You mention that it doesnt matter what my grades were in math or science - to you perhaps some may view my faith in god as a sign of not being educated - this was to prevent some saying "hmm if you learned
some of the logical disciplines a little perhaps you would think otherwise"
I don't believe what intelligent people gives credence to any belief. Einstine beleived quantum
mechanics was delusional - I do believe in quantum mechanics relevance to accurately describing phenomena
(if i believed only in what i deem is the views of the most intelligent person i know i wouldn't believe what i do)
Einstein was quoted saying "God doesn't play with dice." A reference to the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and how he believed everything should be a matter of yes and no, not chance. His religious points of view specifically got in the way of him accepting a field of Science. Thus anyone, no matter how intelligent they are, can make logical mistakes. I just thought your prefacing things with what grades you got and your education was a non-sequitor.
Jude I do agree with your use of "Seem" when your addressing my second quote FROM your perspective.
As far as what I seem to experience or others also - some seem to exist in a god-filled reality.
Some seem to exist in a godless reality. One believing others should adopt their perspective or not
is something that can be debated (we are). I am trying to convince you that you should beleive in god btw jude - I am saying that your perspective is not authoritarian concerning the experience of those
that do believe in god.
And all I'm saying is that belief in god is not rational. It's a matter of faith, not a matter of logic. If you admit that you have no rational basis for your belief, that's fine, I can't touch you, and nor would I want to. That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong either. I could believe there's a guy named Ted Jessica Thermopolis that exists right now in the world somewhere. I have no rational reason to believe this, but I could be right. My problem is with religious people who actually think they have an airtight basis for their opinions; they don't. Personal experience is no basis whatsoever for any belief because human observation methods are so prone to bias.
A court-case on the existence of god ? Well more believe in god than not, so depending on the jury
your certainty of the outcome is unfounded. Some very influential speakers for both sides could exist. And court cases also cater for "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is subjective to those who would be in the
My point more or less was that the facts are not on the side of the religious. They're not on the side of the non-religious either.
I am not getting my quantum mechanics from what the bleep do we know, if you believe in mainstream scientists view of such things however your of the flaw similar to what you accused me of (that i believe in what intelligent people believe, which I dont, and later you mentioned mainstream scientists believe that that movie is ridiculous "because it is" - these are subjective opinions not authoritarian opinions)
There's a difference between the two. When you claim you should believe x because y says so, that's called an argument from authority. Intelligent people are not an "authority" on everything, so you committed a logical fallacy. Scientists are... obviously an authority on science, thus there is no logical fallacy in my statement.
If you beleive that the observer does not define outcomes in quantum mechanics than it is you who I doubt has read that much into the subject - it seems we are both passionate about our doubt of the others education on this matter. We can let it rest - or spin off another thread
The notion that the frame of reference of the observer determines our interpretations of physics is a pre-Relativistic idea. It actually has more to do with measurements of values in respect to each other and not in terms of the subjective nature of reality. There's nothing in Quantum Mechanics which states that reality is subjective however; it's a matter of probability not subjectivity. We can argue this on another thread I guess, but it's a favorite of people arguing for religion to use false interpretations of quantum physics to justify their religious beliefs; I see it all the time.
Remember I am not claiming to represent reality from your perspective nor others which are "devout" atheists
Reality does not change depending on the position of the observer unless you believe in a completely relativistic universe, in which case there's really no point in discussing the notion of "truth" at all. That basically nullifies any purpose whatsoever for discourse.
- Substantive reason to believe ? IS there substantive reason not to ?
There are plenty of reasons not to believe that people have discussed, but that doesn't matter anyway. I can't disprove that there's a goblin in my bathroom right now, but that doesn't mean I'm going to just assume that there is a goblin in my bathroom because I can't disprove it. That's not how logic works. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and someone who says they don't believe in god is not making a claim. Now if they said that they believed god does not exist, that's a claim.
IS others experience explained by the physical ? ghost experiences religious experiences or even drug induced hallucinations or emotions are not failures of human observation - nor failures in analysis if they are considered legitimate experiences. Failures to reproduce these experiences via emulation of suspected physical conditions triggers some to believe in mystical influences.
Easily explained in terms of confirmation bias, errors in human observation, and the complexities of human existence. The problem is, people often encounter things that they can't explain and automatically attribute it to something supernatural instead of searching for other explanations. When you observe something you can't explain, if you assume that means it was supernatural, you're making a gigantic error in logic. Something being unexplained means it's unexplained, that's all.
As for ghost stories, did you realize there are haunted hotels throughout the country where people go all the time to have an experience with meeting a ghost? Interesting, huh. Reproducible, full of anecdotal evidence, numerous independent reports, but it's most likely nonsense anyway. Why? Because people who have worked there for years and years claim they've never seen anything. Human beings have an incredible power to notice patterns, concepts, and ideas even when they're not there. The placebo effect, confirmation bias, self-delusion; people trust their senses far too much--even memory is fallible.
Will some of these phenomena become reproducible by science ? likely.
Will some previously explained phenomena become shown to be false ? likely.
"blatantly false signals". Falsely triggered neurons you mean ? We dont understand the mind enough to know when nurons are supposed to fire concerning religious experiences. Some diseases can be attributed to nerves firing inappropriately true, but an experience can change perspectives. "Should it have happened" - or shouldnt it ? If you believe in "grand unfathomable plan" then it should have happened, if you see everything as causational or probabilistic - then it also "SHould have happened". From a probabilistic perspective everything "should". When does statistics stop including new experiences to change its own probability landscape ? When SHOULD it ignore some readings (assuming the error is in detection methods not a trait of the media under scrutiny is dangerous - discoveries can come from what seems to be reading errors.
You don't have to search deep into the brain to understand why people come to false conclusions. Go to a magic show, watch as people are convinced that a guy who's simply good at sleight of hand summoned brightly colored tissue into existence out of no where. Penn and Teller do awesome tricks where they literally fire live ammunition at each other and supposedly catch the bullet between their teeth. Human observation is incredibly fallible.
"Blatantly false signals" implies "an authoritarian landscape of "should"". If true this would effect atheists also - perhaps also at times concerning their formation of religious or non-religious views, the atheist isnt "more immune" to such things or nor the god-believer more prone.. this is of course if a "authoritarian landscape of should" that reality sometimes find itself in conflict with exists (which your statements seem to imply a beleif of)
The difference is, most atheists don't base their beliefs on incredibly experiences or subjective feelings and situations. They reason out that a god doesn't exist in a rational, sober way. Sure, some of them come to think that god isn't real via emotional ways, and some of them hold opinions that aren't rational. My point is, if someone asks you if god exists, the only way you can possibly respond with perfect accuracy, is by saying that you don't know. Everything other response is someone being far too certain of an opinion without any solid basis.
All truth is subjective.
True objectively ? observer less ? independent of observer reference frames ?
You should read up on philosophy. Every nearly religion in existence is a form of absolutist philosophy. If you ascribe to any particular, established viewpoint you don't believe that truth is subjective. Subjectivity deals with perspectives and truth deals with conditions; they're fundamentally different things.
This comes over as faith in an objective perspective exists that spans all aspects of experience of all perspectives (which is a knowable and godless one) despite many of these perspectives claiming different "truths" than yours describe theirs.
Many would see this as evidence your wrong. Some would claim that is evidence that they are delusional.
Both opinions are correct... subjectively.
Two ideas which are competing cannot be correct unless neither of them is. That may mean that the ideas in play are not subject to the idea of correctness, i.e. an opinion. But if two ideas which conflict with each other must either be true or false, then one of them is false (and perhaps both of them are). If not, you're basically saying that x = 2, and x = 3, and somehow those "facts" can be consistent.
Science is exploitable "workable" - yes I do agree. Mechanical clocks are impressive- I am not staying that science is delusional in its endeavors, I am claiming that belief also is exploitably workable and related.
Note the Placebo effect in hospitals (it is believe triggered - which causes the body to react differently)
the placebo effect is a case where the patient gets better by belief alone.
Hypnosis to "tell the body to get better" also has cases of success. Science and beleif or "faith" are exploitable tools that are not mutally exclusive.
That's a misunderstanding of the placebo effect, only a part of it. Animals and children who aren't capable of complex beliefs can also undergo a placebo effect. Belief of the person experiencing it is a component, but not all of it. Also the placebo effect isn't going to save you from anything serious. Certainly not a heart attack or cancer.
TRy dividing by zero a few times accidentally. Oh there is a rule to state you have to avoid doing so as the math has flaws ? - Hmm... limitations ? Weaknesses ... some all powerful genie you are algebra :)
Inability to divide by zero isn't a flaw, it's part of the definition of how that operation works. Saying you can't divide by 0 is a flaw is like saying that because I can't add multiply two even numbers together and get an odd number mathematics is flawed. There are some things you cannot do in math.
Also they have presumptions. if 1 + 1 = 2 and this and this then ... This is true while the "if's" remain true and unmutable in the landscape math is applied. If in its own landscape then its "circular logic" (which is useful eg factorials, fractals etc). Finding landscapes suitable for certain math to be applied (ie real world - reality) is an art.
Yes, I mentioned the presumptions, they're called axioms. Math is not based entirely on logic, Bertrand Russel came to that conclusion in the Principia Mathematica a hundred years ago. Faith in math and faith in religion however, are hardly comparable. No one who does math honestly believes that they are understanding the secrets of the universe or coming to moral principles through what they're doing. math is a tool. Religion is answer that encompasses insanely complicated questions like, "where do we go when we die" or "why do I exist." Believe me, if people were trying to use math in the same I'd be calling them out there too.
I lost steam in the middle, don't think I'm gonna finish this post. Quite frankly I can't follow your logic at all at this point, so I think I we should just agree to disagree.
EDIT: By the way factorials are "recursive operations" not circular logic.