Posted: Jan 11, 2019 10:04 am
by Cito di Pense
newolder wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:...

newolder wrote:IAs a side note: In physics there is the proposed phenomenon of Unruh radiation where a population of particles (photons) is observed in an accelerating reference frame that simply don’t exist to an inertial observer - a merry-go-round if ever there was!

Well, it's not as if an 'accelerating reference frame' is as poorly-defined as 'god' is. What's the problem, again? What we conclude is that belief in god is attributed to ignorance of how properly to define one's terms. Thank the goat-roasters for that.

I'm not claiming any problem but the Unruh effect is/will be if confirmed paradoxical, no?

How is this relevant? There isn't an image of a cat hidden in theology that anyone can find if he just shakes his head around.

The problem isn't that there are entities that have not been proven not to exist. The problem is theology, which proposes entities that have not been observed to exist. Theology is observable, and you have to twist yourself inside out to imagine that theology is not the product of human thought. The Unruh effect is a cat image that really includes an image of a cat. I can see the cat even without shaking my head.

There are only two ways to think about god, and the way I choose is not to give it a second thought (as a going concern). I'll leave you to guess what the other one is. On this approach, there's only one way it matters to you whether you give it a second thought, and that just gets you back to Pascal's Wager. That's not a philosophical problem; it's a social disease having to do with how much tolerance you have for some kinds of bullshit.