1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

 

 

The measurement effect is complicated and no mechanism is yet known definitively, but again, has nothing to do with conscious awareness. A tool or programmed computer could arrive at the same result. Did you watch your own youtube video? Do you understand the terminology they are using? 

 

The measurement effect is actually evidence for the multiverse. When they talk about a superposition of particles, they are asking why quantization occurred at a specific spot instead of another. Although probability is deterministic, they are essentially wondering why a 7 of hearts was drawn instead of an ace of spades. That would seem to defeat the entire point of probability.

 

One conclusion though is that all possible outcomes do occur--in similar universes that branch off from our own. We just happen to be in a universe where a particular set of configurations occurred, because all configurations must occur. 

 

Everything mentioned involves consciousness and each multiverse would have to have its own multiverse.  This requires faith.  The argument opens the possibility of God as well and if it is evidence, then it is also evidence for God.

[serp777]

 

 

 

The measurement effect is complicated and no mechanism is yet known definitively, but again, has nothing to do with conscious awareness. A tool or programmed computer could arrive at the same result. Did you watch your own youtube video? Do you understand the terminology they are using? 

 

The measurement effect is actually evidence for the multiverse. When they talk about a superposition of particles, they are asking why quantization occurred at a specific spot instead of another. Although probability is deterministic, they are essentially wondering why a 7 of hearts was drawn instead of an ace of spades. That would seem to defeat the entire point of probability.

 

One conclusion though is that all possible outcomes do occur--in similar universes that branch off from our own. We just happen to be in a universe where a particular set of configurations occurred, because all configurations must occur. 

 

Everything mentioned involves consciousness and each multiverse would have to have its own multiverse.  This requires faith.  The argument opens the possibility of God as well and if it is evidence, then it is also evidence for God.

 

It's wrong then. It requires no faith.

 

" This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

The observer effect on a physical process can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques."

http://en.wikipedia....ffect_(physics)

Do some research. 

 

"each multiverse would have to have its own multiverse."

It's at least as likely as God 

Edited by serp777, 02 August 2014 - 09:48 PM.

[serp777]

Problem with Godel's argument

Fundamental assumptions that dont have evidence

Axiom 1 assumes that it is possible to single out positive properties from among all properties. Impossible to know whether this is true.

 

Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive. God, being all knowing and all powerful, has to also know and contain all negative properties, else he is not all knowing and not infinite.

 

Additional problems- 

 

In this case, lets set the variable God to something else, like celestial teapot

 

• Definition 1: x is (Celestial teapot)-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
• Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
• Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified

• Axiom 1: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
• Axiom 2: A property is positive if and only if its negation is not positive
• Axiom 3: The property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is positive
• Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
• Axiom 5: Necessary existence is a positive property
• Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
• Theorem 2: The property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is consistent.
• Theorem 3: If something is (Celestial teapot)-like, then the property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is an essence of that thing.
• Theorem 4: Necessarily, the property of being (Celestial teapot)-like is exemplified.

 

PROOF OF THE CELESTIAL TEAPOT. 

[shadowhawk]

The celestial teapot is created by B. Russel and you can draw a circle around it.  So the teapot is not proof of any kind for Godel.  The same goes for the multiverse.  So Godel had every reason to consider the Ontological Argument and did.  It can be be proven as I have described above.  Not now but I will again return to the multiverse as another subject and we can discuss it.  Now we are talking about Godel .  Don't try to make to much of Quantum Mechanics as if you can build some kind of a world view on it.  That is a fallacy as I have pointed out earlier in this thread.  Perhaps I shall again. That you can measure things requires an observer.  All instruments require intent, a mind and observer.

Edited by shadowhawk, 02 August 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[luv2increase]

All one has to do is open their eyes and see a creation which happens to have a creator.

Otherwise, it takes more faith to believe we do not have a creator. If that is the case for you, then you are putting all your faith into time as if time is intelligence.

[serp777]

The celestial teapot is created by B. Russel and you can draw a circle around it.  So the teapot is not proof of any kind for Godel.  The same goes for the multiverse.  So Godel had every reason to consider the Ontological Argument and did.  It can be be proven as I have described above.  Not now but I will again return to the multiverse as another subject and we can discuss it.  Now we are talking about Godel .  Don't try to make to much of Quantum Mechanics as if you can build some kind of a world view on it.  That is a fallacy as I have pointed out earlier in this thread.  Perhaps I shall again. That you can measure things requires an observer.  All instruments require intent, a mind and observer.

 

All instruments require intent, a mind and observer.

 

False; a computer can operate the instrument, and humans can leave the room. The result will be the same. Do some research. 

 

"Don't try to make to much of Quantum Mechanics as if you can build some kind of a world view on it."

 

I never did. You did, however, when you tried to suggest that consciousness and the mind were required for the observer effect. 

 

"The celestial teapot is created by B. Russel and you can draw a circle around it."

 

No this is the metaphysical celestial teapot that exists outside of space and time. The metaphysical celestial teapot was not created, it always exists. The point is that I can use any religion's God in Godel's ontological argument. 

Edited by serp777, 02 August 2014 - 10:50 PM.

[shadowhawk]

Intent, mind, purpose and an observer are involved but who cares.  It is of no importance to Godel.  The teapot if it is outside space and has all the attributes of God is God not a teapot,  This kind of foolishness has been tried before.  Teapots are not God..

[serp777]

Intent, mind, purpose and an observer are involved but who cares.  It is of no importance to Godel.  The teapot if it is outside space and has all the attributes of God is God not a teapot,  This kind of foolishness has been tried before.  Teapots are not God..

 

Intent mind and purpose all have nothing to do with the observer effect.

 

"The teapot if it is outside space and has all the attributes of God is God not a teapot"

 

This is based on faith. No evidence. How do you know what God is or is not? Where are you getting this special knowledge.

 

Furthermore this shows you that godel's argument is highly speculative and based on huge assumptions. The fact that I can insert a teapot, or allah, or Zeus, or thor, indicates the flaw in this kind of argument. God is just a generic label. 

Edited by serp777, 02 August 2014 - 11:56 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[Duchykins]

You gave only a partial defintion, and were deliberately vague with the other part. I'll do whatever the hell I please with the definition then, within the bounds you outlined, and you're not going to like it. It's your own damn fault for leaving the definition wide open like that. But you really had no choice because the definition is based on a creature in an Abrahamic religion, a creature said to be very mysterious and poorly understood by the lower rabble, humans.

All of the classical arguments, and their modernized versions, use theism to confirm theism. There is no other source for the premises, no shred of evidence anywhere to justify something like 'moral perfection' or 'omniscience' in the definition of the god. Concepts of gods, what they do or what they have done, what they are like or not like, these all come from pre-existing religious beliefs. They are incredibly weak from an objective standpoint. This is why only theists, theists these arguments are catered toward, find these arguments powerful, they are in desperate need to have reassurance of their beliefs. A secret part of their mind understands exactly how silly some of their beliefs are, that is why theists, or other religionists, have always had such strong negative reactions to the mere existence of nonbelievers, or even theists who believe in different gods. Religious people tend to be sensitive to rejection of their beliefs and need reassurance from their peers that their beliefs are at least reasonable, or they feel uncomfortable with themselves, become self-conscious.


Virtually no one else is moved by these arguments. They are written by theists, for theists, to serve as a security blanket. They are completely absurd from a more objective standpoint and can be summarily dismissed. It takes a theist to find these arguments impressive or endearing.

Try to protest that the premises and definitions aren't founded in a pre-existing religion. Go ahead. What could be the other source? You have some empirical data somewhere that suggests a perfectly benevolent being exists? Do you have some scientific observation that the being is omniscient? Do you even have some anecdotes from living people saying the being told them it was omnipotent? Where did these concepts come from otherwise? You made it all up on the spot? The original authors came to these ideas all by themselves?

1. The Ontological argument does not use Theism to confirm theism. Godel did not either and I am not. Premise One does mot do this.

2. People with an open mind can be moved by these arguments. Godel was. I know lots of people who agree. No committed atheist who is desperate will agree no matter what.

3. Your observations of religious people are ad hominem.

4. There is a lot of verbiage here but no refutation of the Ontological Argument at all. Zero.

1. You failed to answer questions about the justifications for defining a being that particular way. Because the definition comes from Abrahamic religions.

2. Only people whose minds are so open their brains fall out are impressed with Plantinga's argument. Godel didn't even take his own proof seriously which is why he never bothered to make more of it than something amusing scribbled off the side of some notes.

3. Your life is ad hominem. Since you don't know what ad hominem means we can just call anything ad hom.

4. You keep mixing up your ontological arguments, moron.

[Duchykins]

All one has to do is open their eyes and see a creation which happens to have a creator.

Otherwise, it takes more faith to believe we do not have a creator. If that is the case for you, then you are putting all your faith into time as if time is intelligence.

Wow, that's deep, did you make that up all by yourself?

[shadowhawk]

The entire experiment of the observed effect had mind, consciousness, purpose design involved in most of its elements.  But this again is beside the point.

 

Indeed you just substituted "teapot" for "God" and think you have done something.  We could call a screwdriver a spoon and pat ourselves on the back thinking we have done something.  A spoon is a screwdriver, see there is no screwdriver.  You proved it, yes you did!  You defeated Godel!!!

 

 

[Duchykins]

Now SH is starting to get it. Thinking he has done something with his inventive definitions of 'maximally great' beings.

[shadowhawk]

Now SH is starting to get it. Thinking he has done something with his inventive definitions of 'maximally great' beings.

And this is simply more of the same.  Nothing here.  Zero.

 

[shadowhawk]

Quantum Mechanics tell us how things behave, not why.

 

Quantum Physics Fallacy

Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics.  One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right.  People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science.  So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.

The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims.

Logical Form:

Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.

Therefore, X is Y.

(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Example #1:

Depook: Quantum physics provides evidence that a cosmic consciousness does not exists.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond, yet Depook did not establish an argument as to how it provides evidence, he just made the assertion.

Example #2:

Depook: Quantum physics is the language of Atheism.  It has been shown that quantum particles contain information that can instantly communicate information over any distance, anywhere in or outside the universe without God.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond.  Depook did expanded on his assertion here, relied on the argument by gibberish in order to make what sounded like scientific claims which, in fact, were not.  According to everything we know about quantum physics, information cannot travel faster than light -- otherwise it could create a time travel paradox.

Exception: Making a scientific claim about quantum physics, using the scientific method, is not fallacious.

Tip: Pick up an introductory book to quantum physics, it is not only a fascinating subject, but you will be well prepared to ask the right questions and expose this fallacy when used.

 

[serp777]

The entire experiment of the observed effect had mind, consciousness, purpose design involved in most of its elements.  But this again is beside the point.

 

Indeed you just substituted "teapot" for "God" and think you have done something.  We could call a screwdriver a spoon and pat ourselves on the back thinking we have done something.  A spoon is a screwdriver, see there is no screwdriver.  You proved it, yes you did!  You defeated Godel!!!

 

You've missed the point, which is: Insert any religious deity where God is. 

 

I didn't defeat Godel, i just defeated his and your assumptions.

 

"We could call a screwdriver a spoon"

 

Um what? No we couldn't. We could argue that a screw driver or spoon was a maximally great being from Godel's ontological argument though. 

Quantum Mechanics tell us how things behave, not why.

 

Quantum Physics Fallacy

Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics.  One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right.  People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science.  So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.

The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims.

Logical Form:

Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.

Therefore, X is Y.

(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Example #1:

Depook: Quantum physics provides evidence that a cosmic consciousness does not exists.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond, yet Depook did not establish an argument as to how it provides evidence, he just made the assertion.

Example #2:

Depook: Quantum physics is the language of Atheism.  It has been shown that quantum particles contain information that can instantly communicate information over any distance, anywhere in or outside the universe without God.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond.  Depook did expanded on his assertion here, relied on the argument by gibberish in order to make what sounded like scientific claims which, in fact, were not.  According to everything we know about quantum physics, information cannot travel faster than light -- otherwise it could create a time travel paradox.

Exception: Making a scientific claim about quantum physics, using the scientific method, is not fallacious.

Tip: Pick up an introductory book to quantum physics, it is not only a fascinating subject, but you will be well prepared to ask the right questions and expose this fallacy when used.

 

What's your point, and why are you talking to yourself? You're the one who brought up the observer effect. You're the one claiming knowledge about consciousness causing the observer effect--a fallacy. 

 

Have you even taken an introductory physics class? Perhaps a classical mechanics? 

Edited by serp777, 03 August 2014 - 01:29 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins  1. You failed to answer questions about the justifications for defining a being that particular way. Because the definition comes from Abrahamic religions.
2. Only people whose minds are so open their brains fall out are impressed with Plantinga's argument. Godel didn't even take his own proof seriously which is why he never bothered to make more of it than something amusing scribbled off the side of some notes.
3. Your life is ad hominem. Since you don't know what ad hominem means we can just call anything ad hom.
4. You keep mixing up your ontological arguments, moron.

1. I have given reasons for a Maximally Great being.  You either are incapable of getting it or do not want to get it.  I will leave it up to the reader to decide.  The definition does not come from Abrahamic religions and even if it did this is a genetic fallacy.  So what, don’t like Jews?  They can’t believe something that is true?  This is simply bigotry.

2.  Is simply your name calling and as usual no content.  Godel made his argument just before he died and you haven’t a clue what his motives were.  Before he died he was struggling with theological issues.  Death has a way of doing that.

3.  More nonsense.  Not worth responding to.

4.  More name calling.  There are many forms of the Ontological argument.  Godel uses a modern one simular to the one I used.

None of this defeats in any way the Ontological or Godel .  So with nothing but the typical name calling offered, I am going on to the next issue.

[shadowhawk]

Shadowhawk:  "We could call a screwdriver a spoon"

serp777 : Um what? No we couldn't. We could argue that a screw driver or spoon was a maximally great being from Godel's ontological argument though.

You equated God with a Teapot!  A teapot is not a maximately great being nor God.  Here you state a Maximally Great being could also be a spoon or a screwdriver!  It just shows you haven’t a clue of what we have been talking about.  So I think we have exhausted this difficulty and I am going to leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves the power of Godel and the Ontological argument.

[Duchykins]

Quantum Mechanics tell us how things behave, not why.

Quantum Physics Fallacy

Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.

The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims.

Logical Form:

Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.

Therefore, X is Y.

(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Example #1:

Depook: Quantum physics provides evidence that a cosmic consciousness does not exists.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond, yet Depook did not establish an argument as to how it provides evidence, he just made the assertion.

Example #2:

Depook: Quantum physics is the language of Atheism. It has been shown that quantum particles contain information that can instantly communicate information over any distance, anywhere in or outside the universe without God.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond. Depook did expanded on his assertion here, relied on the argument by gibberish in order to make what sounded like scientific claims which, in fact, were not. According to everything we know about quantum physics, information cannot travel faster than light -- otherwise it could create a time travel paradox.

Exception: Making a scientific claim about quantum physics, using the scientific method, is not fallacious.

Tip: Pick up an introductory book to quantum physics, it is not only a fascinating subject, but you will be well prepared to ask the right questions and expose this fallacy when used.

Okay that is not a 'quantum mechanics fallacy'. At best it closely resembles a straw man but it's really just simply incorrect. You have no idea what constitutes a logical fallacy, you seem to think the colloquial use of 'fallacy' is identical to the more formal use of 'fallacy' in the context of logic and philosophy -- which is no surprise since you do the same thing with 'theory'. Now that is a real thing, your equivocation fallacy.

[Duchykins]

Duchykins 1. You failed to answer questions about the justifications for defining a being that particular way. Because the definition comes from Abrahamic religions.
2. Only people whose minds are so open their brains fall out are impressed with Plantinga's argument. Godel didn't even take his own proof seriously which is why he never bothered to make more of it than something amusing scribbled off the side of some notes.
3. Your life is ad hominem. Since you don't know what ad hominem means we can just call anything ad hom.
4. You keep mixing up your ontological arguments, moron.

1. I have given reasons for a Maximally Great being. You either are incapable of getting it or do not want to get it. I will leave it up to the reader to decide. The definition does not come from Abrahamic religions and even if it did this is a genetic fallacy. So what, don’t like Jews? They can’t believe something that is true? This is simply bigotry.

2. Is simply your name calling and as usual no content. Godel made his argument just before he died and you haven’t a clue what his motives were. Before he died he was struggling with theological issues. Death has a way of doing that.

3. More nonsense. Not worth responding to.

4. More name calling. There are many forms of the Ontological argument. Godel uses a modern one simular to the one I used.

None of this defeats in any way the Ontological or Godel . So with nothing but the typical name calling offered, I am going on to the next issue.

'Abrahamic religions' refers to the Abrahamic monotheisms, primarily Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Not just Judaism. All three religions can be traced back to the fable of Abraham, ergo they are called the Abrahamic religions in philosophy of religion. What kind of dumbass doesn't even how his religion is classified in philosophy? Fucking read your Bible. Romans calls Abraham a father in faith, multiple verses throughout the Bible call YHWH the GOD OF ABRAHAM (et al).

So yeah, your definition of god comes from an Abrahamic religion. Unless you would like to say that the source is either Zoroastrianism or the Egyptian cult of Aten. Or that the definition was plucked out of the air on a whim.


Many forms of the ontological argument. Duh. We have been arguing over PLANTIGA'S not Godel's. We moved to Plantinga when you posted 'maximally great' blah blah blah. You keep bringing up Godel as though any resolution over Plantinga's argument affects Godel's, or that they are the same arguments. They're not the same so try to stay on the track.

[Duchykins]

Damn this is funny. Nearly every time you post, SH, you show us that you aren't at all knowledgeable in logic and philosophy of religion. You have cookie cutter arguments from Christian sources and you don't even have anything more than a superficial understanding of those arguments. And here you are like a pompous fool pretending to be enlightened on the topic, that we are stupid and among all of us only you are wise. You don't even have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.

[redFishBlueFish]

46 pages arguing for Christianity? I just don't get it and the Christian version of the book doesn't make sense either. Jews call hell as a state of mind, not an actual place, but Christians converted it into a place? I am utterly confused about that. Has there been any argument on the idea of an advanced species somewhere in the universe creating the creatures of this planet? I'd be open minded to that. 

 

But we as a species are too small to even think at that level anyway. We can barely even get past taking a poo, let alone anything on a higher thought process. lol

Edited by redFishBlueFish, 03 August 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[Duchykins]

The concept of hell as an actual place of eternal torment evolved a bit and you can see it right in the Bible. Gehenna, Sheol, Hades. It was Hades, when the Abrahamic religion met Greek religion, that 'hell' became a bad place only for the unrighteous. The New Testament calls hell 'Hades' but it's been altered from its Greek roots, the Greeks referred to Hades (the place) as a home, resting place or neutral ultimate destination for all dead. No, Christians wanted Christians to go to Heaven and live with YHWH so Hades became a place for everybody else.

Of course, not all Christian denominations believe that is a true history of the meaning of Hades in the NT, they believe there is no justification anywhere in the Bible that hell is a real place of misery, they think it's metaphor or the consciousness simply winking out of existence or going into eternal slumber upon bodily death. Actually these Christians have beliefs that more accurately represent scripture than the other Christians who think hell is 'real'.

[shadowhawk]

 

Quantum Mechanics tell us how things behave, not why.

Quantum Physics Fallacy

Description: Using quantum physics in an attempt to support your claim, when in no way is your claim related to quantum physics. One can also use the weirdness of the principles of quantum physics to cast doubt on the well-established laws of the macro world.

Perhaps the greatest mind in quantum physics, Richard Feynman, once said, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics,” and he is probably right. People recognize that this is perhaps the most bizarre, paradoxical, and incomprehensible area of study, that is also a respectable science. So, if you can manage to connect the truth of your argument to quantum physics, it would be unlikely that there would be many people who know enough about quantum physics to assert that your connection is invalid, thus your argument gains credibility out of ignorance.

The mysterious nature of quantum physics is a breeding ground for superstition, religious claims, “proof” of God, universal consciousness, and many other unfalsifiable claims.

Logical Form:

Quantum physics supports the idea that X is Y.

Therefore, X is Y.

(although quantum physics supports no such thing)

Example #1:

Depook: Quantum physics provides evidence that a cosmic consciousness does not exists.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond, yet Depook did not establish an argument as to how it provides evidence, he just made the assertion.

Example #2:

Depook: Quantum physics is the language of Atheism. It has been shown that quantum particles contain information that can instantly communicate information over any distance, anywhere in or outside the universe without God.

Sam: ???

Explanation: Sam knows nothing about quantum physics, so really cannot respond. Depook did expanded on his assertion here, relied on the argument by gibberish in order to make what sounded like scientific claims which, in fact, were not. According to everything we know about quantum physics, information cannot travel faster than light -- otherwise it could create a time travel paradox.

Exception: Making a scientific claim about quantum physics, using the scientific method, is not fallacious.

Tip: Pick up an introductory book to quantum physics, it is not only a fascinating subject, but you will be well prepared to ask the right questions and expose this fallacy when used.
 

Okay that is not a 'quantum mechanics fallacy'. At best it closely resembles a straw man but it's really just simply incorrect. You have no idea what constitutes a logical fallacy, you seem to think the colloquial use of 'fallacy' is identical to the more formal use of 'fallacy' in the context of logic and philosophy -- which is no surprise since you do the same thing with 'theory'. Now that is a real thing, your equivocation fallacy.

 

As it says it is a quantum physics fallacy.  Google it.  As far as the rest of your comments, nonsense.  I am talking about an informal logical fallacy which you obviously don’t know the difference.

[serp777]

46 pages arguing for Christianity? I just don't get it and the Christian version of the book doesn't make sense either. Jews call hell as a state of mind, not an actual place, but Christians converted it into a place? I am utterly confused about that. Has there been any argument on the idea of an advanced species somewhere in the universe creating the creatures of this planet? I'd be open minded to that.

But we as a species are too small to even think at that level anyway. We can barely even get past taking a poo, let alone anything on a higher thought process. lol

well at least half of these pages are from useless YouTube videos and posts crying about ad hominem. All from shadow hawk ofc.

[shadowhawk]

Damn this is funny. Nearly every time you post, SH, you show us that you aren't at all knowledgeable in logic and philosophy of religion. You have cookie cutter arguments from Christian sources and you don't even have anything more than a superficial understanding of those arguments. And here you are like a pompous fool pretending to be enlightened on the topic, that we are stupid and among all of us only you are wise. You don't even have the decency to be ashamed of yourself.

 

Not interested  in your pissing contest.  Only personal attacks and empty name calling with no substance.     Rave on with this empty nonsense.

Have fun
 

[shadowhawk]

46 pages arguing for Christianity? I just don't get it and the Christian version of the book doesn't make sense either. Jews call hell as a state of mind, not an actual place, but Christians converted it into a place? I am utterly confused about that. Has there been any argument on the idea of an advanced species somewhere in the universe creating the creatures of this planet? I'd be open minded to that. 

 

But we as a species are too small to even think at that level anyway. We can barely even get past taking a poo, let alone anything on a higher thought process. lol

No one is forcing you to follow this thread.  If you are interested in a different subject then have the guts to start a thread.  It is easy.

[Duchykins]

SH you mean it's a 'real' fallacy because it was invented on the internet (this probably what you think an 'informal fallacy' is) and does not exist in actual textbooks, where you probably think 'formal fallacies' come from.

I read your description of this fallacy. It's not a fallacy, the whole thing is based on someone's misunderstanding of a principle or observation in quantum physics. It's just an argument founded on false premises. Call it the false premise fallacy since we're making shit up all the time.

[shadowhawk]

 

46 pages arguing for Christianity? I just don't get it and the Christian version of the book doesn't make sense either. Jews call hell as a state of mind, not an actual place, but Christians converted it into a place? I am utterly confused about that. Has there been any argument on the idea of an advanced species somewhere in the universe creating the creatures of this planet? I'd be open minded to that.

But we as a species are too small to even think at that level anyway. We can barely even get past taking a poo, let alone anything on a higher thought process. lol

well at least half of these pages are from useless YouTube videos and posts crying about ad hominem. All from shadow hawk ofc.

 

Typical off topic such as this attempt to derail the subject is everywhere.  Ever see a black person at a KKK meeting?  This thread is an example of what Christians can expect.  There is little real descent here, just bigotry.

[shadowhawk]

SH you mean it's a 'real' fallacy because it was invented on the internet (this probably what you think an 'informal fallacy' is) and does not exist in actual textbooks, where you probably think 'formal fallacies' come from.

I read your description of this fallacy. It's not a fallacy, the whole thing is based on someone's misunderstanding of a principle or observation in quantum physics. It's just an argument founded on false premises. Call it the false premise fallacy since we're making shit up all the time.

No, it is a real fallacy for the reasons stated.  This is a perfect example of where you assert and declare all kinds of things with no evidence or argument.  Zero.  Your post has no content or logic.

You are having a conversation with a made up me and your fantasy is running wild.  Then you argue against your straw man.  You lecture and berate as if you are correcting something but it is just name calling and assumptions.  You say it is a misunderstanding of things but you give no argument.  It is only assertion and name calling.  So declare away.  You have said nothing.

On top of that it is mostly off topic.  So I am going on to the next difficulty.

Edited by shadowhawk, 03 August 2014 - 06:46 AM.