Deism in the Dock

Nothing out there? Nothing could be farther from the truth. There's an incomprehensibly vast universe out there; it goes on and on, potentially without end, filled with galaxies and planets.And, indeed, a whole lot of nothing, too, but it's not all nothing. Who the hell knows? It's the same problem for the theists, though - stuff comes from nothing under their model, too. Indeed, much more so - because they have a God that comes from nothing, too. For theism, yeah. Surely you're familiar with quantum experiments where unobserved particles in eigenstates collapse as soon as observations are made?Well, look. If you can have an eigenstate at all, doesn't that mean that, at some point, you can actually have a particle that's not being observed?And doesn't that mean, therefore, that there's actually not a God who's out there observing everything at once, all the time? Since we've just proven that there are some things (many, in fact) that are not being observed by anybody at all? Including God?If there was an omnipotent, ever-watchful God, all particles would be constantly observed, and so it would be physically impossible to have particles in uncollapsed eigenstates. Yet, we do observe such particles - therefore that God does not exist. Well, before you decide that the issue is settled, do you think you could be bothered to present some of it?Because all you've done is said "I find atheism unbelievable." Well, no shit. That's not evidence that it's wrong, though. People believe in religion because they want to believe in it, it makes them feel better. You seem to have confused that with actual evidence.

Wait, what? No, you can always disprove a negative; that's the easiest thing in the world. One example of what is contended to be nonexistent is all you need to disprove a negative.In other words - any time you prove a positive, you're disproving a negative.

It's these gaffes, NJ - these failures to comprehend what has been written in plain English and simple logic - that make it so hard for you to participate on this forum.Proving a negative is proving that something doesn't exist. Disproving a negative is proving that something does exist, and that's the easiest thing in the world - you just find an example of the thing that exists.If someone makes the negative contention that "there's no such thing as the Washington Monument", then it's sufficient to go to Washington DC and show it to them to disprove their negative contention.Get it? "Prove" and "disprove" aren't synonyms, they're antonyms; to prove one thing is to disprove it's opposite. I think maybe that's what you're getting hung up on. "Disprove a negative" doesn't mean "really prove a negative", like in the way most natural languages use a double negative to imply stronger negation; it means "prove a positive" because in logic, a double negative cancels itself out.

...wha?

quote:

---

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but plays a key role in explaining the origins of the mass of other elementary particles, in particular the difference between the massless photon and the relatively heavy W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus, if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.

​

As of 2007, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is indirect evidence for it.

---

Oh, shit! You really got me there, Mike!What the hell are you talking about?

Actually no, we couldn't - there's no evidence of any kind for God, direct or indirect, and considerable evidence against.And the contention of one elementary particle that has yet to be directly detected but can be inferred from other physical observations is a lot different than the contention of an omnipresent, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal entity called "God."What's the problem you guys have where you can't distinguish between ordinary and extraordinary assertions?

It wouldn't be on-topic in this thread, though in an earlier post, I gave evidence against the existence of God that has yet to be refuted.But if you just want to pretend like every debate I've been a part of for the last several years simply didn't happen, be my guest. Very poor memories on the parts of theists, around here.

Well, it kind of depends what you mean when you say "God", now doesn't it?For the most part, people seem to define "God" in ways that do make God potentially falsifiable.Did you go back to my post and read it? Or are you just so convinced that there can be no evidence against God that you're determined to ignore any such evidence put before you?

The kind of eye has no bearing on the issue. The particles behave differently when observed than when unobserved; since we can detect the difference in behavior, that proves that, at some point at least, the particles are unobserved - which disproves the existence of a God who is always observing everything, all at once.Since we can trivially prove that not everything is always being observed - by anybody - that God simply doesn't exist. QED. I'd invite you to examine how the experiments are done before you try to refute my use of them. Arguing from ignorance isn't going to get you very far.

There's nothing in the theory, model, or experimentation that distinguishes between observation by natural means and observation by supernatural means, whatever that means.The behavior changes when the particle is observed - regardless of how the particle is observed. You're asserting that the particle itself can distinguish between when it's being observed by God and when it's being observed by God and people. If it can't distinguish between individual people, then there's no reason to believe that it distinguishes between people and God.

See, I'm largely of the opinion that questions that can't be answered aren't interesting, and simply aren't worth asking. They're a waste of time.The really interesting questions are the ones with answers that are hard, but not impossible, to get to. The ones that can't ever be answered - why bother? What on Earth do you gain when you ask such a question? Nothing, that I can see.

Looks like you misspelled "self-congratulatory masturbation." The insightful questions are the ones you can answer. Answerless questions are just an exercise in wankery.

You seem to be under the impression that it makes a difference who's doing the masturbating. Thank goodness for people who ignore the advice of poets. Otherwise we'd still be a race of humans hoping to live their way into how to make fire or how to deal with diseases.

Any God? Surely not, Omni. The degree to which a God is knowable certainly depends on how it is defined, but obviously just appending the word "God" to describe something doesn't automatically render it beyond all capacity of knowledge.I mean, think it through. You say any God, but obviously if I define "God" as "a penguin who lives in a box in Times Square", it's easy enough to go see if there's really one there or not.How God is defined makes a big difference. It's a little ridiculous to pretend like you've made this great commitment to logic at the same time you seem completely adverse to using any, ever.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I'm pretty sure I'm an English major dropout, actually. Not sure what your point is, here. Isn't that exactly my point? That just swapping names around doesn't change what we can know about something?People do that with God all the time, though. No two people can agree on what God is. You see people all the time who claim to be believers, but when pressed, they say things like "well, I just use the term 'God' to refer to human fellowship" or "peaceful feelings when I'm in nature" or "money."There's plenty of people who think it's totally reasonable to believe in "God", when they're using "God" as a metaphor for some aspect of the human existence - not necessarily as a deity who exists. Of course, many people also use "God" to refer to a deity who, they hold, really does exist.Different people mean different things when they say "God." Your statement from before, taken in that light, just doesn't make any sense. Just because you call something "God" doesn't mean we can't know about it.If I decide to call my asshole "God", it doesn't suddenly become unknowable. You can still take a look and see that it stinks. But, Omni, that's exactly what you did say:

quote:

---

any God or "ultimate reality" is unknown and probably unknowable.

---

Any God. That's precisely what you said.Don't get all disingenuous in a huff, Omni. I was trying to keep this civil but now you're all up in a tizzy because someone actually read what you wrote.Take it down a notch. You were wrong. It happens. Get over it. If you call it "God", I have to accept that it is God for you. I don't have to accept it as God, of course, but you did say "any God.[/i] Well, what defines "God" is hardly a settled matter. Simply because you or I may prefer a definition that includes a bunch of characteristics doesn't mean everybody has to believe that a god always has those.Personally, if an entity can't grant spells to clerics and has no native plane of its own for followers, I don't consider it a god. But that's just me. You did say "any", indicating you were talking beyond the context of this thread. Might I suggest less inclusive terms, then, for someone who's so insistent about their superlative commitment to logic? Oops, so it is. Well, what do you expect? I'm just a dirty fucking atheist hippy, not one of you oh-so-superior, Vulcan-logic-using agnostic superminds.

If I ever claimed to be the sole arbiter of the English language, then that was a mistake. I've had training in linguistics and literature.I don't recall a single instance where I've asserted that I was "verbally gifted", or where I claimed to be a "language professional."But I can't possibly see what any of this has to do with the topic. We're talking about your claims to be a superlative logical mind at the same time that you're making ridiculous logic gaffes. Look, I read the context just fine. You turned your back on the context - rejected it - when you said "any God". "Any" means that you're expanding your remarks beyond the initial context.Words have meaning, Omni. I assume I can try to tell you that without being accused of making grandiose claims of language superiority? To the contrary - I addressed your comments in the portion of my post you chose not to respond to. Is this the vast logical intelligence you were talking about, before?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.