Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 67)

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 23633

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 8:28pm | IP Logged
@ Aya

It appears that you are missing the gist of my posts.

I'm not saying one should not believe in God or worship. My contention is that faith should never be blind or unquestioned. It should always be tempered with some amount of rational thought or object.

Obviously people may kill in my name even if I didn't ask for it. But that is completely irrelevant and on another tangent. What I am trying to say is we do not know for certain beyond doubt what a God wants, that is why it is more prudent to rely on our intrinsic rationality and moral compass.

Why do you think a person kills in the name of God? Why do you think a person can claim to love God yet malign God's name? Why do you think a person can consider God merciful & benevolent but still be convinced that God wills it to slaughter people?

This happens because of blind faith. The person believes in God but also takes books or religious leaders literally. They never think for themselves. They will do anything if they think it is what God wills. They never stop to think that God would never want to cause harm or death. They blindly do what they assume to be God's will without giving second thought to morality or rationality within humanity.

So before stating anything to be what God wills and expects we ought to ask several questions as to why and ensure that we never place our faith in something that is inconsistent or harmful to humanity in the long run.

As for Karma, I think it is one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts.

Of course actions lead to consequences. It is like Newton's third law of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Sometimes it is simple, if you place your hand in fire it will get burned. But when we throw human behavior and emotions in the mix, the situation gets much more complex.

A person disrespecting their parents can lead to a myriad of consequences depending on the situation. They will not all be necessarily bad. The parents may get angry and ground them. Thats a consequence. Or being human they may hurt the child by letting them down sometime. In some cases the child may have meant no disrespect by the parents misunderstood or overreacted. In some cases the parents may have done something despicable. The parents may realize this and in some way try to thank the child for doing the right thing.

This way what we do often has consequences. But God or a third party is not miraculously interfering or causing them. They occur because people around us observe what we do, they experience the impact of our actions. Consequently they make decisions about us, they react to what we do. Good, bad, mixed all sorts of consequences occur simply as a result of humans interacting with each other and being human.

That is why there is no hard and fast rule of behavior to never disrespect or obey without questioning. Nor can you game it by trying to guess what will be good and do it and avoid what is bad. You can't really guess or make a call on what others will think as good or bad or how they will react. The only thing we can do is try not to think about consequence and act in a manner which is sincere and honest to ourselves and do our best to think about what is moral and rational.

Bullies have bad endings not because God punishes bullies or wills it, but because people stand up to bullies and say "It gets better".

Freethinker112 IF-Sizzlerz
Freethinker112
Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 13834

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 9:44pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by zorrro


[Zorrro] Could you hazard a guess as to what percentage? That would still leave out quite a huge area unexplored. Tongue

So, the creator likes to put gap between his creations? Let's design here, then go some light years to the north, then design again?


Originally posted by zorrro

say you design a wheel. Will the wheel fit all the vehicles out there? It is a design and yet with limitations, isnt it ? 

Because we create so many vehicles. That's why I said it would be understandable if other planets were filled with life too. But since we are alone in quite a larg chunk, why not make it habitable? If I designed only one vehicle for a country, I would only manufacture wheels that fit it.


Originally posted by zorrro

How do you know if the process of designing isnt still continuing  ?  LOL

Because if someone was designing, he would know the requirements at that point. Since we are evolving according to conditions, shows that there was no design.


Originally posted by zorrro

anything unknown is a mystery Tongue

But that doesn't stop people from claiming God does exist, does it?


Originally posted by zorrro

Thats going into infinite regress . Why not first try and know ourselves first. Just what am I ! Then think about who my creator is and then who the creator of Creator is Smile 

Yes. And unless one can solve that paradox or come up with an explanation that does not involve the paradox, you can't claim that God exists.


Originally posted by zorrro


 Can you suggest any Scientific Method about finding out who we are ( observable) We could later move on to the unobservables Tongue

What exactly do you mean by who we are? We are homo sapiens. We have a good understanding of our biology. The big mystery is that of consciousness. What is it?

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Faraan92

Freethinker112 IF-Sizzlerz
Freethinker112
Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 13834

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:17pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

First of all, QM is still in infancy


Is this a joke?! Sounds hilarious to me. A mathematical model so spectacularly successful for it's precision, the closest that science has come to a fundamental description of the nature of reality, a branch of Physics which started revolutionizing the scientific world in the first decade of the 20th century the roots of whose study go back to the 17th and 18th century is in it's infancy to you?! Incredible!

Originally posted by Freethinker112

many things are faith based.


Which ones?!



OK, I should have worded that better. I meant the thing we are discussing in this thread, what exactly is reality, is currently not evident. We know the wave-function collapses when observed, but how or why is still not clear. The maths is there but how exactly that turns to reality is still speculation. That's what I meant by "faith". There are various school of thoughts with different interpretations. We don't have a concrete answer. Please don't quote parts because the whole sentence would have made context understandable even though the wordings were not quite good.

BTW, as I have already said, I am not much knowledgeable but you seem well read in QM. So, I would be indebted if you correct me as I will get to learn things. Smile

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe.

Freethinker112 IF-Sizzlerz
Freethinker112
Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 13834

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:21pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

I know I am real and maybe you do too if you are real.


Describe "real" in scientific terms to me. Please provide as much detail as you can.

Please don't misquote me by taking just one sentence out of context. Your statement made me curious that maybe you are considering the idea of Solipsism. That's a purely philosophical standpoint not scientific and I was discussing it within that context. "Real" philosophically meant the statement "I think therefore I am".
K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 1939

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:37pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by Freethinker112

I know I am real and maybe you do too if you are real.


Describe "real" in scientific terms to me. Please provide as much detail as you can.

Please don't misquote me by taking just one sentence out of context. Your statement made me curious that maybe you are considering the idea of Solipsism. That's a purely philosophical standpoint not scientific and I was discussing it within that context. "Real" philosophically meant the statement "I think therefore I am".


The "misquote" was not intentional. I was saving some real estate by not quoting the entire response.

Actually, if you consider the entire context within which I said that, you would notice that I was only talking about a forum such as Debate Mansion where one could theoretically debate with oneself without a real audience / real framework. Something like playing chess with oneself.

But the other aspect of it, namely solipsism, has a lot going for it too but perhaps we could postpone a discussion on it to another time / another place.



K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 1939

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:39pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

BTW, as I have already said, I am not much knowledgeable but you seem well read in QM. So, I would be indebted if you correct me as I will get to learn things. Smile


[Off topic] That's a super attitude to have and you will go a long way if you possess that all your life.
Freethinker112 IF-Sizzlerz
Freethinker112
Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 13834

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:47pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


1. Extrapolation implies that we are trying to estimate values outside a known data range. There is no unknown data range in this context. If you disagree, please let me know why.

2. The macroscopic properties of matter, be it solids, liquids or gasses, are completely depend on the microscopic particles ("atomic sized things" as you eloquently put it) composing it. If you disagree, please let me know why.

3. A wave function, described by Schrodinger's equations, is the most complete description you could give to a physical system be it moon or any other entity that you could think of. If you disagree please let me know why.

4. The moon's wave function is in a superposition of several different possible eignestates. If you disagree please let me know why.

5. The relation between the wave function and the underlying reality (ex: "spherical object reflecting light") is dependent on which interpretation (semantic explanation of mathematical equations as outlined by Schrodinger) of Quantum Mechanics one would want to go with. If you disagree please let me know why.

6. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If you disagree please let me know why.

7. Per Copenhagen Interpretation, a wave function appears to collapse (one single possibility emerging from several different possibilities) only after an interaction with an observer. If you disagree please let me know why.

8. If there were no observers, there would be no collapse which means it is meaningless to ask anyone to pick one possibility out of several different possibilities.  If you disagree please let me know why.

Which is why I said, the answer to the question of what exists (existed) before an observation is made is fuzzy at best.

We could also discuss the other popular interpretation (Many worlds interpretation) but that would be more shocking than the Copenhagen interpretation, trust me.

To sum up, the math behind Quantum Mechanics is fool proof. The interpretation of what the math means is what is up for discussion.
 

Yes, of course we are discussing the interpretations, how exactly can we explain the reality. I am not questioning the math.

Some questions. Don't take it as some angry argument because I am reading this stuff to form response and am still trying to make sense of it. So, I may go on a wrong tangent. Smile

First, do you think "observer" has to be conscious? From what I read, the problem at macro scale is that particles are not in isolation. The particles interact with each other, and there are so many particles therefore so many interactions, which does not let the object go "fully in the superposition state".(I can't word it better, sorry. Smile) The interaction collapses the wave-function as if the object is observing itself. The idea is environmentally induced decoherence. It may help explain the classical reality of the macroscopic objects. Because the gravity doesn't disappear if we don't observe moon and it's orbit will keep in place if we observe it after many days or months. Feel free to correct me if I am getting it wrong. Smile
Freethinker112 IF-Sizzlerz
Freethinker112
Freethinker112

Joined: 16 May 2012
Posts: 13834

Posted: 04 October 2012 at 10:54pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.


How do you propose we "observe" without any exchange of photons being involved in the process?! This should be interesting.

Of course we can't. I was just pointing out a technicality error as you love to do with my posts, that it's the act of interaction that collapses wave function Wink It's annoying when you know that the other person will understand it. LOL

But, it raises one serious question too. Does observer has to be conscious or any interacting particle will do? And if the photon interacts with the object but nobody "observes" it after interaction, will the wavefunction collapse?

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 88 89

Author: Summer3   Replies: 705   Views: 51088

Summer3 705 51088 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm by Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

Author: monika.   Replies: 94   Views: 8556

monika. 94 8556 20 September 2011 at 11:49am by thegameison
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Author: Summer3   Replies: 10   Views: 1185

Summer3 10 1185 12 May 2011 at 4:20am by Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author: SolidSnake   Replies: 71   Views: 7049

SolidSnake 71 7049 17 September 2010 at 1:42am by _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

Author: shalini1323   Replies: 11   Views: 1186

shalini1323 11 1186 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm by -Believe-

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index