Reflex wrote: ↑Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:09 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:23 am
I would be interested in hearing how you would argue QM could make my conjectures untenable.
Nevertheless regardless of how you argue, there is no way you will be able to prove God is real based on the general principles as I had mentioned earlier, i.e.
I specifically stated that
proof is out of the question. In any case, the latter belies the former
If proof is out of the question, then you cannot make any conclusion.
Thus whatever you claim is without proof, it has no credibility and should be rejected a truth except as an opinion or belief by yourself and your likes.
- QM theories are scientific based theories.
According to Karl Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore a QM-based God is thus based on conjectures.
The above is an invalid syllogism. (P2 is an appeal to authority and illustrates my point even if it were valid.)
You are very short on intellectual in this case.
Karl Popper presented a thorough argument in arriving at the above conclusion.
If you are average with Science you should have understood and agree with Popper.
Note all scientific theories start with an abduction then hypothesis which are conjectures and these conjectures are polished within the Scientific Method to arrive at an acceptable theory with the required consensus.
From another perspective there is a non-sequitor as follows;
- 1. P1 Science = Empirical Rational
2. P2 God = Transcendental Pseudo Rational
3. C non-sequitor
In this case the premises are of a difference senses thus the conclusion cannot be valid.
The definition of
rational is "consistent with or based on or using reason." A concept does not need to be empirical in order to be rational. QM in general and quantum tunneling in particular is evidence of a non-empirical reality -- a reality underpinning yet transcending spacetime. Your disagreement does not make it "pseudo rational."
My use of "empirical" in the initial presentation is rather crude.
If we are to be more pedantic, then,
Science = human conditions, senses, empirical and the rational.
The term 'rational' can be very complex if we are to be pedantic on it.
In the conventional perspective the empirical is independent of the 'rational' but not at the fundamental level in term of the human conditions, the senses, experiences and intuition.
Note the Biological Fundamental of Reason;
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology - Cooper
https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Reason ... 0521791960
The most reliable scientific theories are those which are heavily empirical [99%]-rational [95%] based in their respective high degrees.
Those scientific theories that are solely based on reason alone and extrapolated from existing empirical based theories, are labelled as "Pure Theoretical Science" and these are less reliable until they are tested to provide empirical results.
Those scientific based proposasl which are highly theoretical and imaginative with low empirical possibilities at present are labelled as Science Fiction.
I have read that many of QM theories has been tested and produced empirical results.
I don't think Quantum Tunneling is supported by empirical results and thus a second rate Scientific Theory only. It is a speculative scientific theory. Do you have proof it is tested and verified with empirical results.
What you are trying to do is using speculation in trying to determine the impossible.
Why you are doing this is purely psychological.
Your "argument" (Absolute perfection is impossibile > God must be perfect > God is impossible doesn't make any sense (except in your own mind). What does perfection mean? What does it entail? Why is it impossible? It's simply too vague to mean anything at all. It also completely ignores a basic theistic tenet: "In the end, we know God as unknown."
I have presented my point in detail regarding what is 'perfection' [empirical vs transcendental] in that thread.
Why should I accept 'the basic theistic tenet' when it is not proven and grounded?
My hypothesis , i.e. God is not real but emerges psychologically is confined to the empirical-rational.
Note my hypothesis is can be tested [polished] with reasonable results, i.e. many who were given drugs and hallucinogen reported experiences with God or as God similar to the main founder of religions and spiritual groups.
I certainly
hope it can be tested in the way you suggest as the brain is thought by some to be analogous to a radio receiver. What makes you think it isn't?
There is no ultimate God which is absolutely perfect.
However if you believe your god is some human-liked alien out there in some planet manipulating you as a radio receiver with radio waves as in the Matrix scenario, I can agree it is possible. It is possible because all the elements above are empirically possible to be tested. Whilst it is possible, the likely of it to be true as supported by empirical evidence is very negligible, like 0.0000000000000..01 possible.
But the ultimate theistic
God that has to be transcendentally perfect, absolute, whatever-Omni and non-empirical, is an impossibility.
If the idea of God emerges from mad people, those with brain damage, etc. how can you rely on that?
Those who are mad and have experiences of God are cured when given the appropriate medicine and counselling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
If God is that great, then the person would feel great and want to continue to broadcast for God.
It is a matter of time when we can get to a more precise knowledge how the idea of God came to be and that the root cause is psychological.
A receiver is not a transmitter
That is a fact.
Not sure what is your point.
If you think God is a transmitter, then bring evidence as proofs.
Note the evolution of the idea of God from empirical conjectures [man with beard in the sky, energy, radio waves, etc.] to pseudo-rational conclusion of the ontological God.
These are all illusory.
The highest idea of God is the ontological God which is an impossibility.
News flash: no one is interested in your unfounded opinions.
I have argued for the above very extensively elsewhere.
I had never concluded reality is comprised of discrete particles giving rise to consciousness.
My approach to reality is based on empirical-rational experiences emerging and its empirical-rational possibility.
I experience and know I am conscious within a reality and that is based on the empirical-rational but I have not concluded consciousness has an absolute source or origin.
Your arguments (such as they are) clearly imply that matter is the bottom line.
That is a wrong implication as I had explained above.
The problem with theists is they are deceived to believe a God [which is illusory] is real and for the majority, to the extent God is so empirically real that God sent his commands in holy text via a messengers and exhorting believers to kill non-believers if theism is threatened [vaguely defined]. This is the reality of theists [SOME] driven by their believing in an illusion.
It seems you have difficulty discerning between the relevant and the irrelevant.
Irrelevant?
If you go about town regularly you could easily be bombed or knifed any time.
Note this a day ago;
Melbourne terror attack plot suspects arrested in police raids over mass shooting fears
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-20/ ... e/10513328
and a few days ago;
Melbourne attack: Man [shouting Allah u Akbar] shot dead after fire and stabbing
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-austr ... d-stabbing
I am 100% certain, there will be an Islamic-driven attack somewhere around the world within the next 7 days. Irrelevant? Bet?
What I have stated as above is reality as supported by empirical evidences, e.g.
In the above cases, those who commit the terrible evil and violent acts justified them with verses from their holy texts directly and indirectly.
Note this critical point, no believers would dare to misinterpret an
omniscient all-knowing God's words to act, else they will go to hell.
Because there is no real God in this terrible evil, humanity must dispel this falsehood.
