontological proof is flawed, the line of logic in the proof does determine that if God in any way doesn't exist, then there is no God. However, I'm glad you brought this up. As some people here know (I'm looking at you, H2), I love thinking about the implications of God regarding Everett's many worlds solution to the Schrodinger's Cat problem. [Quote] [Link]
 Wait... I guess I need to study Scrodinger deeper... I got him mixed up with Whoever said we will not know for sure until the outcome occurs. [Quote] [Link]
 Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment in which a cat is put into a box with radioactive material. If a particle caused by radioactive decay is detected by a Geiger counter, then the cat is killed via poison. Exact rate of decay is something which cannot be predicted, hence we rely on half-lifes to determine the lifespan of radioactive materials. Because we cannot prove whether the cat is alive or dead, the cat is simultaneously both until the box is opened. It represents how matter collapses into particle form upon observation from a wave of probability and is specifically designed to illustrate aspects of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. [Quote] [Link]
 It also shows us that the microscopic doesn't seem to fit with the macroscopic. The particle is in superposition, but how can a cat be in superposition? [Quote] [Link]
 From what I've heard, wasn't it originally supposed to be sort of a fun way to disprove certain aspects of quantum superposition? And then people realized it was actually probably correct. [Quote] [Link]
 The entire system is in superposition according to the most common interpretation (The Copenhagen interpretation). [Quote] [Link]
 I have to ask... Why risk it. This is really really shallow reasoning; but... If you do not believe in God/ deity, what do you believe will happen to you? True oblivion is quite a scary prospect; sure, you won't know you are oblivious, but why risk it? Give belief a try; you may even begin to see it as fact. [Quote] [Link]
 Why do you assume all or any atheists are ignorant of religion or simply write it off? Atheists are typically less ignorant than theists; atheism correlates to higher education and higher IQ. At least in the US, atheists and agnostics know more about major religions than theists. That isn't to say that atheists are smart and theists are dumb, but to assume that an atheist is just atheist out of ignorance or pride doesn't follow the statistics. Also, we already covered Pascal's wager at least twice in this thread. It is at best a ignorant misunderstanding of how statistics works. [Quote] [Link]
 ^ Thank you Gorgon (: Fantasynerd said:True oblivion is quite a scary prospect; sure, you won't know you are oblivious, but why risk it? Give belief a try; you may even begin to see it as fact. 'But why risk it?' made me laugh. What am I risking? I think that if there was a god, he would understand why I don't believe in him, and he would sympathize. [Quote] [Link]
 I apologize for my ignorance about Pascal's Wager. Is that stating we do not know what the true answer is until it is revealed? You're risking eternal life. Barring all evidence, this is a yes or no question. I believe in that example the odds are fifty fifty. Faith, that Jesus Christ died to save you from sin, in exchange for eternal life. I am a Chistian because the teachings are basically a physical embodiment of what I believe. I am not telling you to be Christian. Find something which embodies your beliefs. If Athiesm embodies your beliefs, so be it... (What do Athiests believe?) Why did you become an Athiest instead of a Christian or a Buddhist? Statistics and circumstances? If you have already tried a few religions then ignore all this. I am just saying you should try something before disqualifying it. Observation is great but experimentation creates proofes. My final argument has probably been stated on here once or twice but I can't check. There is just as much evidence for both sides in this argument. [Quote] [Link]
 Pascal's Wager. For the record, I know you have the Internet. Feel free to look stuff up yourself. We have already explained why this is not a 50/50 question. Go back in the thread and read why, we don't need to have this discussion every four pages of thread. Statistics only supports your thesis if you don't understand them at all. [Quote] [Link]
 I can't open that. The browser I am using does not allow for the opening of a secondary window... Sorry. [Quote] [Link]
 Then go back in the thread or simply go to wikipedia yourself. You are capable of it. I have faith in you. [Quote] [Link]