Thursday, 9 October 2008

A very intelligent argument for atheism

Theres a famous argument about a cat in a box and how you only know if the cat is dead when you look inside the box. Now it then follows that is a sky daddy existed they would be able to look in the box when you arent and so if a sky daddy existed the cat would die when you look in the box. But ofcourse, the cat dies when you look in the box, or your sky daddy, and so you are more important in nature than your sky daddy. But why would a sky daddy make such a world? Obviously they dont exist as otherwise the cat would die before you look inside the box when ti doesnt.

This type of argument is the sort the most intellectualy sophistated philosophers use. I admit that it seems a difficult argument to understand, and if I struggle to understand it I imagine it will go over the heads of you xians.


jake said...

"Theres a famous argument about a cat in a box and how you only know if the cat is dead when you look inside the box."

no Mike, that is shrodinger's presentation of the heisenberg uncertainty principle in that the locations of electrons can only be known in terms of probabilities, as in the electron is PROBABLY in this location in the electron cloud.

and no, no intelligent philosopher uses this argument (no mike, you are not an intelligent philosopher). You create some sort of box when there is no concept of a God involving a box

good day to you retard/parody

Anonymous said...

Instead of paraphrasing Schrödinger's Cat why not provide some links that properly explain and give background information regarding his thought experiment and then show how it relates to your argument? I am assuming at this point you wish to educate yourself as well as your reader. So why not do some research and sharpen your understanding of the argument you are presenting so that you will be able to explain it to someone? I also suggest that you use this blog as a learning tool for yourself as well as others. I would hope you would want to learn and grow in your understanding. Keep in mind learning requires time and work and may not always come easy.

Since you are fond of Wikipedia I provided a link to their explanation of Schrödinger's Cat (See Above). I have perused their article and I did not see how it related to the argument you proposed. Could you please flesh out your use of Schrödinger's Cat to prove there is no God? Failure to do so will result in my assumption that you do not understand the argument you are making and consequently do not know whether it is a valid argument or not. If this occurs I will try to flesh it out for you. If you know where I could find your argument fleshed out a bit more can you please provide a link? If it is your original idea I think you need to explain it more so we can interact with the logic behind the argument.

In closing I will just toss out a few terms one encounters in a discussion of Schrödinger's Cat:

Quantum Superpositions
Subatomic Particle
Quantum Mechanics
Objective Collapse Theories
Many Worlds Approach
Quantum Decoherence
Consistent Histories
Ensemble Interpretation
Quantum Cryptography

Pretty heady stuff. Do you know and understand the definition of these terms?

I think that Jake, ever the wordsmith, has coined a phrase that I will begin using when closing my comments to you, "Good day to you retard/parody."

We have once again encountered the discussion your real identity. It all comes back to one of two things. Are you ignorant or are you a parody?

If the answer is ignorant it is probably better for you because you can always learn.

If you are a Christian parody of a Fundie Atheist then you have and are wasting time and effort on this sham blog.

Which is it?

Good day to you retard/parody.

Anonymous said...

I would like to say for my part I am sorry I used the term retard when referring to you. I should not have used that term and I hope you were not offended by that statement. I apologize.

Good day fundie atheist/parody.

Mike is Wright said...

I knew that the argument would go over your heads.