|
| Thread: What is thy religion, and what doth hast know about God? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted November 29, 2008 06:02 PM |
|
|
we shouldn't but our binary logic just fails at some aspects of reasoning and cannot be applied because both answers seem false, just like in my example below
And we defined omniscience and omnipotence like that but we don't really know how omniscience/omnipotence looks like and most likely never will
so we've probably imagined something that doesn't work
or we just can't understand it at all, but I never use that argument, even if it is true, it never works because another person can say "oh, how convenient, everything that is stupid is "impossible to understand by lesser beings like us" to you, you are a typical theist with your sucky reasoning blah blah blah."
I prefer to see omniscience as knowledge of the outcome of every possible situation, which permanently shuts all logical issues with that word, yes it's my own definition of my word but I guess it works better and can be safely applied to Godly being without messing up with the flaws of our reasoning
And omnipotence is freedom to choose between any of the possible outcomes, for example
In such situation, all logical problems are solved (aka the ridiculous "can God create a rock that is so heavy that even he cannot lift it" -> the answer in such case is no and it doesn't devalue the word "omnipotent" which would normally lose sense in such a trivial word play, because such a combination (creating a rock impossible to lift) doesn't make sense and cannot be taken into consideration.
As TA pointed out once Omniscience and Omnipotence are words already defined and I cannot redefine them but if I could, I would do it just like I did here 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:45, 29 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Woock says: Which part of "our" logic does not apply to a five-dimensional world?
Baklava says: The part where the fifth dimension can influence almost anything.
I don't know, I may be getting daft, but I just don't see how this answers the question.
You'd have seen how it answers the question if you didn't quote just a part of what I said, but all of it.
The fifth dimension can be logic itself.
And you didn't try to understand a chestnut tree from the perspective of a rectangle, so my point remains unaddressed. ^^
By the way, by discarding a theory which you haven't proven, you discard a (no matter how small) chance of being right. When you do something like that, you lose quite a lot of credibility.
The art is to discard logic for a theory which requires discarding logic, and to discard omnipotence for a theory which requires that. Only that way can you hope to even partially understand all of the theories.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What else would you like me to use? I don't see the relevance.
Oh, you still don't get what I meant 
You use the brain. A computer uses the transistors or whatever it's made of. As we know computers are "dumb" and don't think right? Because of their structure they can't (well not yet anyway). Same with brain -- we might be able to do more (i.e think) and think about logic, but who says that there aren't other "higher" structures that can think about "higher" logic? 
Quote:
Technically speaking, a point is infinitely small, while a physical object (like my right hand, lego brick or a chess piece) is not and therefore exists in many points in space at once. Assuming, however, that you mean the possibility of the same physical object being, for example, both in my pocket and in your fridge at the same time (without putting the pocket in the fridge or vice versa; also assuming that it is contained in its entirety in either container and doesn't extend all the way from one to the other like a big lot of string), then it is entirely logical as long as the world's physics do not contradict it.
Did you hear about Schrödinger's cat? Is it possible for an "entity" (cat) to be both alive and dead at the same time? Is it logical? (because possible it is )
And I was talking about small particles like electrons, not something big like a chess piece which is made of a lot of them. It sounds very counter-intuitive and trust me, everyone who claims to "understand" Quantum mechanics actually proves that he/she doesn't understand the first thing about it.
Not to mention it was completely illogical for Einstein, but I guess his logic was flawed... or is logic subjective?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:20 PM |
|
|
Doomforge:
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that God is omnipotent because He can do anything that He can do. That's not that special, though. I can do anything that I can do. Does that mean that I'm omnipotent? 
TheDeath:
Schrodinger's Cat can't be both dead and alive at the same time. It's either dead or alive, but we don't know until we look.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:26 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:32, 29 Nov 2008.
|
I don't think you understand a thing about quantum mechanics mvass
Quote:
According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the box is opened.
It is not a question of whether we can observe or not, or whether we can have infinite knowledge about it. It will always be based on chance until we LOOK, but once we do, we affect the outcome forever (i.e no chance anymore). Before that however (i.e before we looked) it is both alive and dead at the same time.
There's a reason it's called a paradox. Don't try to oversimplify it to absurdity. Try on wiki if you want more about it.
Quote:
Schrödinger's famous thought experiment poses the question: when does a quantum system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other? (More technically, when does the actual quantum state stop being a linear combination of states, each of which resemble different classical states, and instead begin to have a unique classical description?) If the cat survives, it remembers only being alive. But explanations of the EPR experiments that are consistent with standard microscopic quantum mechanics require that macroscopic objects, such as cats and notebooks, do not always have unique classical descriptions. The purpose of the thought experiment is to illustrate this apparent paradox: our intuition says that no observer can be in a mixture of states, yet it seems cats, for example, can be such a mixture. Are cats required to be observers, or does their existence in a single well-defined classical state require another external observer?
Quote:
In the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well defined in this interpretation. Some interpret the experiment to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat", and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.
In a different interpretation:Quote:
In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not single out observation as a special process, both alive and dead states of the cat persist, but are decoherent from each other. In other words, when the box is opened, that part of the universe containing the observer and cat is split into two separate universes, one containing an observer looking at a box with a dead cat, one containing an observer looking at a box with a live cat.
do you agree with this more or does it sound more absurd than the paradox?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Doomforge:
So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that God is omnipotent because He can do anything that He can do. That's not that special, though. I can do anything that I can do. Does that mean that I'm omnipotent?
Well, the theoretical possibilities of you and God should differ a bit, don't you think? It is that he can do everything possible to do, and you can do only a tiny fraction because of thousand reasons.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
|
Hey, would you like at that? I was right.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:39 PM |
|
|
This too for Schrodinger's Cat:Quote:
Another variant on the experiment is Wigner's friend, in which there are two external observers, the first who opens and inspects the box and who then communicates their observations to a second observer. The issue here is, does the wave function collapse when the first observer opens the box, or only when the second observer is informed of the first observer's observations?
orQuote:
In another extension prominent physicists have gone so far as to suggest that astronomers observing dark matter in the universe during 1998 may have "reduced its life expectancy" through a pseudo-Schrödinger's cat scenario, although this is a controversial viewpoint.
trust me mvass when I say that you have to completely get rid of your "common sense" deterministic thoughts when you want to learn quantum mechanics
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 07:52 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
You're right, I don't know much about quantum mechanics. But just judging by what you told me, it sounds really dumb. No wonder Einstein didn't like it.
But a cat can't be dead and alive at the same time. Explain what it is, then, if it's dead and alive.
Doomforge:
Obviously, God can do more than me, but He still can't do what He can't do. Nor can I do what I can't do. So?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 08:20 PM |
|
|
so we're stating the obvious. And?
Did the "stupid" concept broke apart? 
Or maybe it's hard to accept a God that actually can't do something what has no place in the universe or outside it?
Bah, I see that people would rather repeat those stupid "can God create a rock too heavy to lift" than to change the concept
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But a cat can't be dead and alive at the same time.
Apparently, it can. Maybe we should instead look at our own logic and see the flaw there?
And it doesn't sound "dumb" just extremely counter-intuitive and weird. A quote by Schrodinger: "I do not like quantum mechanics, and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it"
Also:
"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it" - John Wheeler
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it" - Niels Bohr.
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real" - Niels Bohr.
"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics" - Richard Feynman.
And this comes from people who were actually specialized in it. (not saying you should believe them, but if you wanna specialize in it, I have certainty you will get to the same results)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted November 30, 2008 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 02:26, 30 Nov 2008.
|
I came up with some new things.
A:
Ok I'm empty.. Dang it!
tries again..
A:
*hides*
Edit: Comes back and says "I was looking for awnsers about what yallz opinion on God(s) is/are
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
The death : Is quantum mechanics illogical? I somehow think that you are trying to prove it is, when it is not. It has it's own logic. In quantum physics it is logical for particles to be in 2 places at the same time.
You can only call it illogical if you try to fit the phenomenon into Newtonian model of the universe. I don't know why you assume that 5th dimension would be illogical, maybe you have mediated on it and found something like that? I have no reason to believe it would be illogical... (meaning that things would just happen there without reason)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 02, 2008 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath:
But a cat can't be dead and alive at the same time. Explain what it is, then, if it's dead and alive.
The question is, why can it not? I know that its possible to be at multiple places at the same time, but you can however be only have 1 conciusness.
Besides, how do we define dead? If just the soul going out of the body leaves it dead for a while or similar its more complex.
The 1 conciusness is one of the few limits i am seing. However i am pretty much teocrafting here, since i got no education in the field.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 02, 2008 06:30 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:30, 02 Dec 2008.
|
Atheist, although I do think Buddhism is awesome and I dont consider it a religion, more like a "lifestyle".
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 02, 2008 07:28 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:28, 02 Dec 2008.
|
@Minion: No of course like I said, if people find Quantum mechanics illogical, it doesn't mean that it is illogical -- it means our logic can't comprehend it ("our" as in those people). I never said the 'fifth' dimension is illogical. I said our logic is limited (or flawed). Many quantum physicists however say that it doesn't make any sense (see quotes) -- this doesn't mean that it doesn't make any sense objectively, but it doesn't make for them (and anyone else who shares that logic), which means our logic isn't necessarily objective but subjective! (i.e it can make sense for "God" or whatever other being (even aliens, machines in the Matrix, etc) out there).
Of course some people can also imagine full 4D worlds (5 if you count time), or so they claim -- I can only do very little, like the first 'quadrant' (not sure if it's a quadrant anymore but you get the idea). That doesn't mean i don't believe them though.
Quote:
Besides, how do we define dead? If just the soul going out of the body leaves it dead for a while or similar its more complex.
Well the cat was only an example experiment, you can put there something not alive (like let's say, "paint" a ball, so a ball can be both painted and not at the same time).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Jiriki9
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Altar Dweller
|
|
posted December 02, 2008 07:33 PM |
|
|
|
I guess I got my own kind of beliefs. Mainly, I would not call myself religious, but I have found up to now I'm not really an atheist, too, because I do not claim "There definitely is no god." Agnosticism is closest to my view, because I'm sure we can never proove there is any deity, afterlife, or whatever, nor can we proove those thigns do not exist. And I say: Why do we need to know? We will find out soon enough, and I guess what really matters is, if we're doing good or bad things, not why (and I know there are many grey zoens between good and bad)...if it matters at all. And in what I certainly do not believe is any church or religious leader...and in the hell in the (old-fashioned)catholic way^^
|
| |
|
|
