And who said the law of non-contradiction applies in Quantum Mechanics? No one said it, that's who.

With respect that was a very weak effort.

@SidneyWinston How is it a weak effort? Because it goes against the point of the video you posted? The law of non-contradiction is supposed to be logic. It might be logical in most cases, but not in all obviously. It doesn't matter if it's quantum mechanics. Is it not true that an atom or photon can be in 2 different places at the same time? It is true, and it goes against common logic.

With respect, your explanation in your last post is a very weak effort. It does nothing to prove your point. It's pretty much like trying to prove a negative.

You are also basically saying the law of non-contradiction applies everywhere but in quantum mechanics because it doesn't help your narrative, and that the findings of the SCIENCE of quantum mechanics are invalid.

He's talking about proving a negative with EASILY KNOWN information and perception of that information. Wow, he can prove a cup doesn't have a liquid in it. He's a genius!

@Piece2YourPuzzle absolute drivel. A waste of words.

@SidneyWinston It's good that you can self reflect.

If they believe in scriptures they/them/who shouldn't be on this site...

@Antifred You are already discussing whys, powers, interests and concluding it is ridiculous.
But the question of the video is prof, not prof existance or not existance in general. It is a method discussion and not about the content.

Does not matter what entity is being proposed, if the proposal is not falsifiable, there is no way to answer the question AND for practical purposes the answer to the question should not matter because there is no consequence and you can make infinite non falsifiable claims, they all have the same value, the same impossibility to be proven right or wrong etc.

This does not mean that you must treat positive or negative answers as equivalent, but then we will be back on discussing the content and not the method.

Michael Shermer discusses humans as pattern seeking brings. We also tend to seek out human faces in random patterns, and we tend to personify the inanimate such as referring to our vehicles as "he's" and "she's" rather than as "it". Imo, these human traits tend to cause humans to assign super-human traits to phenomenon not understood by other mean. It's a form of God of the Gaps, but the gaps are extremely wide - to the extent of being all encompassing.

@TheMiddleWay that's bullshit. I'm under no requirement to prove anyone's made up crap is made up. It's thier responsibility to provide evidence/proof for the claims they are making aren't made up..

@TheMiddleWay I agree completely with your comment, but I was wondering why you identify as agnostic and not atheist?

@TheMiddleWay I don't make the claim they don't exist, I reject thier claim, without any shred of evidence, that they do. Big difference.

That's a silly reason to be agnostic. You live like an atheist - practice no religion, give no credence to a god, attend no church - yet claim both sides are equally valid. You just seem to want your cake and be able to eat it to. There is no inherent superiority in listening to everything just because it's out there.

@TheMiddleWay I can see you put a lot of thought into this. I found a paragraph in the American Atheist website that pretty much sums up my position on the god(s) claim and is why I identify as an atheist:

“Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

Frankly, I hate the idea of being strapped with a label because of someone else’s superstitious beliefs.

@TheMiddleWay @sandman07 just answered all this.

But as for the Higgs, all the evidence pointed to something, and the Higgs was the best explanation that fit into the existing (already proven) framework. That's why they kept searching for it.

@TheMiddleWay now it just appears you're talking in circles. First you say it wasn't, then that it did. It appears to me you're just replacing "most likely" with "faith". But whatever.

But this has nothing to do with the original topic. I find your disagreement with how actual atheists view and describe how we view things to be muddled and prejudiced by your own internal wishes for how it should be. Oh well.

@Donotbelieve yup. Had I noticed it was him posting I never even would have read it.

What's funny is he's basically saying his way of not following a religion is superior to everyone else's way of not following a religion. Well, funny and concieted.