wut? not a single person had a non serous answer. It was an actual decent conversation IMO. You've been around trolls too much to appreciate these rare happenings
I think it's more like how on earth can a religious discussion/argument be serious in anyway. but yes I don't think any of us were childish.
If a tree falls in the forest with no one around, does it make a sound? Atheist would say no, if they can't observe it, it doesn't exist. Most religious people would say yes, as the tree must have made a sound, even with no evidence to support the claim. and again, taking things in the bible so literally is part of the reason why most people hate Christians in general.
lol what? that statement is false. there are plenty of things that Atheist cannot observe, yet they accept. atheist accept gravity (you cannot see it) but gravity can be tested. you can test if a tree makes a sound if no one is around to hear it by placing a recorder and listening to the recording to see if there was a sound of a falling tree. you can test it. you cannot test god. god cannot be tested. scripture from religious text + correlation with some kind of current event is not proof of god. the flood and noahs arc is not proof of god. jesus is not proof of god. the prophet mohammad is not proof of god. to prove god exist, you must first define what god is.. and most people cannot really do it besides spewing some crazy notions. why dont we pray and show our thanks to things that really matter? we should thank the sun. the sun gave us all this shit. the sun made all teh elements and give us food in form of plants/photosynthesis. wtf has any god done for mankind? we are born from a star that exploded.. and that star was born from another star that exploded and so on.. who the hell made god? if everything has to come from something, and that something was god.. and god was "everything".. then who made god?
Whoever said that is a fucking moron... Learn WHAT sound actually is (and no its not a magical thing which only those who god chooses to can hear) and then come back... you are making yourself look like a retard. *looks at metal smiths statement again* *stare intensively* Hey metal smith, do you by any chance think that the earth is about 6000 years old? edit: anyhow, goin to bed, ill look at ur responce tomorrow
no, you don't understand. when he says "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" what he really means is "if a tree falls without any conscious listening observer of its falling or of no conscious visual observer of the tree falling, or without conscious realization that the tree fell, would it make a sound?" in this case, the recorder would have to be interpreted by a conscious individual, which would fuck up the whole "experiment". then again, philosophy isn't an empirical science, so shit like that can't be tested. in a way, theology, too, is a subcategory of philosophy. but where metalsmith goes wrong is when he says aethists would say the the tree wouldn't make a sound. that is completely not true. it's more a subjectivism vs. objectivism debate, which is not relevant to the question of the existence of god(s)
If you let scientific riddles out to humanity, plenty of bullshit happens. Of course, the tree makes a sound, question is, can you say it with certainty? Based on what? Your assumption by logic? But that would be, infact, no prove. You say it is true based on an assumption, which makes it an ethical question. Ethic/Philosophy scientists ... it's always a pleasure to see someone that unproductive. :D /Edit: Awww didn't read hexi's post, he pretty much hit the nail on the head.
really the tree falling in the woods thing I think is more of one of those "you don't have to see/hear to believe" type things, but I think science proves it makes a sound because no one hears it because the wave just dies off in the end. The thing is is that we cannot prove what was before the big bang without getting into theological thinking, but then you ask yourself, what created what created the universe, then what was before that, then so on and so forth. That is why I do not believe in a specific supreme being(s), but I believe, especially with all the religions out there, that there is something to have just been there from the start of time that just triggered the first event. There is a point when we hit a wall that yells loud "Not explainable with Math or Science, so you are just going to have to guess and hope for the best yours is the right one". Therefore that means I am a Deist, and I know Deist have some relation with Masonic beliefs of believing in a "Great Architect", but no I am not a Mason, even though I am affiliated with some through community service hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat That is the origin of the tree falling in the woods verse. Basically it goes on to state that there is an equal possibility of the radioactive particle releasing energy or not releasing energy, and that you cannot prove that the cat is dead or alive until you look into the box, therefor before looking into the box, both are true or false.
i always thought of schrodinger's cat as an experiment that tries to illustrate the concept that there are infinite modalities, and every time a random event is given a choice, two new "universes" are created, one in which observation is conscious, and the other "universe" existing as mere concept
No, they create chain reactions with their surroundings, if something happends on one side of the earth, it would be possible to detect it on the other side. (extremely extremely extremely hard though.) sound waves is not a magical thing that doesnt affect the things around them excepted godgifted humans and animals that happend to be able to perceive it. No. you are not a deist, judging by that statement atleast. "I believe that there is something to have just been there from the start of time" if you are a deist then you think a supreme being created the universe. (specificly) If you think God (a supreme being capable of constructing the universe) can excist without needing a cause... But the universe cant excist without a cause. Then that's a logical fallacy. Saying that one entity doesnt need a cause (just becouse you label it "god") and another entity needs one (since its not "god") is illogical. If you hit a wall in science, then you try to go around it. If you cant do that, then you simply dont know (a concept which seems scary for some people). You do NOT make up a lot of mumbo jumbo becouse it feels better that way. *sigh* In schrödingers case the obvious answear to "is the cat dead?" is "I dont know", answear anything else and you are a moron. You can not say that "X happend" without knowing for certain. However religious people love doing that. Lets dumb down the tree fall example. Can something exist without being perceived in any way? Yep. Will it in any way affect our world? Nope. (it's unperceivable and if there at any point would be a diffrense then it would be perceivable) Should i care about it? Nope. (schrödingers case does not fall under this set of questions since you are capable of opening the container) However the tree falling and making a sound while noone is around in specific happends to be perceivable due to chain reactions created by the energy of the sound. assuming its not located inside a container that disallow anything from inside of the container to affect the outer world...
