Will humans ever really understand why the universe exists?

[Pupil]

In this thread. I did fail to include "in this thread" only atheists are making definitive statements about god.

I have commented many times in this thread, am an atheist, and do not make definitive statements about God.

 

[robertm]

your sensory perceptions aren't supported by experiments in QM either.

Sensory perceptions are the product of brains which both arise from and operate under the same principals. The distinction and categorization we practice regarding phenomenon are distinct and categorical only in our mental models of reality, which is an emergent property of primate brains. If a theoretical model fails to describe some aspect of our universe it is a testament only to our failure in modeling. The, often vacuous, arbitrary abstractions one fleeces together from sensory input are what is not supported by observation, not the raw electrochemical signaling events themselves.

 

[vectorcube]

No, you're asserting a different definition of atheism, and I'm telling you it is wrong.


There are three options. 1) You claim p is true, 2) You claim p is false, 3) You do not affirm or negate the truth of p. The latter two are atheistic (if p = the existence of God).

Ok, i am getting too technical and lost you. I have you know that i was not talking about god, but rather the explication of proposition p as a belief. I have you know that p cannot make any ontological claim at all. That is why your definition fail to be meaningful. Again, this is not about god, religion, or anything. This a purely technical matter.

 

[vectorcube]

No, you're asserting a different definition of atheism.

No. My definition is the right. Take that!

 

[Math Is Hard]

I don't see this ever getting back on topic.