How much knowledge do we have?

[QuantumT]

I'd like to point out that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics isn't the one most commonly held by physicists. Most physicists favor the copenhagen interpretation, and only acknowledge the many worlds interpretation so far as to (trivially) admit that there is usually more than one outcome.

[Daytripper]

Your first statement is extremely wrong. Not only just strong atheists say there is no God. many people, all with different strengths of opinions can say there is or is no God.

Your second statement is just as false. the Christian God is all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, and everywhere. The conflicting abilities you mention could possibly not conflicting for Him at all, and instead, a part of His design.

???

I do not understand. If you say there is no God, you must be a strong atheist. Give me an example of someone who says there is no God and is not a strong atheist. It can't be a theist, a weak atheist, an agnostic or an agnostic atheist.

Again, I do not understand. The Christian God is often depicted as all loving and hating, transcendent and omnipresent. It isn't logically possible, if (and only if) you depict the Christian god in that manner.

[Ekki]

Your first statement is extremely wrong. Not only just strong atheists say there is no God. many people, all with different strengths of opinions can say there is or is no God.

Your second statement is just as false. the Christian God is all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, and everywhere. The conflicting abilities you mention could possibly not conflicting for Him at all, and instead, a part of His design.

???

I do not understand. If you say there is no God, you must be a strong atheist. Give me an example of someone who says there is no God and is not a strong atheist. It can't be a theist, a weak atheist, an agnostic or an agnostic atheist.
Again, I do not understand. The Christian God is often depicted as all loving and hating, transcendent and omnipresent. It isn't logically possible, if (and only if) you depict the Christian god in that manner.

The problem is that it doesn't have sense TO YOU. There are lots of things in physics that don't make sense to 99% of the world's population, maybe more things we haven't discovered (and maybe we will never discover) just can't be understood by us. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
If a God existed he'd be able to blend reality, since he made reality, thus he could make a material so strong that he couldn't blend it, and then blend it. It's that simple, and that complicated.

[Daxx]

If a God existed he'd be able to blend reality, since he made reality, thus he could make a material so strong that he couldn't blend it, and then blend it. It's that simple, and that complicated.

This sort of logical equivocation is not very helpful. It's the same train of thought that posits existence as a quality that an infinite concept must have; however that argument was debunked centuries ago.

In addition, you're not actually addressing the central concept of the argument, which is that you can't use special pleading to gloss over an inherently contradictory concept. You're just continuing to use special pleading without saying why you should be allowed to.

[Daytripper]

The problem is that it doesn't have sense TO YOU. There are lots of things in physics that don't make sense to 99% of the world's population, maybe more things we haven't discovered (and maybe we will never discover) just can't be understood by us. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
If a God existed he'd be able to blend reality, since he made reality, thus he could make a material so strong that he couldn't blend it, and then blend it. It's that simple, and that complicated.

That is the same thing as saying,, ''If there is a God, I get to make up anything I want.'' There is really no need for any debate then, because you always have a defence for your position. 

[Ekki]

If a God existed he'd be able to blend reality, since he made reality, thus he could make a material so strong that he couldn't blend it, and then blend it. It's that simple, and that complicated.

This sort of logical equivocation is not very helpful. It's the same train of thought that posits existence as a quality that an infinite concept must have; however that argument was debunked centuries ago.

In addition, you're not actually addressing the central concept of the argument, which is that you can't use special pleading to gloss over an inherently contradictory concept. You're just continuing to use special pleading without saying why you should be allowed to.

The problem is that it doesn't have sense TO YOU. There are lots of things in physics that don't make sense to 99% of the world's population, maybe more things we haven't discovered (and maybe we will never discover) just can't be understood by us. That doesn't mean it's impossible.
If a God existed he'd be able to blend reality, since he made reality, thus he could make a material so strong that he couldn't blend it, and then blend it. It's that simple, and that complicated.

That is the same thing as saying,, ''If there is a God, I get to make up anything I want.'' There is really no need for any debate then, because you always have a defence for your position. 

Yeah, I know the argument is bad, but I'm not trying to prove God's existence, I'm using it for you to see the other point.
Everything could be, there is infinite "knowledge" to be known, thus following the Schrod's Cat idea, everything IS.
But this is seen as falacious because of our human nature. We think changing the past is impossible, but we're the only ones that "store" what happened in the past. If someone changed what you remember, and all the consequences of what happened (they're infinite, but meh), there'd be NO WAY of being certain that that happened. So we can't say something is impossible because we can't even imagine it, because we blend our surroundings to understand what's going on in them.
So the only "real knowledge" we have is the one we invent.
I'm not able to explain how I see it to you because it's something that just can't be imagined (but can be somehow semi-understanded). Not trying to disprove ANY theory, but actually proving them all true.

[QuantumT]

That seems to be a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. Just because a variety of states is possible doesn't mean that every state is possible. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'll try to show you what I mean with Schrodinger's Cat.

The cat is a superposition of 2 states, alive and dead. However, there are a ton of states that have zero probability of being occupied. For example, it's not in the dog state, or the blue state, or the uranium state.

[Bloodshadow]

That seems to be a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. Just because a variety of states is possible doesn't mean that every state is possible. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'll try to show you what I mean with Schrodinger's Cat.

The cat is a superposition of 2 states, alive and dead. However, there are a ton of states that have zero probability of being occupied. For example, it's not in the dog state, or the blue state, or the uranium state.

Actually, there is a chance of all the atoms in the cat's body spontaneously turning into uranium. Where did the extra protons, neutrons, and electrons come from? They spontaneously teleported from some random galaxy a few light years away.

If you have an electron, and it exists as a probability cloud, then there is always a chance of it spontaneously teleporting to Jupiter, then teleporting back a nanosecond later. The probability of this happening is so low that it's almost zero, but it's never exactly zero. At least that's what Stephen Hawking said in his book.

[QuantumT]

That seems to be a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. Just because a variety of states is possible doesn't mean that every state is possible. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'll try to show you what I mean with Schrodinger's Cat.

The cat is a superposition of 2 states, alive and dead. However, there are a ton of states that have zero probability of being occupied. For example, it's not in the dog state, or the blue state, or the uranium state.

Actually, there is a chance of all the atoms in the cat's body spontaneously turning into uranium. Where did the extra protons, neutrons, and electrons come from? They spontaneously teleported from some random galaxy a few light years away.

If you have an electron, and it exists as a probability cloud, then there is always a chance of it spontaneously teleporting to Jupiter, then teleporting back a nanosecond later. The probability of this happening is so low that it's almost zero, but it's never exactly zero. At least that's what Stephen Hawking said in his book.

K so let me rephrase that to a probability of effectively 0. The reason I use the words exactly 0 is because most people don't understand how mind boggling small the probabilities are. You let them think that there's a small chance, and all of a sudden it's something that they think is going to happen by routine.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

Funny video, but at about 3:10 the kind of failures some people are capable of with regards to probability are shown.

Also, Schrodinger's Cat says nothing about allowing states that are logically impossible. For example, the cat will never be in the 4-sided triangle state.

[Ekki]

That seems to be a gross misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. Just because a variety of states is possible doesn't mean that every state is possible. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but I'll try to show you what I mean with Schrodinger's Cat.

The cat is a superposition of 2 states, alive and dead. However, there are a ton of states that have zero probability of being occupied. For example, it's not in the dog state, or the blue state, or the uranium state.

Actually, there is a chance of all the atoms in the cat's body spontaneously turning into uranium. Where did the extra protons, neutrons, and electrons come from? They spontaneously teleported from some random galaxy a few light years away.

If you have an electron, and it exists as a probability cloud, then there is always a chance of it spontaneously teleporting to Jupiter, then teleporting back a nanosecond later. The probability of this happening is so low that it's almost zero, but it's never exactly zero. At least that's what Stephen Hawking said in his book.

K so let me rephrase that to a probability of effectively 0. The reason I use the words exactly 0 is because most people don't understand how mind boggling small the probabilities are. You let them think that there's a small chance, and all of a sudden it's something that they think is going to happen by routine.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-30-2009/large-hadron-collider

Funny video, but at about 3:10 the kind of failures some people are capable of with regards to probability are shown.

Also, Schrodinger's Cat says nothing about allowing states that are logically impossible. For example, the cat will never be in the 4-sided triangle state.

I was trying to emphasize this. I believe that probability actually is important. The fact that we -humans- think it's possible in our lives is another thing. But if you take in account some multiverse/"multi times" theories leading to an infinite number of probabilities the thing is different. A 10^-999999% probability happened infinite times in an infinite environment.

About the triangle with 4 sides, what's a triangle has been defined by ourselves -humans-, so it's impossible to imagine "4-sided triangle" but because we're talking about two states of one same thing in our dimmension, space-time, etc. That doesn't mean that some"where" else it's impossible, since the definition of triangle is our definition, that I still think can be imagined in other dimmension/space-time/spaguetti.

The point is, in an infinite Universe, everything has happened, and will happen, and is happening right now. But at the same "time" that's NOT happening, and won't happen, and all other sort of things we think are impossible just because we -humans- said it because of OUR LANGUAGE (how important for the Universe...).

I think using linguistic fallacies makes them real, because they're linguistically possible (you said them), and the translation to the "real world" is defined by us.