Re: Atheism is a logical fallacy

Live from the dark cavern of atheistic despair, a response to the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrjh3kppSMg

Other links—

Veritas48's videos that are mentioned and quoted in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb6Rp7I0-J0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z9DxPcVJrA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7iNtyYegCQ

My "Unyielding despair, you say?" video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbGpm9Cwr2I

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bertrand
• Russell
• unyielding
• despair
• atheist
• theist
• agnostic
• Christian
• believer
• Roman
• Catholic
• God
• Jesus
• philosophy
• Veritas48
• reason
• faith
• fallacy
• logic
• appeal
• consequences
• argument
• nihilism
• placebo
• transcendental
• apologetics
• apologist
• presuppositional
• law
• non-contradiction
• deduction
• deductive
• premise
• conclusion
• valid
• sound
• Hume
• absurd
• false
• Kant
• Kierkegaard
• Heidegger
• purpose
• meaning

[bloodhyren]

thumbs up for the chippendales.

silly theists and their attempts at logic

[ProfMTH]

@bloodhyren  ;-)

[die8922]

Props for the logical discussion, and the epic voice 

[ProfMTH]

@die8922 Thanks.

[upisoft2]

@MagnusNyborg Can you give a link to the test? All I can find is test that rule out local hidden variables theories. Bohm theory is non-local. Also it does not predict that usable information or matter can exceed speed of light. There is already observer velocities, like phase velocity, that can exceed speed of light. However you can't use them to send FTL message. Thus GR has nothing to say about such velocities.

[MagnusNyborg]

@upisoft2 the experiment performed by Aspect et al. disagrees with De Broglie - Bohm theory, because it shows inconcistency with theories that include hidden variables (basically all non-local theories, like De Broglie - Bohn). The non-local aspects also disagrees with GR as it in most cases requires a prefered frame of reference. Furthermore, De Broglie - Bohm theory does not handle such a simple thing as momentum properly.

Quantum Mechanics agrees with those.

[upisoft2]

@MagnusNyborg Not ruled out. Example De Broglie - Bohm theory. I'm not asserting it is true, I just give an example that actually there is a theory that say the particles have definite single location at given time. They explain the double slit experiment without the need for the particles to be in two places at once. Thus, you have the vaguest idea about the experiment :)

[MagnusNyborg]

@upisoft2 and you have an even vaguer idea of what the experiment actually shows.

As i said earlier, the only possibility ruled out by the experiment is that particles always exist in one location at one time. That means it can be in more than one place at one time, atleast under some criteria. Study the Venn-diagram of the possibilities of the outcome.

[upisoft2]

@MagnusNyborg The fact is we don't know anything about how particles travel. What you've said is pure speculation. We can't predict where the particle will hit the screen, the only thing we can predict is how large number of particles will behave statistically.

Anyway you insisted that a particle "can be in two places at once", and now you can't support it with example. You only have some vague idea how particles behave when we are not watching them.

[MagnusNyborg]

@upisoft2 then you can keep waiting, because the theory also predicts the measurement collapses the all the relevant wavefunction and causes a reset.

However, the double slit experiment shows that the particle cannot exist in only one place during the travel, because then no interfering wavepattern would be detected.

While being a conundrum, the experiment is conclusive on what happens - just not conclusive on _why_.

[upisoft2]

@MagnusNyborg continued...

So, I'm still waiting for an example where a particle was detected at more than 1 place at given time.

[upisoft2]

@MagnusNyborg Funny, when the test is repeated and when the particles are actually detected which slit they go through, the go through exactly one slit. When "which path" detector is removed, we don't know which path they go. In both cases the particle is detected at only 1 place at given time. When not watching at slits the particle is detected only at the screen. How you imagine the particle behave until detection does not change the fact it was detected at only 1 place.

[MagnusNyborg]

@upisoft2 double-slit experiment (repeated with photons, electrons and some other sub-atomic partciles) is scientificly accepted as evidence for particle/waves to be present at more than one place at the same time. Although there might still be different reasons and explanations, the only situation that then remains impossible is that the particles are at one place at one time.