Därför finns inte gud

...so you know that for instance the Theory of Relativity is true? Unless youre a particle physicist who actually performed some empirical experiments, all you have to base your knowledge upon is your trust i.e. faith in the scientific institution.

Sorry, 22 isnt very clear. What I mean is that scientific paradigms the way science views the world at a given time are regularly subject to shifts. In essence scientific knowledge is nothing more than something that works with the means we have at hand, but can shift radically once new discoveries are made. Its never an absolute truth contrarily to what pop-science may want us to believe.

Feel free to define faith that way. Id presonally disagree with the goes against logic part, but theres no point in debating that. As for science: are you a theoretical physicist? Have you checked all the logical facts of the theory of relativity? Do you have any working experience in the business of science? I daresay that in most or all cases your answer will be no.

Frederik: Well, first of all, I am not a physician, so I cannot determine the truth or falsity of your proposition concerning Quantum Mechanics. However, I do view existence as a realm of interconnected entities, the law of causality being the link in between each entity. However, the law of causality arises from the nature, the identity, of all individual entities. Hence: without identity, no causality, and without causality no interrelation.

David: what quantum mechanics have discovered is that there is no causality at the causal level. You cannot for instance predict the spin of a neutron; it is a purely random phenomenon. Statistics are used instead, but as you probably know statistics can only give probabilities, not certainties.

Mind me, your view of interrelated identities linked by causal laws works to describe a lot of things. Only that one shouldnt fall into the trap of thinking that it is *the* truth. It isnt.

I highly doubt that there is no causality on the quantum level. The fact that we cannot precisely point out causal relations at that level does not mean that it does not exist. One cannot prove the existence of non-identity or non-causality without referring to particulars, i.e. existing entities or definite causal relations.

And without even answering my argument you outright call my standpoint a "belief" which has nothing to do with reason. And you do this while admitting that QM hasnt been proved! I dont have the energy to put up with you any longer. I dont think that any arguments can affect those who choose not to listen.

...besides as food for thought: if everything - from the collision of neutrons to the processes in our brains - is linked by causal laws and can - theoretically - be predicted, where do you then physically locate mans free will?