I spoke imprecisely. My intention was not to question the relevance of quantum physics today but rather the relevance of that field at its genesis (from which it has developed considerably), expressed by someone whose primary interest with the field was not to reach a substantial view on the matter of God.
I spoke imprecisely. My intention was not to question the relevance of quantum physics but rather the relevance of that field at its genesis (from which it has developed considerably), expressed by someone whose primary interest with the field was not to reach a substantial view on the matter of God.
(P.S. That should have been a clarify, not dispute.)
Better to glorify the mental traits that distinguish us from other animals, than to glorify those traits that can be easily surpassed by beasts of burden or machines. The nerds are the most human among us.
Scientists say what they don't understand;had this"Father" been alive today,he would have confused the meaning up;Not only are they Nerds but such intellectuals act in such dumb-driven manner that I do wonder if they are not the real starters of "Laughs for Gags".
Heisenberg is one scientist, whose work pertained to early quantum physics and was not especially directed at demonstrating the validity of God. He is hardly representative of "many" scientists, nor does his espoused view necessarily correspond with actual substantiation. The pro-god arguments I have heard from quantum mechanics define god so utterly differently than is commonplace as to render the claim fairly empty, and generally the diverge from the basis of actual evidence.
This was what one fucking scientist said. This is not an accurate representation of the scientific community, I'm sure. If you believe it is, you are a fool.
I know you aren't Angelina Jolie, because no celebrity would have that as their real screen name. Tell me then, who are you? Please don't mind if I hypocritically don't want to answer the same question about myself.
I'm sorry. I need your help in understanding how/why taking a position on a subject, citing a reference and then createdebating is somehow construed as twisting a debate from the start.
Your "cherry picking" and "single quote" statement seems at odds with Google reality as referenced here.
All of those people are long dead. Given the subsequent advances in the 50-500 years since they passed, I should think their opinions hardly relevant with respect to their scientific integrity.
Regardless, the point stands that presenting the belief of one scientist as representative of "many" scientists is a logical fallacy.
A logical fallacy? Maybe I should have posted a link that talks about what percentage of contemporary scientists believe in some kind of supreme being.
That would have been the appropriate approach to demonstrating your claim, yes.
Your present citation hardly lives up to the task, as it effectively consists only of links to somewhat questionable references listing some scientists who believe(d) in god rather than demonstrating their proportion of scientists generally.
A well-framed debate can still be controversial and rile people up without falling back on logical fallacies and unfounded assertions. You stirred the pot, I guess, but it was a rather pointless pot I should think.
Representing the views of one person as the views of many is a blatant logical fallacy, and I am disinclined to continue reiterating that same fundamental premise of reason.
I do think everything lacks objective purpose, yes, but that does not mean our subjective perceptions disappear. Personally, I fail to see the (subjective) point in creating poorly framed debates that rely on fallacy. If you derive personal satisfaction from it, though, then by all means persist in doing so but I am hardly obliged to respect the framework.
The one view I presented was the belief in a supreme being.
That view was expressed by one scientist at a given point in time.
And you think that he is the only scientist ever to expressed such a belief?
Didn't I provide a link where it is noted that other scientists feel the same?
Your options were to either believe in scientists who believe in a supreme being, believe in scientists who do not believe in a supreme being, not believe in scientists who believe in a supreme being, and not believe in scientists who do not believe in a supreme being. I was trying to cover all the bases so that no one would feel left out and their view not represented.
Debate prompt: "Here's what many scientists have to say about God."
Your original proof: An out of context quote from one scientist.
My original objection: This constitutes a logical fallacy. This is true.
You subsequently provided a link that lists a small assortment of scientists all of whom are long dead to represent the views of a significantly larger and living body of scientists. I made more thorough argumentation regarding your link, which you never responded to.
Your intention does not render your argument any less fallacious in practice.
Take the last word if you like; I do not anticipate making any further reply on this matter.
Perhaps I misunderstood the poster's intent, but here's what I got. A lot of scientists believe in god, and here's a quote about god from a famous scientist. Then you're given these two options: Do you believe the scientists are correct (god exists), or do you believe the scientists are wrong? The intent is to put anyone who claims to value empirical evidence over dogma in a dilemma.
Isn't this a false dichotomy? Just because one scientist made a philosophical-sounding statement about some cosmic god doesn't mean that all scientists believe in a god. Here's my list:
Einstein seems to have had a spiritual side, but he did not believe in a Christian or Jewish god. He once called the Bible a collection of primitive legends that are pretty childish.
No, you did not point to any specific God. My bad.
No, but the choices you gave were "I believe the scientists" and "Pffft". In logic I think is correct to interpret the lack of any quantification as meaning "all". It's like this fictitious argument:
a) Scientists are atheists
b) Albert is a scientist
Therefore, Albert is an atheist. That would be correct, because a) means "All scientists are atheists".
