I understand that this is what you are trying to say. What I said is that this interpretation is not correct. They are not all simultaneously right and wrong. One or several are right, and one or several are wrong. As I stated and defended, your comparison between God (and belief systems) to the Copenhagen interpretation of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment is not really valid for at least the reasons I gave earlier.

They cannot all be right, because some people have religious beliefs which explicitly state that all other religious beliefs are wrong. They could all have interepretations which are correct, or they could all be equally right in that they all have the same amount of truth in them, but every religion cannot be 100% correct. In fact, some religions can be and/or have been proven wrong in the past (religions which stated that the sun was literally pulled by a god's chariot, for example).

Just because something isn't proven one way or the other, both answers are not correct. Suppose I flip a coin and hide the answer from you. It is heads. Therefore, although you do not know whether it is heads or tails, it is still most certainly heads. It is not both simultaneously. From your point of view, it is simply unknown, not both.

schrodinger's cat boom

Awesomeguy, that post contributed nothing. What are you trying to say?

Use complete, meaningful sentences with punctuation and capitalization.

Hydrogen, I spent a long time putting off writing that thing on the complete absence of historical evidence of Jesus. I still haven't written it, but I found a very complete pdf on the subject if you want to read it.

I'm aware that there are scholars who believe that Jesus did not exist, and I am aware of many of the arguments for this position. However, this is still a fringe view which in my opinion doesn't hold much water. As I understand it, this is also the scholarly consensus. I admit that a great deal of scholars dispute many of the facts about Jesus' life as recorded in the New Testament, but the assertion that there was no historic individual upon which the biblical account is based is tenuous in my opinion.

I only skimmed the article - perhaps I'll give it a more thorough read later. However, I am reluctant to give this writer my audience since he appears to me to be writing from a biased and rather sensationalist point of view. No one gains notoriety by confirming what is currently generally held to be true. Because I am not an expert on first-century history (nor will I ever be), I am inclined cognitively to accept what the majority of experts claim, just as I do with medicine, zoology, astronomy, and all other specialized fields of study where my own expertise is lacking.

As an aside, this is probably not the proper thread for this discussion. You are welcome to create a separate thread to continue the conversation.

I don't care what ANYONE says, there most definately, no doubt about it, absolutely, a God. Not just a God, the one, true, God. I don't care what anyone else says.

What makes you so certain?

Where your copula?

ilovemybff, I am curious as well.

I don't quite understand what schrodinger's cat was. I know something about a cat and a box and inbetween lives. That's about it. Mind explaining?

It's a thought experiment explaining the concept of wave functions and the fact that they can be in simultaneous locations.

Schroedinger put it like this. We put a cat in a box with a phial of poison that will open at a random time (often it's activated by a radioactive isotope decaying) because we don't know if the cat is alive or dead until we open the box, the cat is both alive and dead until we observe the result.

In terms of physics it means that particles are said to be in many simultaneous locations until we observe them, thus collapsing the wave function.

It's about observation and perspective. Because until you observe something you don't know the outcome, thus it's simultaneously multiple different things.

*Depending on your interpretation, see earlier in the thread for a discussion regarding this thought experiment. Waveform collapse is losing favor, according to my understanding.

I tried to simplify it a little. Without understanding quantum physics you can only really use it as an analogy, even though in this thread you'd be better to say Pascal's wager than Shroedinger's cat, from what I gleaned that was the context of the analogy.

He really just used it as a flagrant excuse to gain a reputation as a cat murderer, while the cats were really unharmed... kinda

Thanks! That helped none. I think I'll go look it up on urban dictionary.

Try wikipedia. I doubt urban dictionary has adequate resources for teaching oneself about quantum physics ;-).

You're just in the denial state, it takes some time :+)

No seriously, I can remember myself posting a reply like that somewhere about another subject, just one or two sentences stating that the proven fact was not true "because it couldn't be". Now I know it was just stupid to post that without any arguments at all, and I did not post any arguments because I did not have any. So a bit later I realised I was just wrong, but I never replied there again.

It was an opinion. No need to chew her out for it. In her opinion there is a God, and she feels justified enough in saying it that no argument would persuade her otherwise.

I believe in the Bible. And God.

Nobody has yet "persuaded" me to stop believing it, because to me, it's absolute truth.

I have "blind faith" in God. =P

The way I see things, I totally beieve in God. I can't prove it, just as you cannot prove that he doesn't exist.

Why do you have faith in the Bible rather than any other purported holy book? And what motivates your blind faith in God? Surely there is some cause for it.

It just makes more sense to me than any other holy books. Or any other religions.

I dunno, Odin promised the end of ice giants, and I don't see many ice giants around...

Really? You don't? Sheesh...

Very logical. Go worship Odin xD