Walter1496211 said:

(example) Ok for your sake I will tell you God and Jesus exist they love you and care about you and if you believe in them you will be happy and nothing will every destroy your soul your life might be hard but your reward will be full in an afterlife..

Now tell me do you believe this?

Or should I prove it?

this is might point.

DONT ASK ME FOR PROOF AND I WONT ASK YOU.

---

Quote:

If you choose to post in this forum be prepared to have your ideas and opinions challenged, refuted, disputed, rebutted, analyzed, shredded, pooh-poohed, and yes - even supported. If having your beliefs, opinions, and positions scrutinized critically makes you uncomfortable, this is not the forum for you.

---

Walter1496211 said:

I have yet to hear someone prove to me without a doubt atoms exist.

---

They have been determined to exist, in that the theory of their existance has predictive power. Human beings make observations, and then they form theories, and then they test their theories.

Technology, for example, is the greatest example of human beings making observations, forming theories as to the nature of reality, and then making predictions and testing reality, in order to determine if their understanding of reality is reflective of the actual nature of reality.

Now, considering that you are utilizing a computer to interact with us through the internet (it is a reasonable conclusion that you are a human being that is engaging in such activity, although we cannot conclusively determine it, although it is possible, especially for the American government ), I think it stands that our theory of the existance of atoms has predictive power. If it didn't, no computer, no incessant demanding for no shadow of a doubt proof.



Now, wonder why I bolded theory so much? Because human understanding exists only as theory. True certainty regarding the nature of reality is impossible. However, as we are capable of forming theories regarding the nature of reality, and through interaction with and observation of reality, we test our theories, and discover realms of possibilities, as well as probabilities of possibillities.

No interpretation of the nature of reality is an island unto itself, and this is why, through discussion, through critical assessment of interpretations of reality, we can determine if some interpretations of reality are more reflective of the nature of reality than others. Like a bat sending out signals of echolocation and receiving a response from reality, by which the bat determines the nature of reality, in order to most effectively navigate reality, so similarily do humans come to understand reality. Making a grand stand that no perspective of reality can be "proven" belies the nature of reality. It is a maneuver seeking to call out stalemate, when stalemate in such a matter is impossible.

Some interpretations of the nature of reality have no reflection in reality, or their reflection is actually a misconception, better predicted by another, more accurate interpretation of reality. Through critical discussion, perspectives of reality evolve, as interpretations of reality interact with others, generating a light of awareness, intelligence, that dissolves aspects of these interpretations that do not reflect the nature of reality as it presents itself to be. Being a mirror of reality = the most reflective perspective of reality.

Quote:

Technology, for example, is the greatest example of human beings making observations, forming theories as to the nature of reality, and then making predictions and testing reality, in order to determine if their understanding of reality is reflective of the actual nature of reality.

---

Yes, technology IS wonderful. 

MushroomTrip said:

Yes, technology IS wonderful. 

---

It certainly is, but only to the threshold of pitchforks, hand-powered butter churns, wooden wagon wheels, ropes for raising wooden barns....

You tease.

fireworks_god said:

You tease.

---

You love it though...
And I love teasing you

Walter1496211 said:

I want proof that you have a computer.. I want proof that atoms exist. I want proof that if your eyes have seen it my eyes are the same as yours and can see the same thing. I want proof that the books you have read are facts. I want proof that the opinions you hold are your own from birth and most of all I want proof that your opinion is true to anyone else but you.

---

MushmanTheManic said:

fireworks_god said:

Walter1496211 said:

A personal friend of mine spent an entire six hours of his life falsifying information on wikipedia not a very good source IMO.

---

If that is the entirety of what your opinion on wikipedia is based upon, I'd have to state that your opinion isn't resting upon a good foundation. The content editing system makes it so that changed information is reviewed, and there are clearly a lot of dedicated individuals, much much more so than people like your personal friend, who ensure that information is accurate. In fact, I've read that scientific studies have determined that Wikipedia is more accurate than online versions of encyclopedias.

As with any source, it is to be taken as one perspective, and further research is advisable, but clearly Wikipedia is a great resource.

---

Nature.org conducted a study that concluded Wikipedia was slightly less accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Wikipedia had around 160 errors, the Encyclopedia Britannica contained about 135.)

That study was back in 2005, though. I'm sure wikipedia has become much more accurate since then.

---

Walter1496211 said:

FocusHawaii said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger-Marsden_experiment

---

A personal friend of mine spent an entire six hours of his life falsifying information on wikipedia not a very good source IMO.

---

Walter1496211 said:

I want proof that you have a computer.. I want proof that atoms exist. I want proof that if your eyes have seen it my eyes are the same as yours and can see the same thing.  I want proof that the books you have read are facts.  I want proof that the opinions you hold are your own from birth and most of all I want proof that your opinion is true to anyone else but you.

---

What kind of proof are YOU looking for in these demands....? 
Visual, scientific data, a vote, faith, experiments, what....?

What would it take for you to believe in an atom yourself....?
If you have a specific answer for this question, you are not genuinely looking for "proof"....

InnerStillness said:

Now on the other hand for something to exist separate and in its own right without the support of parts (to exist inherently in its own right) isn't possible.  Take an atom for instance, if we try to find an atom which exist in its own right we fail.  An atom is a combination of smaller forces, it is a collection of parts, we put a label on this whole and call it an atom.  So in this respect the atom exist only as a concept and cant exist without the thought "atom".

---

Yes....   
Our visual understanding of atoms are conceptual models based upon the statistical observations of tests performed on matter....

Walter,  no one knows what an atom looks like in it's actual "structure"....
The visual model is a scientific-artistic extrapolated approximation based on the interpretation of evidence of said atoms....


>^;;^<

Walter1496211 said:

How does the fact that atoms exist make atoms exist?? I have never seen an atom. And if you have maybe it was a spec in the microcope? Maybe a spore didn't get washed off. what if I was made of something else? Atoms? really? Who has seen one? If you know you must have read it in a book must be a fact? or not?

---

I was just talking about this somewhere...



There...now you have "seen" atoms...in specific, atoms of silicon arranged in a crystal lattice.