I thought the nucleus is "smaller" as it has a smaller de Broglie wavelength because it has a larger mass. Actually, to illustrate a counterexample to the intuitive notion that more massive objects are larger on the astronomical level, more massive white dwarfs have a smaller radius because of the force of gravity condensing all that matter (and the only force to resist gravity is its electron degeneracy pressure). Also, neutron stars are more massive and smaller than white dwarfs because neutrons have a smaller de Broglie wavelength and less "uncertainty"Didn't know that Blazade - thanks. Wouldn't the nucleus be larger because well, it has mass?
Those are some interesting thoughts. What exactly would you label yourself as? Irreligious, perhaps? Regardless, I have some thoughts. Religion, including Atheism, is all founded on faith in something. Weather it be faith in Allah, Jesus, or the lack of any form of deity/afterlife, there is faith involved. You claim to not have faith in any religion, but also do not denounce religion. You obviously have faith in science as shown by your comment on the truths of math. I'm sticking to my guns and saying you are "irreligious". Instead of subscribing to a faith of uncertainty, you subscribe to pure face. Since religion is defined as "beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life", and you have stated that you do not necessarily have a firm stance on any particular religion (or lack thereof), and that you believe God's existence can be proven or disprove, then the only option left is to have no religion. Otherwise known as being irreligious.Its actually rather interesting for me personally, because I am not an agnostic atheist. Don't get me wrong, I do not claim to know definitively that no god exists (gnostic atheism) but neither am I swayed by the claim that "no knowledge is completely certain," or "God's existence is unknowable."
I do think that there are things which one can know with certainty, most notably a priori facts. I don't think you can convince me that: "all bachelors are unmarried" can ever be false for example; and I think the truths we have discovered in mathematics are absolutely true, at least within their own respective systems. Also I think that claims of god's existence is certainly verifiable, all I would take is me looking out my window to see Thor casting lightning to verify Thor's existence to me.
I am not sure what that makes me, although I am keen to the "weak atheist" label, although even then I don't exactly fit, because that label is sometimes only given to people who never had any religion to begin with. I think only the umbrella term of atheism is the only one which actually describes me.
f'n lables
I'd argue that Rationalism and all other forms of hardcore empiricism that only invest in a priori truth are forms of intellectual laziness. Sure, a priori truths like "all bachelors are single" might be impossible to disprove but they're also tautological. By corollary, gnostic atheism might - logically speaking - be the "safest" belief to hold but it's also incredibly complacent in the degree to which it stifles inquiry (vis-a-vis "empirically impossible" induction). I think that's quite ironic, for a belief system that champions the scientific method as its greatest tool.Well atheism isn't religion so... atheism is just the non-belief in a god.
If you are trying to pin down what my philosophy is per-chance, that would be Rationalism. In particular I am a fan of Leibniz, I think he is dead wrong with some of his conclusions, but I respect him very much. I often times find myself thumbing through the Monadology on how one assesses truths.
I was actually talking with some Christians a few weeks ago and we came to the agreement that it is both a disservice to religious faith and the use of logical axioms to conflate them both as "faith." Christians usually think they have some reason or evidence for their belief, and faith is sort of a "willingness to accept God", so its not fair to conflate it with logical axioms.
Eh not exactly, Locke was a bit of a rationalist himself as far as a priori truths go;The split comes from that Locke didn't believe we had we had innate knowledge about outside world, as opposed to the rationalists at the time, and so devised a system as how we gain knowledge of it.I'm not sure what xenu's getting at. Aren't rationalism and empiricism diametrically opposed approaches to epistemology, at least in their original sense?
But what is truth? More specifically, what does it mean to "sense" a UV wave, and how is that different from "intuiting" one? Can we really even claim to sense anything directly? As far as I can tell, we're all just giving names to groupings of sensory data, and that applies just as much to the existence of Africa as it does to the existence of my foot.Sensory experience alone isn't a sufficient criterion for verifying truth. Consider for instance the fact that we know that ultraviolet waves exist, even though we can't see or directly sense them. Sure, we can observe them using other methods like by using absorption/emission spectra but the result we get from those methods is abstract, not sensory. Linking that abstraction, that positive value on the piece of paper with the unobservable UV wave requires an inductive leap that empiricism (and therefore Rationalism) does not account for. And this is going off an a tangent a little, but in actual scientific practice certain truths are "intuited" before being empirically verified. The examples I can give you here are the classic ones, Kekulé getting his idea for the structure of benzene from a dream, Watson & Crick w/ the structure of DNA, etc, so I won't bore you with them. What I will say, though, is that there are multiple non-empirical & non-deductive modes of inquiry that gnostic atheism dismisses entirely, which is a fundamental flaw in its most basal argument.
Nowhere in the Bible, Torah or Coran does it mention that God wants people to believe in him or will show his true form to the living. God also condemns those who flaunt their religion to gain status or try to look "intelligent" so don't think your friend or others who act similarly really understand what they're talking about. -A devout Roman Catholic.The other day, someone tried telling me that God Exist, but we haven't found him yet. Then then went on saying that people didn't believe in electricity until god showed them it, and that one day God will show us him and we'll believe him too. I find it really sad that people have to preach their faith with shit like that.
Fake Einstein quote said:"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is."
sourceReal Einstein quote said:The most likely source of Gilbert's for an Einstein quote on miracles would be David Reichenstein's Die Religion der Gebildeten (1941), which was released a year prior to Gilbert's Journal. It is here that Reichenstein asks Einstein about Arthur Liebert's theory that uncertainty and indeterminism in quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of miracles. Einstein replied that he could not accept the argument because it dealt "with a domain in which lawful rationality does not exist. A miracle, however, is an exception from lawfulness; hence, there where lawfulness does not exist, also its exception, i.e., a miracle, cannot exist."
I don't know about the Qu'ran, and I know you're right about the Torah, but have you ever heard of the Great Commission?Nowhere in the Bible, Torah or Coran does it mention that God wants people to believe in him or will show his true form to the living. God also condemns those who flaunt their religion to gain status or try to look "intelligent" so don't think your friend or others who act similarly really understand what they're talking about. -A devout Roman Catholic.
Ironically, you have bashed religion while trying to do the opposite. Evidence for the existence of anything is a simple matter of observing what effect it has on everything else. If something has no effect on the entirety of space, time, matter, forces, or anything then it does not exist by definition. Because observability is tantamount to existence then if you believe what you say, that there can not be proof of god, then what you are saying is that there is no god.The reason I mention truth values in the context of religion is because I think it's indicative of the relative futility of converting people to one extreme or the other. Not only do we not currently have empirical proof that proves the existence or lack thereof of a god, we also probably never will have. I can't think of any realistic, scientifically verifiable scenario in which there will be created immutable proof on this matter, and as such, I don't really see all too much value in bashing religion/non-religion in general.
If something has no effect on anything then whether it exists or not is meaningless and equal to not existing. I mean this as a matter of physics, everything has some sort of degree of observability. It takes up space, has mass, perhaps produces electric field, or some other esoteric expression of energy. If some particle or entity of any sort does not exert these qualities then whether there are a billion of them in the room you're with or none at all makesno differnece, so there's no reason to think that there is any at all.Except no normative claim was made about the existence of evidence or not. Also, it is conceivable that things can exist but have no effect on the entirety of space / time / matter / force, which is the claim that most religions seem to make anyway. An example of something that exists but has no observable impact would be your post.