I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 16343

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hehe

There are many things that exist and are not detectable by the normal senses, like radio waves or neutrinos. (Neutrinos are pretty much omnipresent)

If a god existed, I wonder if there is any argument that a god-detector could be invented.

Someone, somewhere, in prehistory was the first to invent the baloney idea that purporting there was a god could explain a lot of things that were not otherwise understood.

Billions of people have accepted the baloney ever since. This does not make the baloney god any more believable than before. In fact no more believable than the many other fictional story inventions like pink unicorns and Russell's orbiting teapot.

That is why I cannot accept the baloney god idea, even to the level of 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

The proof, apparently, is that we exist. If there was no god to create us, we would not exist. but then the kind of person who is ready to accept this as true is not the kind of person who will listen to logic, science or any other kind of truth that doesn't come from their bible. 

@ Drake

Electrons with a positive charge are called Positrons, kind of.

 

or are you redefining the meaning of words.

So there are electrons with positive charges?  Or there's another kind of particle?  In any case, the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.

 

Craig, Discoverer of the Quarkerino

Hi Craig,

I Google statements that I think are interesting here. And at least try to find out if there is an example of that statement in the real world.

To put it simply; electrons with a positive charge are called positrons. They exist. And experiments can be done with them.

the process of logical exclusion doesn't work with supernatural claims.

To put this statement into layman terms: If one supernatural claim exists other supernatural claims can exist at the same time.

If the process of logical exclusion does work in the supernatural world, only one supernatural claim could exist and no other supernatural claims could exist at the same time. 

So, what do you mean exactly by your statement. 

Positrons are the anti-matter parallel to electrons, but they definitely are not interchangeable, so your simplified definition is highly misleading. While you could argue that anti-particles are a mirror image, the decay rates are asymmetric so there's no way to lump them together here.

Hi Drake,

I didn't read your initial statement, but have read it now. And I'm not trying to mislead you. You have made a statement and I intend to try and verify it in this public forum.

logical exclusion

In computer programming the logical exclusion function is a Boolean operator notated as Xor.

To use it with electrons and positrons the following would be true.

The 'e' particle can be either e-(electron) or e+(positron) but not both e- and e+ nor can it be e+ and e-, at the same time.

"All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges."

According to the Xor definition of logical exclusion, this statement is wrong. It's not that electrons can not have positive electrical charges, it can only have one or the other but not both. It can be either a positive charge or a negative charge but not both charges. And this makes sense because if it had both negative and positive charge it would annihilate itself. And this is exactly what happens.

 

so there's no way to lump them together here.

 Every single time an electron is produced a positron is also produced at exactly the same time. And visa versa. Why? Because before they are produced they are lumped together.

 

I have correct something here.

The 'e' particle can be either e-(electron) or e+(positron) but not both e- and e+, and it can't be both not e+ and not e-, at the same time.

 

"Every single time an electron is produced a positron is also produced at exactly the same time."

 

That is a false statement. See Beta Plus Decay. You are mistaking "energy->matter" conversion (in which both a particle and anti-particle are generated to conserve electrical charge) for a universal rule. That is not the case at all; electrons and positrons are not alternative forms. They are distinct particles, as separate as electrons and muons (both leptons of -1 charge, 1/2 spin, but impossible to confuse in practice). 

Hi Drake.

 

I don't think the electron production claim is false. Because I got the information from the CERN website.

 

Beta Plus Decay

The example you have given is one of an unstable isotope. Carbon11. But in order to make carbon 11, I would say either an electron is given off or a positron is used in carbon 11 production. I don't have a formula for my assumption yet but I am looking. 

And

Because you are the one who gave this as an example, could you please tell me how carbon11 is produced, include a formula with it's production showing how the neutron is lost and the effects of losing the neutron.

 

As for your initial explanation of logical exclusion. It is still wrong. And the more I think about it the more wrong it gets.

"All electrons have negative electrical charges" is a positive statement you can prove directly. Combine that with the EITHER/OR constraint that charge is a net value (so it can be positive or negative, but not both at once) and you have also proven the negative statement "No electrons can have positive electrical charges."

 

"All electrons have negative electrical charges"

This is correct by itself

But if you apply logical exclusion to it with positive electrical charges added to the equation the following is true.

 

Electrons must have either a 'positive electric charge' or 'negative electric charge'. They can not have 'both positive and negative electric charges', nor can they have 'no positive and no negative charge'. They must have one or the other.

 

Therefore when you say:

"No electrons can have positive electrical charges."

This is true by itself in science but if you apply the philosophical logic of  logical exclusion to your original statement, the following statement

"No electrons can have positive electrical charges."

is no longer true. By applying logical exclusion to your statement, electrons can also have positive charges. And they can also have negative charges. Logical exclusion forces electrons to have one charge type or the other. It is not limited to just one charge type. Your example of logical exclusion is limiting electrons to one charge type. The negative charge type. Which in science is true, but when you mix the philosophical logic of  logical exclusion, the electron must be one or the other. It can not be limited to just one charge type, if we apply the philosophical logic of  logical exclusion to it.

 

This is the problem that happens when you mix philosophy with science, science can suddenly become false. Religious people do it all the time.

 

Also,

just because you have said my statement about electron production is wrong doesn't make your statement about logical exclusion correct. It is still incorrect. 

 

 

 

 

 

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service