One, metaphors don't make things more precise, just the opposite, especially when we already have concrete terms to discuss in. Two, this isn't a vote; it's a recognition of the existent nature of reality. And three, the metaphor supports my case. Not guilty is the same thing, to be consist with your metaphor, as possibly innocent (and implies much more than). If you wish to call someone not guilty, then you must admit that they may be innocent. If you are a gnostic atheist, you know there is no god. If you are an agnostic atheist, you don't know it, but think it anyway.
Religious constipation precludes or discourages ism-production. When one worships shit one is unwilling to let it go. Atheistic bowel movements, on the other hand, leave the faithless the freedom and or inclination to ratiocinate and produce isms.
It is a sliding scale of constipation. The greater the degree of constipation the less likely it is that isms will result. It truly is a matter of constipation being the barometer for the actor's mindset.
Dont even have to look to history to support my point. Although it does not hurt. Oh wait Augustine and Aquinas were great ismisers. Never mind fascism and constipationism. I am talking about progressivism. This is a shitty topic.
100% sure there is no god..... apart from the fact that no one has the same definition of god...... god is a made up story, with absolutely no evidence to support it.
99.999999% = That's like saying that I'm not although I know there is no monster in my cupboard, there is still a slight possibility because science and me don't yet know everything......
I think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics and the Schrodingers cat experiment would say
99.99999999999 rather than 100% just through the underlying laws of quantum probability. I mean there is a very small probability that you could walk through a wall....its just extremely low.
For this reason most people will say that surety reaches an asymptote at 100%. hence I will always say 99.9999999999 not 100%.
The other issue is the definition as I am no where near as sure that our universe is not some kind of simulation and the programmer could be thought of as a god by some.
Of one thing I am sure all theologies I have seen are more full of crap than my vegan organic garden!!!!!
"The other issue is the definition as I am no where near as sure that our universe is not some kind of simulation and the programmer could be thought of as a god by some."
Increasingly, I am hearing this theory. This and that it might be holographic.
David, Oh! That tickles the imagination, curiosity, and interesting areas to explore.
A human walking through a wall, which is impossible, would violate the very law of identity that makes science and the study of subatomic physics possible. A human cannot walk through a wall and there is no god. Don't let that quantum phantasmagoria replace reason. Just because something appears random to our very young eyes, doesn't mean it actually is. Science, in general, wouldn't make much sense if things could act independent of the forces upon them.
The simple fact is that quantum behaviours do occur and are scientifically demonstrable.
And they also contravene laws of logic.
I think the question that needs answering is why the two principles contradict each other.
This seemingly contradictory evidence only comes about at the limit of our perception, when we look at the very very small and very very precise. Hidden variable, I don't know, but not magic. It can't be shown to contradict the very laws that cognition, conversation and science rely on, which is what walking through a wall suggests.
Of course, 'walking through walls' and 'passing hands through tables' are really just a crude metaphors to help illustrate a much more complex system, as is 'Schrodinger's cat'.
No, certainly not magic. Hidden variable, yes, perhaps. I mean, there must be a hidden variable if we agree that the impossible and magical are not possible.
But, whichever way you spin it, the laws of logic cannot give us any real insight into why, in nature, seemingly paradoxical events do occur which contravene those laws (granted, at the microcosmic level).
If something is going to make sense, then it will be through reason and logic.
so, you're saying any findings in quantum physics must be de facto incomplete because they do not agree with laws of logic?