Is Islam true?.

[Idaho]

Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.

To what end? I haven't seen any sign of you doing anything other than pushing your own set of beliefs. And within those beliefs I've seen little that appeals.

[Idaho]

I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.

I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.

[The Stranger]

“that last part is not aimed at me I take it?” I do not aim at people. I like to debate, and I was just contesting your wording.

it is just a bit confusing because you quote multiple people in your posts without really adressing them, you may contest the wording but you are debating with people. i did not say anything about unicorns therefor i said i take that part was not meant for me to answer, atleast not initially.

So, when you use the word “belief” to qualify atheism, I have to go for it. Atheism is not a belief. It is a state of mind

atheism is a belief, it is not a religious belief, but a belief nonetheless, ofcourse i use belief here in the broad sense of the word, related to knowledge and justification. in order to know something to be true it is generally assumed you also have to believe it to be true, hence the term belief. to avoid confusion we can call religious belief, faith.

the term state of mind is very vague and you will have to explain clearer what exactly you think that it entails. i am familiar with the use of the term in other areas of discussion but it is most commonly used in the cognition debate and i doubt your usage is the same.


i will react to the rest later.

[total relism]

To what end? I haven't seen any sign of you doing anything other than pushing your own set of beliefs. And within those beliefs I've seen little that appeals.

to see if your statement is true, you made a very big claim i feel, I want you to back it up in debate. The object would not be for me to agree with you, it would be to show your claims false. You would try to show them true.

Also I have seen nothing of your to support your claim, or any reason to think you wish to change your opinion, or even debate your statement. But in fact that is best, I like to show people [athiest] believe what they do in spite of the evidence.

[Hax]

Yeah, just go to Port-au-Prince or Somalia. Loads of evidence there.

[Brenus]

“atheism is a belief”: Nope. It is contradiction in term. A non-smoker is not a smoker who smokes nothing. A dead is not a person who is not living. A belief is based on something, not of an absence of something. I do not believe there is no god because I have a book or something to tell me to do so. I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.
Atheism is a lack of belief. An atheist can perfectly doubt of the Bing Bang Theory or evolution, or how life came on Earth. He/she has just to say he/she hasn’t an answer for this. I even think than an atheist can believe in an afterlife if he/she wants, as this is still not a proof of god(s). If a thinking caterpillar asks to itself if there is a life after death, in this case, the answer is yes (well, the caterpillar is not really dead…). But god(s) has nothing to do with this, but evolution yes…

The distortion of words by the believers to put atheism as belief is just to try to equal the two processes. One (faith in god) is based on imagination and hope/fear. The other is based on the facts experimented on daily basis than there is no god(s). There are no acts of god(s). With or without god(s), Humans experiment the same things, bad or good. Atheist will survive cancer, believers not and vice versa, randomly.
Now, I believe in the Theory of Chaos. I believe because I have no logical explanation to back-up this. It is based on nothing, and it gives me comfort.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.

I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.

You are Apathetic - technically speaking.

[The Stranger]

“atheism is a belief”: Nope. It is contradiction in term. A non-smoker is not a smoker who smokes nothing. A dead is not a person who is not living. A belief is based on something, not of an absence of something. I do not believe there is no god because I have a book or something to tell me to do so. I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.
Atheism is a lack of belief. An atheist can perfectly doubt of the Bing Bang Theory or evolution, or how life came on Earth. He/she has just to say he/she hasn’t an answer for this. I even think than an atheist can believe in an afterlife if he/she wants, as this is still not a proof of god(s). If a thinking caterpillar asks to itself if there is a life after death, in this case, the answer is yes (well, the caterpillar is not really dead…). But god(s) has nothing to do with this, but evolution yes…

sigh... it is just semantics, you can say you believe there is no god and that is absence of belief and no belief, or you can say your belief is that no god exists. what you describe at best is not atheism but agnosticism, agnosticism suspends judgment, atheism does not, it is the judgment that god does not exist.

I don’t believe in a god because there is an absence of god(s). The sky or Hell is empty.

it is your belief that the sky or hell is empty, and you use that to come to the conclusion that there is no god, you may twist this all you want but it simply is an belief... and you believe it to be true, if you wouldnt you would suspend judgment and you would not be an atheist. atheism is not the lack of belief, that is agnosticism... the agnost lacks belief pro and contra regarding the question whether or not god exist, it is basically the sceptical position but now regarding religious matters. if you say truth exists and i say truth does not exist i do not lack a belief, i actually am of the conviction that there is no truth (you can ofcourse phrase this to look like it is a lack of belief, but a lack of belief can only be achieve by suspending judgment ,and that is what the true skeptic does)

to give a slightly better definition

Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

The distortion of words by the believers to put atheism as belief is just to try to equal the two processes. One (faith in god) is based on imagination and hope/fear. The other is based on the facts experimented on daily basis than there is no god(s). There are no acts of god(s). With or without god(s), Humans experiment the same things, bad or good. Atheist will survive cancer, believers not and vice versa, randomly.

and here come the baseless claims. 1) im not a believer. 2) theology has proof and arguments involved, you may not accept these but that does not mean they are not there. ofcourse they are not scientific proofs, but it is not a scientific debate. It is not in the area of physics so asking for experimental proof is per definition absurd.

i can succesfully argue that they are actually equally arbitrary but we will have to get very technical and it will be pointless since we cannot even get past this basic definition. even if your simplification about religion and atheism (which you seem to confuse with science for some reason) are true, you still have not given any justification for why one system should neccesarily be preferred over the other.

Now, I believe in the Theory of Chaos. I believe because I have no logical explanation to back-up this. It is based on nothing, and it gives me comfort.

it seems to me that you see belief as the substitute of knowledge, you believe in something in the absence of knowledge but this is not the case, you need belief to have knowlegde, belief is a component of knowlegde, there can be no knowledge without belief.

[The Stranger]

I think people are slightly mistaken as to what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, not that we just don't know.

I have yet to find a name for my own beliefs - that it appears to be irrelevant whether you believe or not.

yes it is basically skepticism. we cannot possible know and also it is the belief therefore one position should not be preferred over the other. some people that believe in god may also admit that we cannot know but still there would be sufficient reason to believe in god (pascals wager for example, even though some people might say that pascals wager is not true faith)

[Idaho]

to see if your statement is true, you made a very big claim i feel, I want you to back it up in debate. The object would not be for me to agree with you, it would be to show your claims false. You would try to show them true.

Also I have seen nothing of your to support your claim, or any reason to think you wish to change your opinion, or even debate your statement. But in fact that is best, I like to show people [athiest] believe what they do in spite of the evidence.

You can't discover if a statement is true from debate. All you can do is discover if you are a convincing debater.

What was the statement you wanted to discuss Btw?

[total relism]

You can't discover if a statement is true from debate. All you can do is discover if you are a convincing debater.

What was the statement you wanted to discuss Btw?

we can discover if you can back up your own statement.

Originally Posted by Idaho
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.

so I asked you
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.

[Conradus]

That should not even warrant a debate. Religion should be between man and his god (and his fellow believers). But when you let religion dictate your state you enforce everyone to follow one particular mindset. And that can't be.

[Idaho]

we can discover if you can back up your own statement.

Originally Posted by Idaho
It's a problem when you draw your reality from faith. You tend to come to the wrong conclusions. Logic and reason have no place in temples, mosques and churches. As a courtesy, we ask that god botherers keep their faith out of law, government, health care, and most of the stuff that matters.

so I asked you
Would you debate me 1v1 who has faith atheist or christian? also who can defend there position logically christian or atheist. Or even, what government would be better atheist or christian.

The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.

Secondly you need some rules to make it, quite honestly, enjoyable to participate in or read. These revolve around no lengthy cut and paste oddessys and no point by point, heels-dug-in, fight-on-all-fronts bor-a-thons.

Thirdly you need an arbiter to keep order and stop derails and point dodging.

Fourthly you need a judge or jury to decide. Perhaps a before and after vote just to prove that neither of us will change anyone's mind.

[Brenus]

“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.

“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.

“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody.

“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.

“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?

“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.

“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).

“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience.

[Lemur]

The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.

[Montmorency]

Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.

You must have faith in the validity of your sensory systems, surely. You must even have faith in the fact of your own existence in the first place. You take all that for granted?

That is impossible to deny or not accept facts.

Sure it is. I deny that there is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus. Don't you?

it seems to me that you see belief as the substitute of knowledge, you believe in something in the absence of knowledge but this is not the case, you need belief to have knowlegde, belief is a component of knowlegde, there can be no knowledge without belief.

It seems to me quite possible to reject the concept of belief as semantically and neurologically void while retaining a notion of "knowledge" as biologically-represented stored information that is accessed during cognition and informs sequences of complex motor action.

Yes, this is a troll-post.

[Brenus]

“You take all that for granted”: Not always, not always Sometimes, I wife tells me something and I don’t know why, I heard something else. Or I failed to see the washing-up… Strange things happen…

“You must even have faith in the fact of your own existence in the first place.” Sometimes, when in the dark, doubts are coming...

“I deny that there is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus. Don't you?” Weeelll, I can’t prove there is not, you see. As I don’t believe in it, I can’t see it…

[total relism]

That should not even warrant a debate. Religion should be between man and his god (and his fellow believers). But when you let religion dictate your state you enforce everyone to follow one particular mindset. And that can't be.

Somewhat like what my government does [usa] today, tries to get all to believe what is politically correct. But you misunderstand what I mean by christian government. Since way off topic I dont care to get into it.

The first requirements of any kind of discussion, is a clear statement or question. Above you have two comments that are halfway between statement and question, and neither very clear.

Secondly you need some rules to make it, quite honestly, enjoyable to participate in or read. These revolve around no lengthy cut and paste oddessys and no point by point, heels-dug-in, fight-on-all-fronts bor-a-thons.

Thirdly you need an arbiter to keep order and stop derails and point dodging.

Fourthly you need a judge or jury to decide. Perhaps a before and after vote just to prove that neither of us will change anyone's mind.

GL finding all that on this forum, I was thinking of twc forum fight club, were its 1v1.

[Hax]

TWO DEBATERS ENTER, ONE DEBATER LEAVES!

[Idaho]

Somewhat like what my government does [usa] today, tries to get all to believe what is politically correct. But you misunderstand what I mean by christian government. Since way off topic I dont care to get into it.




GL finding all that on this forum, I was thinking of twc forum fight club, were its 1v1.

Never heard of it. How do you reach a conclusion? How can you tell who has "won" ?

[The Stranger]

“sigh... it is just semantics”: Yes: It is definition of words. An empty box is not a box I believe is empty. I open the box, see nothing, it is empty. That is fact and you can twist the words as much you want. To say that it might have something in the box I can’t see is a mental construction, because you have to accommodate the physical reality to make it plausible, or to add magic: There is a giant kettle between Mars and Venus and only the believers can see it. Of course, you can’t see it as you don’t believe in it.

you make a big mistake, there is an empty box and then there is your conception of that empty box. the empty box is seperate of your idea of that empty box, ofcourse, the box is empty, it is not empty because you believe to empty (unless you would be a subjective idealist). but in order for you to know that box is empty you must also believe the box to be empty, hence you are of the belief that the box is empty. Why is that? Because if you know that the box is empty but do not believe the box to be empty you what exactly does your knowledge come from? that you looked into the box? if you look into the box and see it empty you believe it to be empty, otherwise you would not think it empty... the facts might be independent of our interpretation but we can never have any idea of the facts without interpreting them and whenever we interpret something we have some sort of belief of them. you seem to seriously mess up concepts.

“what you describe at best is not atheism”: Atheism is the “position there are no deities” according Wikipedia… It is what I describe.

as long as you do not claim that we can never know whether there is or is no god (agnosticism, suspending of judgment) you make a positive claim, you just formulate it as a denial. i can also formulate the existence of god as a denial (¬¬God), this does not make it a negative claim.

“theology has proof and arguments involved” If this was true, why there are a lot systems of belief on Earth? If theology has proof, we should have: 1) no atheists, 2) One religion fitting for everybody.

why? there indeed are alot of belief systems on earth, but i do not see that we should have no atheists or one religion for everyone if christianity for example had a proof for the existence of god (read aquino)? You seem to think that proof is always absolute and that no person can be of a different opinion. Science provides proof yet there are people who disagree with scientific conclusions and there are different theories of justificiation etc within science as well. You make a claim but do not really provide an argument for it, i simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.

“you may not accept” That is impossible to deny or not accept facts. I may not like it, but when it is raining I can’t believe there is no rain. So, if I can in all honesty deny a fact, well, that means it is not a fact.

proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments, you may or may not accept their premises for example or you may or may not agree with their conclusion or try to prove that it is fallacious. can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?

“which you seem to confuse with science for some reason”: What makes you believing this?

Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not neccesarily true at all.

“belief is a component of knowledge, there can be no knowledge without belief.” Really? You may believe you can fly, but the laws of Physic will bring you back to Earth. It might be painful. There is no need to believe in the law of Physic, but a more or less careful observation would be enough. Knowledge comes from experience/experiments, in life as in Sciences. The difference is in life you can’t reproduce the same experiment again and again and having the same results.

it seems that this is pointless, i try to make clear that you mistake the meaning of belief and you deny that by making exactly the same mistake again... please tell me how one can have knowledge then, give me a definition of knowledge, a theory of justification that does not involve any sort of belief or is based on it. your examples arent good, belief is not the ONLY component of knowledge, i have never said that. belief is a neccesary component of knowledge not a sufficient component. you make some sort of magical leap from experience to knowledge without clarifying how one goes from experiencing something and then drawing apparantly obvious conclusions.

“Contemporary analytic philosophers” Do you have names? Because the ones I had to study when in High School wouldn’t agree with them (i.e. Kant, Nietzsche). For me, this definition is better fitted to define illusion or delusion. A belief is based on a system, a representation of the reality. I see the sun coming out and the day starting (observation/facts), and I believe (interpretation/extrapolation) that the God of Light (“Insert a name”) chasing the God of Darkness (“Insert a name”).

Kant and Nietzsche are not Analytic philosophers, neither are they contemporary... Also Kant would seriously disagree with you since he believes you cannot know the object an-sich (aka what the object is independent of us and our experience of them, what you seem to call facts). So far as I know Nietzsche has never really cared about this particular approach to the subject but also he would disagree with you because he was of the belief that truth is determined by power (very simply put). And yes you have a conception of belief that is not fitting for this discussion, we are basically talking about different things. A name for you is Nozick. Look up justified true belief, the most commonly used definition of knowledge, it is still a very problematic notion but it is still one of the most satisfying untill now.

“you see belief as the substitute of knowledge”: I wouldn't make this mistake. A belief is based on representation and interpretation when knowledge is based on facts or experience.

this makes no sense to me, what does belief represent? facts? if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter? How do you get to know these facts? Is anyone able to experience facts without any sort of interpretation? Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?

[Brenus]

Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts. Do you grasp the concept of reality? Of course, there is no reality… This reminds me the conversation I had when I was 17, High School, calls of Philosophy… Definition of Reality, what is real, the reality we experiment is different for each individual… Great Time.

“I simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.” Sorry, nothing I can do about it. I tried, and failed.

“can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?” When I drop a stone, it falls. Birds fly. Fish live in the water (mostly). Earth turns around the Sun… Is it enough?

“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology.

“Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not necessarily true at all.” I didn’t, as I recognise to the atheists the right of irrationality…

“belief is a necessary component of knowledge” No. Belief is (most of the time) an obstacle to knowledge. Knowledge can lead to belief. I fall, I get hurt, so my belief is the next I will be hurt. I see a lightning and then I try to explain it with a belief. I don’t believe in a something before it happens. That was why it is always easier to predict a catastrophe after it happed (and really more precise).

“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me.

“if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter?” Because only the interpretation matters… It is the interpretation of the facts that creates the substance. Life on earth is fact. Religions interpretations need god(s). Then, because facts are what they are, the story becomes more complex, the Doctors of the Faith have to come up with new interpretation/explanations. Same in History: same events came give different interpretation. But not in sciences. Whatever you want or you believe, in the same conditions, the results are always the same.

“Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?” You are missing up subjectivity and interpretation. If a group of person fall, they all fall. Then, some will like it, some not. Some will be scared, some not. But the fact is they all fall.

[The Stranger]

can someone please pinch me? im not sure if i am going crazy or if something else is going on...

[The Stranger]

Ooops, an empty box is not empty… Of course, it is full of nothing…. I perhaps mess up concepts, but not facts.

there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd. please explain to me how we can know that the box is empty without also believing that the box is empty, because if we do not believe the box to be empty then we must believe the opposite, aka we must believe that the box is not empty (or we must suspend judgment) how can we know that the box is empty while we believe that the box is not empty and how can we know anything if we suspend judgment?

“I simply do not see how 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof.” Sorry, nothing I can do about it. I tried, and failed.

you didnt try at all, you said something strange and incomprehensive and i asked you to clarify that. you make alot of claims but provide no further arguments or justification for these claims. you said 1 and 2 follow from theology providing proof you did not say WHY.

“can you please clarify what you conceive a fact to be?” When I drop a stone, it falls. Birds fly. Fish live in the water (mostly). Earth turns around the Sun… Is it enough?

do facts have truth value or do we assign this value to it?

“proof in theology take the form of logical conclusions drawn from arguments” A long sentence to tell there are no proofs in theology.

so there is no truth in mathematics either? or in logic? because thats basically the same format.

“Because you said atheism is based on experimental proof and facts, while that is not necessarily true at all.” I didn’t, as I recognise to the atheists the right of irrationality…

=_= thats not what you said a few posts back but if both positions can be or are irrational why should we prefer one above the other?

“belief is a necessary component of knowledge” No. Belief is (most of the time) an obstacle to knowledge. Knowledge can lead to belief. I fall, I get hurt, so my belief is the next I will be hurt. I see a lightning and then I try to explain it with a belief. I don’t believe in a something before it happens. That was why it is always easier to predict a catastrophe after it happed (and really more precise).

again it becomes clear that you misunderstand what a belief is. if you reject the notion of justified true belief, and even more notable the idea that belief has anything to do with knowledge can you please give me a definition of knowledge and a theory of justification that does not make use of the concept of belief? how can we know something, how can we know that we know something and how can we be justified in thinking that we know that.

btw predicting something after it happens is no longer prediction... it reminds me of captain hindsight in southpark :P

“it is still one of the most satisfying until now.” Not for me.

then please provide an alternative account.

“if it is based on representation, then why does any interpretation matter?” Because only the interpretation matters… It is the interpretation of the facts that creates the substance. Life on earth is fact. Religions interpretations need god(s). Then, because facts are what they are, the story becomes more complex, the Doctors of the Faith have to come up with new interpretation/explanations. Same in History: same events came give different interpretation. But not in sciences. Whatever you want or you believe, in the same conditions, the results are always the same.

first you said a belief was representation, i asked you a representation of what, you still havent answered that, please do. now you say only the interpretation matters, but its the interpretation of facts, but before you said belief and knowledge are different things, belief is about interpretation and representation and knowledge about facts and experience. now you claim that interpretation is also about facts, im starting to get confused, what exactly do you mean? same events, different interpretations, but not in science? cmon many events in science are interpreted in different ways, even within scientific disciplines events are interpreted in different ways, some scientists say global warming is caused by humans, other say its just normal climate changes, is that not a difference in interpretation?

“Is experience not already a form of interpretation given the phenomenon that people can experience the same event in different ways?” You are missing up subjectivity and interpretation. If a group of person fall, they all fall. Then, some will like it, some not. Some will be scared, some not. But the fact is they all fall.

im not messing up anything, the interpretation of these people, liking it, being scared etc is subjective, the fact that they fall would be objective. but the fact they fall is not the experience of falling, we were talking about experience, the experience of falling is interpretted by each of these people in different ways, how can you explain this? how can a seemingly subjective experience lead to objective knowledge.

[Sigurd]

there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd. please explain to me how we can know that the box is empty without also believing that the box is empty, because if we do not believe the box to be empty then we must believe the opposite, aka we must believe that the box is not empty (or we must suspend judgment) how can we know that the box is empty while we believe that the box is not empty and how can we know anything if we suspend judgment?

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

[Beskar]

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"

How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty.

[Sigurd]

With Schrodinger's Cat, there is the fundamental issue that the cat was put inside and we know this. It is not like an example where I randomly walk up to you, holding up a box saying "Is the cat inside of here dead or alive?"

How do you even know there is a cat in the box in the first place? And if you decide to believe me, I simply open the box and it is completely empty.

Damn... The cat was transported to that other dimension in the many worlds interpretation.

[Brenus]

“there is an empty box, this is a fact as you like to point out all the time, then there is a person which experiences that empty box. Now you can either say that this empty box and the experience are two different things, or you can say that they are the same (aka most likely that the box only exists as long as we experience it) many people find the latter conclusion absurd”: I still don’t see what you try to say, sorry. There is an empty box. Point. If somebody says it not empty, he/she is delusional. Yes, you can say that things you don’t see don’t exist, but in the real world, you just go to check. And the box is still empty. I can deny China exist as I never see it. But I can go if I have deep doubt of China reality on the map.

“do facts have truth value or do we assign this value to it?” Facts are real.

“so there is no truth in mathematics either? or in logic? because thats basically the same format.”
A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn't there: Darwin. Joke apart, mathematics are based on axioms, (premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy)things you have to agree in order to the maths you operate works and theorems (statement that can be demonstrated to be true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments), things you can demonstrate.

“thats not what you said a few posts back but if both positions can be or are irrational why should we prefer one above the other?” Nope. What I said is atheism is based on observation and facts, but an atheist (as having no deities) can be irrational. I hope it is clearer.

“then please provide an alternative account”: I did

“you still havent answered that”: Stop to read only what you want. I did. Representation of a natural fact (remember, sun in the morning becoming the God of Light etc.). Pay attention please.

“cmon many events in science are interpreted in different ways, even within scientific disciplines events are interpreted in different ways, some scientists say global warming is caused by humans, other say its just normal climate changes, is that not a difference in interpretation”
Thanks to agree.
You finally get it. Global Warming happens: Fact. The interpretations from various researchers defer.

“the experience of falling is interpreted by each of these people in different ways, how can you explain this?” Yes, it is what I am saying. The facts (fall) is interpreted by the people. How I can explain, well, well, it is based on subjective matters. Some will like it, some not, so they will attach more or less negative to it. They attached value to a natural movement. They interpret a fact.

“how can a seemingly subjective experience lead to objective knowledge.” It is not a subjective experience. They fall. What might be subjective are the effects of the fall (can go for pleasant to really hurting). You mess up facts and effects. You can reproduce the fall each time you want; it will be always the same result if you have the same parameters (Kinetic energy).

“Damn... The cat was transported to that other dimension in the many worlds interpretation.” That is extrapolation, interpretation of unknown fact.

[total relism]

New debate found, was very good.

Sami Zaatari vs. David Wood: Is Muhammad a Good Role Model for Society?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlcgbhvGRWE

[Papewaio]

You guys never dealt with quantum theory have you? According to the Copenhagen interpretation the box is both empty and full at the same time.

And when we observe it we can know which state it is in. God is even more elusive then the Higgs particle and with considerably less weight of evidence (geek pun fully intended).