Uncaused quantum event?

voicelord
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Uncaused quantum event?

 

I have a question that maybe you all can help me with. I am currently banging my head against the wall trying to figure out the meaning of the universe by arguing with someone about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Smiling During the argument an interesting question came up for me. 

 It is my (REALLY limited) understanding that on a quantum scale particles pop in and out of existence uncaused. But it was put to me that this is just Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle in action, and that those particles already exist. Is this true? Or are there two separate ideas at work here? If it helps, here is my (partial) argument:

 - Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. We know this to be true within the universe. We see cause and effect happen all the time. Your right it is an undeniable fact… Unless you carry it into the realm of quantum mechanics. Then " Everything that begins to exist has a cause." becomes untrue. It is not fact. Cause is not established. If the universe did indeed "begin to exist", it did so in a quantum nucleation event. (Whoops, should have said "could have done so") Which we KNOW can happen entirely uncaused. So premise 1 fails. -

And this was the (partial) rebuttal from my associate:

 - Re premise 1 - According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (upon which I believe you're trading here), it is impossible to predict precisely the conditions of the values of momentum or position of some particle x at some time t2 on the basis of our knowledge of the conditions of x at t1. I have no qualms with this as it does not actually represent an exception to the principle in premise 1. At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity. - 

I think this just a doge on his part. But if so, the problem is that I am having trouble fully grasping things like Bell's inequality or finding examples of quantum uncaused events. I started pulling at a thread that has now led to a Costco full of entanglements!

Hope anyone can shed some light on this question for me and I thank you for your time fellow people who don't beleive in talking toasters.

 

Voicelord

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Here's an easy one for

Here's an easy one for you.

Break the first premise down. 

1. Every one thing that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 3 is a non sequitur because the universe is not a THING, it is the set that contains all things.  See Russell's set paradox about including a set as part of itself. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

It is a category error. 

Kalam fails for many reasons.  If taken through to the intended conclusion, it is question begging.  

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


voicelord
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Here's an easy

Ktulu wrote:

Here's an easy one for you.

Break the first premise down. 

1. Every one thing that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 3 is a non sequitur because the universe is not a THING, it is the set that contains all things.  See Russell's set paradox about including a set as part of itself. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

It is a category error. 

Kalam fails for many reasons.  If taken through to the intended conclusion, it is question begging.  

 

Oh I know this argument. I'm just not there yet Smiling But thank you! And I hope you are sleeping well beneath the sea...


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
voicelord wrote:Ktulu

voicelord wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Here's an easy one for you.

Break the first premise down. 

1. Every one thing that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 3 is a non sequitur because the universe is not a THING, it is the set that contains all things.  See Russell's set paradox about including a set as part of itself. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

It is a category error. 

Kalam fails for many reasons.  If taken through to the intended conclusion, it is question begging.  

Oh I know this argument. I'm just not there yet Smiling But thank you! And I hope you are sleeping well beneath the sea...

Ktulu's objection is incorrect -- the Universe did begin, in modern cosmologies, as a "thing".  Which is to say, it was a singularity, and a singularity was very much a thing, not the set of all things in the Universe which were formed as the singularity expanded and cooled and matter condensed from it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
random theist wrote: At

random theist wrote:

 At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity.

But it is not the fact that the particle came into existence that you are arguing.  It is the fact that it had a cause.  Furthermore, in order to avoid infinite regression, you need to have an event that does not need a cause.  A theist will argue this is God, your argument is that it is a particle.  Apply Ockham's razor to the two hypothesis and see which one would have more chances of being correct.  God requires a multitude of assumptions to support itself as a concept.  A virtual pair concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  has many observable effects that we can detect and test for. 

The example I had given you was my favorite shoot from the hip example to show that the KCA is flawed as a logical proposition.  If you want to go above and beyond to support the refutation, that's your prerogative.  What's the point of factually refuting a flawed argument?  You do realize that it is question begging?

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


voicelord
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:random theist

Ktulu wrote:

random theist wrote:

 At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity.

But it is not the fact that the particle came into existence that you are arguing.  It is the fact that it had a cause.  Furthermore, in order to avoid infinite regression, you need to have an event that does not need a cause.  A theist will argue this is God, your argument is that it is a particle.  Apply Ockham's razor to the two hypothesis and see which one would have more chances of being correct.  God requires a multitude of assumptions to support itself as a concept.  A virtual pair concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  has many observable effects that we can detect and test for. 

The example I had given you was my favorite shoot from the hip example to show that the KCA is flawed as a logical proposition.  If you want to go above and beyond to support the refutation, that's your prerogative.  What's the point of factually refuting a flawed argument?  You do realize that it is question begging?

 

 

Ktulu, perhaps I need more coffee, forgive me but,  I'm not sure I entirely understand what your saying here. How is an uncased appearance/pooping-into-existence of a particle that we observe, flawed as an argument to the premise 1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?" "And then you said - "You do realize that it is question begging?"Are you referring to the KCA itself or something I presented?

 

V


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
voicelord wrote:Ktulu

voicelord wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

random theist wrote:

 At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity.

But it is not the fact that the particle came into existence that you are arguing.  It is the fact that it had a cause.  Furthermore, in order to avoid infinite regression, you need to have an event that does not need a cause.  A theist will argue this is God, your argument is that it is a particle.  Apply Ockham's razor to the two hypothesis and see which one would have more chances of being correct.  God requires a multitude of assumptions to support itself as a concept.  A virtual pair concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  has many observable effects that we can detect and test for. 

The example I had given you was my favorite shoot from the hip example to show that the KCA is flawed as a logical proposition.  If you want to go above and beyond to support the refutation, that's your prerogative.  What's the point of factually refuting a flawed argument?  You do realize that it is question begging?

Ktulu, perhaps I need more coffee, forgive me but,  I'm not sure I entirely understand what your saying here. How is an uncased appearance/pooping-into-existence of a particle that we observe, flawed as an argument to the premise 1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?" "And then you said - "You do realize that it is question begging?"Are you referring to the KCA itself or something I presented?

"Stuff" randomly popping into existence is a property of space-time.  There are certain laws that must be obeyed, but virtual pair production =does= happen.

As I understand the Physics, due to the fact that Charge-Parity (CP) Symmetry is broken, I believe it's possible for Conservation to be broken at very high energy levels.  That is, instead of particles and anti-particles being the result of a high energy pair production, an anti-particle may NOT be produced, leaving the particle with nothing to use for annihilation.  This requires (again, fuzzy understanding) that both the =distance= and =time= be exceedingly short, but that meets the conditions of the initial Singularity that is believed to have caused the entire Universe.  Thus, the initial Singularity has a =cause= -- space-time and the laws as they relate to space-time itself.

Now, if someone wants to attribute the laws of space-time to a Deity (waving hand furiously), that's Assuming The Conclusion, which is the logical fallacy behind KCA.  It could also be that the laws of space-time are simply the product of space-time "evolving", in the sense that the space-time which produced our Universe was successful.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Even an infinite regression

Even an infinite regression is mathematically possible without involving infinite time or energy, as long as each 'cause' event involves, on average, less energy and time than the event it causes.

Mathematically, the sum of an infinite series of finite quantities is finite if the ratio between successive terms is less than one.

ie

if S = a + a.r + a.r2 + a.r3 + a.r4 +.... for n terms,

S = a (1 - rn)/(1 - r);

Since rn -> as n -> infinity, for n < 1

S  -> a/(1 - r) as n -> infinity.

eg, the sum of

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 +  ... (for infinite terms) = 2

Since the cause, the 'trigger', of a physical event does not necessarily involve more energy or time than the event itself, infinite regress of cause-effect does not necessarily require infinite time or energy.

In a world of Quantum Physics, once the cause gets down to the Planck scale, it disappears into the random quantum 'uncertainty'.

So a 'First cause' fails again.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:In a world

BobSpence wrote:

In a world of Quantum Physics, once the cause gets down to the Planck scale, it disappears into the random quantum 'uncertainty'.

So a 'First cause' fails again.

I think at Plank scale enough laws change that sufficient energy can be created from vacuum energy that there's no need for =any= time.  At sufficiently short time lengths, and sufficiently small distances, and the Plank length is pretty short, an infinite amount of energy can be "borrowed".  From there, CP-symmetry breaking allows for an imbalance of matter and anti-matter, which then allows for a "permanent" Universe to exist due to a lack of anti-particles to cause virtual pair annihilation.

Could someone =please= check the above for correctness?  That's have I've understood the Universe to "poof" out of complete nothingness since my college days (more or less).

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

In a world of Quantum Physics, once the cause gets down to the Planck scale, it disappears into the random quantum 'uncertainty'.

So a 'First cause' fails again.

I think at Plank scale enough laws change that sufficient energy can be created from vacuum energy that there's no need for =any= time.  At sufficiently short time lengths, and sufficiently small distances, and the Plank length is pretty short, an infinite amount of energy can be "borrowed".  From there, CP-symmetry breaking allows for an imbalance of matter and anti-matter, which then allows for a "permanent" Universe to exist due to a lack of anti-particles to cause virtual pair annihilation.

Could someone =please= check the above for correctness?  That's have I've understood the Universe to "poof" out of complete nothingness since my college days (more or less).

I don't quite see how your comment is directly relevant to what you quoted. Nothing particularly to do with virtual particles as such.

However, I do recall recently seeing a way of looking at the Big Bang scenario in terms of the Uncertainty Principle which made sense to me:

The time for which a quantum event, like a virtual particle pair emergence, can persist is a function of the nett energy change involved, ie level of violation of Law of Conservation.

Since the nett energy of our universe is zero - gravitational potential energy is negative, balancing the energy associated with matter particles (leptons and quarks) - it can persist indefinitely. IOW, since our Universe is not 'borrowing' any energy, it can last a long time.

The imbalance of particles and anti-particles is a separate, but maybe related, issue - it indeed is what is required for our Universe to have persisted at all.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:I don't

BobSpence wrote:
I don't quite see how your comment is directly relevant to what you quoted. Nothing particularly to do with virtual particles as such.

The "first cause" of virtual particle production is space-time itself.  There's no need for a Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
I don't quite see how your comment is directly relevant to what you quoted. Nothing particularly to do with virtual particles as such.

The "first cause" of virtual particle production is space-time itself.  There's no need for a Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs

So you effectively agree with me that the ultimate cause for anything is the nature of space-time itself, as in having this underlying randomness/uncertainty expressed by Heisenberg...

As for the video - meh... mildly amusing, but basically even more irrelevant than your previous comment.

It seems to display the common misunderstanding that entropy implies 'deterioration'. That can be argued, but only over the really long haul, and then from a perspective of the totality of the Universe. Over time and distance scales that have meaning to our species and this planet, not really relevant, unless you consider that human civilization represents a serious deterioration from the ball of molten rock our planet once was...

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
I don't quite see how your comment is directly relevant to what you quoted. Nothing particularly to do with virtual particles as such.

The "first cause" of virtual particle production is space-time itself.  There's no need for a Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs

So you effectively agree with me that the ultimate cause for anything is the nature of space-time itself, as in having this underlying randomness/uncertainty expressed by Heisenberg...

Yeah, but I don't agree with you that G-d didn't create the laws that govern space-time itself

BobSpence wrote:
As for the video - meh... mildly amusing, but basically even more irrelevant than your previous comment.

Ah, but only because you didn't LISTEN to the words.  There are references to "Hairy Thunderer" and "Cosmic Muffin" in the last minute or so.  That's why I added the link, not for whatever reasons I cut from your reply.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
voicelord wrote:Ktulu

voicelord wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

random theist wrote:

 At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity.

But it is not the fact that the particle came into existence that you are arguing.  It is the fact that it had a cause.  Furthermore, in order to avoid infinite regression, you need to have an event that does not need a cause.  A theist will argue this is God, your argument is that it is a particle.  Apply Ockham's razor to the two hypothesis and see which one would have more chances of being correct.  God requires a multitude of assumptions to support itself as a concept.  A virtual pair concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  has many observable effects that we can detect and test for. 

The example I had given you was my favorite shoot from the hip example to show that the KCA is flawed as a logical proposition.  If you want to go above and beyond to support the refutation, that's your prerogative.  What's the point of factually refuting a flawed argument?  You do realize that it is question begging?

Ktulu, perhaps I need more coffee, forgive me but,  I'm not sure I entirely understand what your saying here. How is an uncased appearance/pooping-into-existence of a particle that we observe, flawed as an argument to the premise 1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?" "And then you said - "You do realize that it is question begging?"Are you referring to the KCA itself or something I presented?

You do need more coffee.  I am actually in your corner, arguing against the person that claims that this is not a valid argument.  First of all, the KCA is question begging.  It implies the conclusion in the premise.  My argument to what you are attempting is that it is futile, not that it is incorrect, it is a waste of energy because KCA is a flawed argument.  However, if you must refute it within it's own paradigm, you may still do so using the virtual particles example and invoking Ockham's razor. I'm not sure what's unclear about what I wrote.  

Are you arguing that the KCA is a valid argument perhaps? 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


voicelord
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
 So, all you really smart

 So, all you really smart folks, far more educated in the sciences than I, Uh.... Yes? No? 

 

The scientificly dwarfed laymen of laymen,

Voicelord


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
I don't quite see how your comment is directly relevant to what you quoted. Nothing particularly to do with virtual particles as such.

The "first cause" of virtual particle production is space-time itself.  There's no need for a Hairy Thunderer or Cosmic Muffin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs

So you effectively agree with me that the ultimate cause for anything is the nature of space-time itself, as in having this underlying randomness/uncertainty expressed by Heisenberg...

Yeah, but I don't agree with you that G-d didn't create the laws that govern space-time itself

But you have nothing but personal subjective feeling that there is any reason for going back further than the existence and nature of space-time. 'Cause then you are into the problematic version of infinite regress, and need to explain what 'created' something more complex than a basic set of properties of space-time.

Those "laws" are less in need of explanation than God, or even G-d, so it makes no sense to chase any further back.

Quote:

BobSpence wrote:
As for the video - meh... mildly amusing, but basically even more irrelevant than your previous comment.

Ah, but only because you didn't LISTEN to the words.  There are references to "Hairy Thunderer" and "Cosmic Muffin" in the last minute or so.  That's why I added the link, not for whatever reasons I cut from your reply.

I did listen to the words, right through to those last images, and I get the references, more-or-less. But you obviously, and unsurprisingly, still don't grasp my viewpoint, and yet again make a totally incorrect assumption as to why I responded as I did. I have just so-o-o got beyond that whole category of ideas.

Your apparent inability to see past the intuitive 'need' for some kind of ultimate 'creator' just alternately amuses and saddens me. I think I get where you are coming from, although I could be wildly wrong - the various ways we can 'reason' about such things can cover quite a range - but it seems clear to me you don't really grasp how minds work that don't base their world-view on some "higher" entity or power that goes beyond a naturalistic framework of 'blind' and basic forces.

It reminds me of the words of believer of some sort I heard on a radio program about religion, who when queried about his beliefs, clearly could not comprehend how there could not be a 'God', let alone try to justify his belief. It seemed it was like asking him to question his own existence. Again, not saying this IS the way you think, but it sure seems to fit in some way. It also seems consistent with the idea that there is a genetic component to the disposition to 'see' a conscious 'purpose' or intent behind Everything. It just doesn't 'work' for me. Everything just makes so much more sense to me when you reject the gratuitous injection of such half-assed superstitions.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


voicelord
Posts: 7
Joined: 2012-01-10
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:voicelord

Ktulu wrote:

voicelord wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

random theist wrote:

 At most, this just speaks to the change of condition in existing particles. It states nothing about the coming into being of the particles in question. It just simply assumes the particles already existed, a position that is merely speculated when it comes to the singularity.

But it is not the fact that the particle came into existence that you are arguing.  It is the fact that it had a cause.  Furthermore, in order to avoid infinite regression, you need to have an event that does not need a cause.  A theist will argue this is God, your argument is that it is a particle.  Apply Ockham's razor to the two hypothesis and see which one would have more chances of being correct.  God requires a multitude of assumptions to support itself as a concept.  A virtual pair concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle  has many observable effects that we can detect and test for. 

The example I had given you was my favorite shoot from the hip example to show that the KCA is flawed as a logical proposition.  If you want to go above and beyond to support the refutation, that's your prerogative.  What's the point of factually refuting a flawed argument?  You do realize that it is question begging?

Ktulu, perhaps I need more coffee, forgive me but,  I'm not sure I entirely understand what your saying here. How is an uncased appearance/pooping-into-existence of a particle that we observe, flawed as an argument to the premise 1) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause?" "And then you said - "You do realize that it is question begging?"Are you referring to the KCA itself or something I presented?

You do need more coffee.  I am actually in your corner, arguing against the person that claims that this is not a valid argument.  First of all, the KCA is question begging.  It implies the conclusion in the premise.  My argument to what you are attempting is that it is futile, not that it is incorrect, it is a waste of energy because KCA is a flawed argument.  However, if you must refute it within it's own paradigm, you may still do so using the virtual particles example and invoking Ockham's razor. I'm not sure what's unclear about what I wrote.  

Are you arguing that the KCA is a valid argument perhaps? 

 

Yes, alright, just trying to be clear that I understood what you meant, I did not mean to imply that you were somehow sloppy in your response to me. There are a lot of tendrils running through the process of arguing for and against the KCA I've come across. I chose, and perhaps to my own demise, to combat the scientific backing for it my opponent was citing. (Among other things the BVG theorem) I understand the begging the question argument now, thank you. I am not arguing that it is valid. But my opponent is a pretty well read and studied apologetic. I haven't spent an incredible amount of time actively debating, so with him I find myself learning as I go and trying to further educate myself!

 

Thank you again,

 

V


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence

BobSpence wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
Yeah, but I don't agree with you that G-d didn't create the laws that govern space-time itself

But you have nothing but personal subjective feeling that there is any reason for going back further than the existence and nature of space-time.

Of course!  Never said otherwise!

BobSpence wrote:
'Cause then you are into the problematic version of infinite regress, and need to explain what 'created' something more complex than a basic set of properties of space-time.

I'm perfectly content believing that G-d just made the rules and everything else did it's own thing.

And while I don't happen to =believe= that (but pretty close!), I'd also be perfectly content if G-d was nothing more than the rules as they exist.  And you're going to have a pretty hard time claiming that the Laws of Nature don't exist, now aren't you?

Judaism IS NOT Christianity.  There's a concept in Judaism known as "Imitatio Dei" -- imitating G-d.  It turns out that if everyone does what the Torah says everyone =should= do, G-d doesn't even have to exist in order to exist.  I don't believe that's why G-d exists either, but when arguing about the existence of G-d with Jews, beware -- you'd do better trying to staple Jell-O to a paper towel.

There's a lot of leeway in Judaism, all the way up to being an Atheist =and= a Jew, so all these Jedi Mind Tricks you're trying to use will not work on me, Young Skywalker.

If I woke up tomorrow and no longer believed in G-d, NOTHING in my life would change.  Put that one in your didgeridoo and smoke it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I'm perfectly content

Quote:

I'm perfectly content believing that G-d just made the rules and everything else did it's own thing.

 

Content with ignorance; nice to know.

 

Quote:
Judaism IS NOT Christianity.  There's a concept in Judaism known as "Imitatio Dei" -- imitating G-d.  It turns out that if everyone does what the Torah says everyone =should= do, G-d doesn't even have to exist in order to exist.  I don't believe that's why G-d exists either, but when arguing about the existence of G-d with Jews, beware -- you'd do better trying to staple Jell-O to a paper towel.

 

I don't think you even know WHY you believe in god.  In most of your posts, you go "even if god didn't exist" or "may or may not exist" when discussing theology and it's so maddening to see such delusion poison these boards.  Your befuddled mind just seems to be grasping for reasoning so badly and it's so sad...

 

Quote:
There's a lot of leeway in Judaism, all the way up to being an Atheist =and= a Jew, so all these Jedi Mind Tricks you're trying to use will not work on me, Young Skywalker.

 

DO NOT lump Judaism with atheism.  Just don't.  They're not even in the same country club, honey.  Imagine believers as being a part of a giant baseball game.  Know where atheists are?  In  the bleachers spectating on what you nut jobs will do next.  We enjoy that.  Sometimes, we get really angry at a bad play, bad call, whatever and we either bitch and moan about it or we storm the field and take action.  Hell, we even bitch and moan at each other and come to blows from time to time because we're arrogant and human.  The difference here is that you think you're making all the moves, collecting all the money and enforcing all these laws through religious beliefs all the while thinking that the gravy train will never stop.  Well, we non-believing spectators who choose to not participate in the fun and games  see we're being screwed and have had enough.  We create shit storms about how the players are handling their games and what they're doing to make it enjoyable for all.  Survey says "nothing."  The "talent scouts" aren't buying it anymore and the ones managing the teams (priests, cardinals, popes, etc.) are trying harder and harder to convince their players to stick with it, swing those holy bats as hard as they can and let loose with those Spaldings of divinity!  "What do those spectators know?  They're bums!  They bash us and try to bring us down for having a good time running the world as we see fit in God's eyes!  We get all the money and the recognition while they get spit on.  We're bigger, better and have been around longer with a hell of a lot more influence.  Now, get out there and go get 'em!"  *band stand plays*

 

Yeah, it's a little like that. 

 

Quote:
If I woke up tomorrow and no longer believed in G-d, NOTHING in my life would change.  Put that one in your didgeridoo and smoke it.

 

Directed at Bob obviously, but how do you know nothing would change?  There's a significant psychological shift that happens over time the more the fog begins to dissipate and begin to see that you've been tricked.  When you were born, the first thing on your mind was not "I know God exists.  That's it, case closed."  As you grew up, the first time God came into the equation is when you went to school, pledged allegiance, noticed your parents being involved with religious activities, socially acceptable behavior based on religion, etc.  All that, in a way, corrupted you into the person that you are today.  Right now, the way you see life is in a linear scope of non-dynamic proportion hindered by your narrow views of selfish projection and tainted ideology.  You grasp religion because you let your mind slip away at an early age the moment your brain could absorb the idea of a higher power and it sounded pleasant to you not bothering to see the horrible history behind it all or what it took just to get these beliefs implemented forcibly into society creating this social parasitic worm that eats at rationale and cuts off portions of our brains that inhibit us to live to our full potential grasp of understanding and logic.  Fortunately, since I don't have that monkey on my back, I'm free to call people like you "defective sapiens," but, unfortunately, there are just some models you can't re-program and fix so, I guess you're SOL. 

 

By the way, a "didgeridoo?"  The aboriginals called; they want their awful, esoteric reference to an Australian wood instrument back.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:
Quote:
Judaism IS NOT Christianity.  There's a concept in Judaism known as "Imitatio Dei" -- imitating G-d.  It turns out that if everyone does what the Torah says everyone =should= do, G-d doesn't even have to exist in order to exist.  I don't believe that's why G-d exists either, but when arguing about the existence of G-d with Jews, beware -- you'd do better trying to staple Jell-O to a paper towel.

I don't think you even know WHY you believe in god.  In most of your posts, you go "even if god didn't exist" or "may or may not exist" when discussing theology and it's so maddening to see such delusion poison these boards.  Your befuddled mind just seems to be grasping for reasoning so badly and it's so sad...

Because I do?

What you see as a "befuddled mind" that "just seems to be grasping for reasoning so badly" comes from a bizarre realization that it really =doesn't= matter if G-d exists or not, provided certain "negative Golden Rules" are obeyed.

Sage_Override wrote:
Quote:
There's a lot of leeway in Judaism, all the way up to being an Atheist =and= a Jew, so all these Jedi Mind Tricks you're trying to use will not work on me, Young Skywalker.

DO NOT lump Judaism with atheism.  Just don't.  They're not even in the same country club, honey.

Well, sadly for you, in 45 minutes I'm going to be having dinner with friend and her husband, both of whom are JEWISH ATHEISTS!

Sage_Override wrote:
Quote:
If I woke up tomorrow and no longer believed in G-d, NOTHING in my life would change.  Put that one in your didgeridoo and smoke it.

Directed at Bob obviously, but how do you know nothing would change?

Because I do?  Are you sure you're not going to up and become an axe murderer tomorrow?  Are you =really= sure?  No, I mean, absolutely, completely, utterly, totally CERTAIN?

Quote:
By the way, a "didgeridoo?"  The aboriginals called; they want their awful, esoteric reference to an Australian wood instrument back.

And I'm sure that after Bob is done putting my post in one and smoking it, he can give it back to them.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because I do?What you

Quote:

Because I do?

What you see as a "befuddled mind" that "just seems to be grasping for reasoning so badly" comes from a bizarre realization that it really =doesn't= matter if G-d exists or not, provided certain "negative Golden Rules" are obeyed.

 

You're delusional and need to have a CAT scan pronto.  Not joking.

 

Quote:
Well, sadly for you, in 45 minutes I'm going to be having dinner with friend and her husband, both of whom are JEWISH ATHEISTS!

 

If you weren't completely oblivious, you'd realize I said JUDAISM, not BEING JEWISH because you can, apparently...WAIT FOR IT...be Jewish and not practice Judaism!  What a concept!  Some attest to being Jewish as a race rather than a secular choice, but you obviously knew that, right?   

 

...and JEWISH ATHEISTS?  Call the New York Times, this is front page news, folks!!!  Shit, this might be the most important upcoming column that you just have to read!  I'm calling the editor so that he's made aware of this in the quickest possible manner so it can hit news stands post haste!

 

Quote:

Because I do?  Are you sure you're not going to up and become an axe murderer tomorrow?  Are you =really= sure?  No, I mean, absolutely, completely, utterly, totally CERTAIN?

 

Way to respond to the beginning of a long paragraph that you couldn't comprehend.  Bravo.  Re-read my ENTIRE paragraph first before making a comparison that isn't even on the same field of mental comprehension. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
voicelord wrote:Yes,

voicelord wrote:

Yes, alright, just trying to be clear that I understood what you meant, I did not mean to imply that you were somehow sloppy in your response to me. There are a lot of tendrils running through the process of arguing for and against the KCA I've come across. I chose, and perhaps to my own demise, to combat the scientific backing for it my opponent was citing. (Among other things the BVG theorem) I understand the begging the question argument now, thank you. I am not arguing that it is valid. But my opponent is a pretty well read and studied apologetic. I haven't spent an incredible amount of time actively debating, so with him I find myself learning as I go and trying to further educate myself!

 

Thank you again,

 

V

I can respect that, I often learn from apologists mostly due to the fact that what they propose cannot be true.  They, however, spend so much time twisting the logic of their arguments, that finding "what's wrong with this picture" is rather difficult and can involve a bit of research.  I'm a little hard on the KCA because for the longest time, I found myself to be an agnostic because of it.  I find it as a younger me's Achilles' heel and hence have a bit of emotional baggage attached to it. Smiling Also of note is the Trancendental argument, it is a very good logic "what's wrong with this picture" puzzle.  And of course the good ole' OA Smiling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Ktulu wrote:

voicelord wrote:

Yes, alright, just trying to be clear that I understood what you meant, I did not mean to imply that you were somehow sloppy in your response to me. There are a lot of tendrils running through the process of arguing for and against the KCA I've come across. I chose, and perhaps to my own demise, to combat the scientific backing for it my opponent was citing. (Among other things the BVG theorem) I understand the begging the question argument now, thank you. I am not arguing that it is valid. But my opponent is a pretty well read and studied apologetic. I haven't spent an incredible amount of time actively debating, so with him I find myself learning as I go and trying to further educate myself!

 

Thank you again,

 

V

I can respect that, I often learn from apologists mostly due to the fact that what they propose cannot be true.  They, however, spend so much time twisting the logic of their arguments, that finding "what's wrong with this picture" is rather difficult and can involve a bit of research.  I'm a little hard on the KCA because for the longest time, I found myself to be an agnostic because of it.  I find it as a younger me's Achilles' heel and hence have a bit of emotional baggage attached to it. Smiling Also of note is the Trancendental argument, it is a very good logic "what's wrong with this picture" puzzle.  And of course the good ole' OA Smiling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_argument_for_the_existence_of_God

When I was a theist I liked the cosmological argument, but I never found the ontological argument the least beat compelling... ever.  All the varieties of the ontological argument are horrible, even the updated ones in the 20th and 21st century.  It's the worst argument for God in the history of humanity -- quite possibly worse than presuppositionalism.

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
'Cause then you are into the problematic version of infinite regress, and need to explain what 'created' something more complex than a basic set of properties of space-time.

I'm perfectly content believing that G-d just made the rules and everything else did it's own thing.

Trading in your Theist Badge for a Deist Badge?

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

And while I don't happen to =believe= that (but pretty close!), I'd also be perfectly content if G-d was nothing more than the rules as they exist.  And you're going to have a pretty hard time claiming that the Laws of Nature don't exist, now aren't you?

Or trading in your Theist Badge for a Pantheist one?

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If I woke up tomorrow and no longer believed in G-d, NOTHING in my life would change.  Put that one in your didgeridoo and smoke it.

Atheist Badge?  

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override wrote:If you

Sage_Override wrote:
If you weren't completely oblivious, you'd realize I said JUDAISM, not BEING JEWISH because you can, apparently...WAIT FOR IT...be Jewish and not practice Judaism!  What a concept!  Some attest to being Jewish as a race rather than a secular choice, but you obviously knew that, right?  

Uh, no, they are PRACTICING JEWS.  They PRACTICE Judaism.  They say all the Jewish prayers, which involve "G-d" all over the place, and they DON'T BELIEVE IN G-D!  They took me to High Holy Days services this year.  They spent a boat load of time IN A SYNAGOGUE, PRAYING TO A G-D THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.

The only difference between a non-Atheist Jew and many Atheist Jews is one believes in the G-d they pray to and the other doesn't believe in the G-d they pray to.  I've had friends who are Atheists and they are more religious than I am, which is always weird.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension.

Sage_Override wrote:
Way to respond to the beginning of a long paragraph that you couldn't comprehend.  Bravo.  Re-read my ENTIRE paragraph first before making a comparison that isn't even on the same field of mental comprehension.

Nope, understood it perfectly.  Already went through all that once when I finally got Jesus out of my heart.  Wound up running off and becoming a Jew.  Go figure.

What you don't grasp is what Judaism =is=.  Back when I was more observant (G-d willing, I'll find the time and energy to get back to being more observant ...) than I am these days, all of those rituals you think of as weird or stupid or the result of brainwashing, served to ground and center me.  I =could= replace all those things with something else, like Buddhism, but why would I run off to some other set of meditative / contemplative practices when I've already figured out the whole reading right-to-left mess?

The best analogy I can think of is that Judaism is like Tai Chi for the soul, regardless of whether or not we actually have a "soul".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

And while I don't happen to =believe= that (but pretty close!), I'd also be perfectly content if G-d was nothing more than the rules as they exist.  And you're going to have a pretty hard time claiming that the Laws of Nature don't exist, now aren't you?

Or trading in your Theist Badge for a Pantheist one?

Panentheist -- if Brian could make me a Panentheist badge I'd be =very= happy.

Philosophicus wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
If I woke up tomorrow and no longer believed in G-d, NOTHING in my life would change.  Put that one in your didgeridoo and smoke it.

Atheist Badge?  

I don't think Brian would give me an Atheist badge if I kept praying to the G-d I no longer believed in.  That would probably stretch his definition of "Atheism" a bit much.  But it would be worth putting the question to him, just for laughs!

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Here's an easy

Ktulu wrote:

Here's an easy one for you.

Break the first premise down. 

1. Every one thing that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Number 3 is a non sequitur because the universe is not a THING, it is the set that contains all things.  See Russell's set paradox about including a set as part of itself. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

It is a category error. 

Kalam fails for many reasons.  If taken through to the intended conclusion, it is question begging.  

 

It like the liar's pardox: "This sentense is not true." 

Someone that is part of the universe is make a meta statement about the universe. So I think according the Godel, these statements about first cause are unprovable either way.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Uh, no, they are

Quote:

Uh, no, they are PRACTICING JEWS.  They PRACTICE Judaism.  They say all the Jewish prayers, which involve "G-d" all over the place, and they DON'T BELIEVE IN G-D!  They took me to High Holy Days services this year.  They spent a boat load of time IN A SYNAGOGUE, PRAYING TO A G-D THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.

The only difference between a non-Atheist Jew and many Atheist Jews is one believes in the G-d they pray to and the other doesn't believe in the G-d they pray to.  I've had friends who are Atheists and they are more religious than I am, which is always weird.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension.

 

Are you serious?  If they're ATHEISTS, they don't fucking believe.  If they're JEWISH, it means just that.  What's not to understand?  Reading comprehension, my ass.  You just threw out propaganda that you don't even understand and I corrected you.  Your "friend" and her husband are hypocrites; PERIOD.  If they practice Judaism, they aren't atheists.  Before you throw around labels, be sure you know what you're getting into because it's apparent that you don't thus far. 

 

Quote:

Nope, understood it perfectly.  Already went through all that once when I finally got Jesus out of my heart.  Wound up running off and becoming a Jew.  Go figure.

What you don't grasp is what Judaism =is=.  Back when I was more observant (G-d willing, I'll find the time and energy to get back to being more observant ...) than I am these days, all of those rituals you think of as weird or stupid or the result of brainwashing, served to ground and center me.  I =could= replace all those things with something else, like Buddhism, but why would I run off to some other set of meditative / contemplative practices when I've already figured out the whole reading right-to-left mess?

The best analogy I can think of is that Judaism is like Tai Chi for the soul, regardless of whether or not we actually have a "soul".

 

I love how you hide behind Judaism and say that you don't REALLY believe or whatever the hell you're trying to say when you respond to people regarding religion.  It's all muddled, incoherent mental confusion on your part anyway so, who cares?  You still follow a set of rules no matter how you justify it to yourself; YOU'RE A BELIEVER.  You can play these word association games, double-standards and any other crap you want, but in the end, you BELIEVE.  You can't fool us here and you aren't fooling me with your propaganda-fueled behavior.  Why you continue to be a cancer around here baffles me. 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Sage_Override

Sage_Override wrote:

Quote:

Uh, no, they are PRACTICING JEWS.  They PRACTICE Judaism.  They say all the Jewish prayers, which involve "G-d" all over the place, and they DON'T BELIEVE IN G-D!  They took me to High Holy Days services this year.  They spent a boat load of time IN A SYNAGOGUE, PRAYING TO A G-D THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.

The only difference between a non-Atheist Jew and many Atheist Jews is one believes in the G-d they pray to and the other doesn't believe in the G-d they pray to.  I've had friends who are Atheists and they are more religious than I am, which is always weird.

You really need to work on that reading comprehension.

Are you serious?  If they're ATHEISTS, they don't fucking believe.  If they're JEWISH, it means just that.  What's not to understand?  Reading comprehension, my ass.  You just threw out propaganda that you don't even understand and I corrected you.  Your "friend" and her husband are hypocrites; PERIOD.  If they practice Judaism, they aren't atheists.  Before you throw around labels, be sure you know what you're getting into because it's apparent that you don't thus far.

Right, they are very much Atheists in that they do not believe that G-d exists in any way, shape or form.

The problem you have is that you, like many other people who've been brainwashed by Christians, seem to think that worshiping G-d or begging G-d for goodies is the entire sum of a religion.  Judaism is a culture, a lifestyle, a history.  Jews are a people, a nation, mishpacha (a "family&quotEye-wink.

Let's say that tomorrow I wake up and go "Ah-ha! So, if G-d is just the laws of nature, then G-d doesn't really exist.  It's all just Physics!".  Do you know what changes I'd make in my culture and lifestyle and feelings of "familial bonding"?  None.  Because it is still my culture, and Jews are still my family, and all this history that other people have turned into a religion, is still my family history.

Last night, at the party, we were talking about the father of a friend who is getting over a major illness.  I mentioned that I was glad to see that he was doing better, since it looked like he was going to be dead much sooner than later.  The Atheist dude, on hearing from our friend's father that he was recovering very well, said the bless for healing -- "Blessed are you, our Lord, our G-d, who heals the sick."  AN ATHEIST.  Thanking G-d for healing the sick.  Doesn't it make your head just want to EXPLODE?

So, how would I -- as a hypothetical Atheist Jew -- conceptualize that?  Our bodies have the tools (not created by the G-d you've convinced me (l'havdil) that I no longer believe in) to heal ourselves, and our intellect (also not created by the G-d that I (l'havdil) no longer believe in) gives us the tools to come up with new methods to heal people.

How do I view things today?  G-d did all that -- "All Praise is due Allah", in the words of my cousins.  But even if -- G-d forbid -- I were an Atheist, I'd still maintain that same sense of awe and wonder that comes from looking out into the Universe and seeing all this really neat shit, that I just so happen to believe =today= that G-d created just so =I= personally could look out into the Universe and go "Wow!"  And because my ancestors called how that got created "G-d", I would still call that "G-d".  Which I do.

Sage_Override wrote:
Quote:

Nope, understood it perfectly.  Already went through all that once when I finally got Jesus out of my heart.  Wound up running off and becoming a Jew.  Go figure.

What you don't grasp is what Judaism =is=.  Back when I was more observant (G-d willing, I'll find the time and energy to get back to being more observant ...) than I am these days, all of those rituals you think of as weird or stupid or the result of brainwashing, served to ground and center me.  I =could= replace all those things with something else, like Buddhism, but why would I run off to some other set of meditative / contemplative practices when I've already figured out the whole reading right-to-left mess?

The best analogy I can think of is that Judaism is like Tai Chi for the soul, regardless of whether or not we actually have a "soul".

I love how you hide behind Judaism and say that you don't REALLY believe or whatever the hell you're trying to say when you respond to people regarding religion.  It's all muddled, incoherent mental confusion on your part anyway so, who cares?  You still follow a set of rules no matter how you justify it to yourself; YOU'RE A BELIEVER.  You can play these word association games, double-standards and any other crap you want, but in the end, you BELIEVE.  You can't fool us here and you aren't fooling me with your propaganda-fueled behavior.  Why you continue to be a cancer around here baffles me. 

Sigh.

Here's an example.

Let's say that about 235 years ago a bunch of people met in Philadelphia and declared Independence from Great Britain.  And they wrote of their experiences on a bunch of paper, and they published the ultimate document of their feelings and they called it ... The Declaration of Independence.

Fast forward another 3,265 years into the future and there are these "Americish" people practicing "Americaism", and then there are these "Posuerish" people practicing "Posueranity".

The "Americish" people know the real truth, that Thomas Jefferson and a bunch of other people declared Independence from Great Britain and on July 4th, 0AU (Anno USA) told old King George to stuff it.  A big war was fought.  We came, we saw, we kicked Red Coat ass.

The people practicing "Posueranity", they don't know the truth.  They think that the "Founding Fathers" were all some sort of minor deities and they worship a god who looks a hell of a lot like Thomas Jefferson.  Red hair and all.  They =worship= the Sacred Texts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  They offer sacrificial fireworks to the Independence gods -- Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Jay, Washington -- on July 4th and they eat sacramental hotdogs every Thursday to commemorate the day of the week Jefferson, their god, delivered the Holy Declaration of Independence (cast not your eyes upon it's original form, lest you be stricken down ...).  King George has pointy ears, cloven hooves and casts people into the pits of Taxation Without Representation where they are eternally tormented by the BBC and forced to watch Monty Python re-runs for all time.

That's the situation.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:The

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The people practicing "Posueranity", they don't know the truth.  They think that the "Founding Fathers" were all some sort of minor deities and they worship a god who looks a hell of a lot like Thomas Jefferson.  Red hair and all.  They =worship= the Sacred Texts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  They offer sacrificial fireworks to the Independence gods -- Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Jay, Washington -- on July 4th and they eat sacramental hotdogs every Thursday to commemorate the day of the week Jefferson, their god, delivered the Holy Declaration of Independence (cast not your eyes upon it's original form, lest you be stricken down ...).  King George has pointy ears, cloven hooves and casts people into the pits of Taxation Without Representation where they are eternally tormented by the BBC and forced to watch Monty Python re-runs for all time.

That's the situation.

That's probably the best analogy for Christianity I have ever read, very funny, except I enjoy Monty Python.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:FurryCatHerder

Ktulu wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

The people practicing "Posueranity", they don't know the truth.  They think that the "Founding Fathers" were all some sort of minor deities and they worship a god who looks a hell of a lot like Thomas Jefferson.  Red hair and all.  They =worship= the Sacred Texts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  They offer sacrificial fireworks to the Independence gods -- Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Jay, Washington -- on July 4th and they eat sacramental hotdogs every Thursday to commemorate the day of the week Jefferson, their god, delivered the Holy Declaration of Independence (cast not your eyes upon it's original form, lest you be stricken down ...).  King George has pointy ears, cloven hooves and casts people into the pits of Taxation Without Representation where they are eternally tormented by the BBC and forced to watch Monty Python re-runs for all time.

That's the situation.

That's probably the best analogy for Christianity I have ever read, very funny, except I enjoy Monty Python.  

I enjoy Monty Python as well, but not for the rest of Eternity.

And glad you enjoyed the piece -- it was fun to write

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek, is an atheist Christian.  If I remember him correctly, he quoted Psalms saying that "God exists on the seat of worship."  I think he still goes to church.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Robert

Philosophicus wrote:

Robert M. Price, The Bible Geek, is an atheist Christian.  If I remember him correctly, he quoted Psalms saying that "God exists on the seat of worship."  I think he still goes to church.

The senior pastor of the church I attended in the early '70s was an atheist.

The junior pastor wasn't.

The senior pastor was the better preacher =by far=.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Yeah,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Yeah, but I don't agree with you that G-d didn't create the laws that govern space-time itself

I really get all excited when I see a so called "theist" with brains in this forum! They are very rare I have to say!

BTW I don't need or believe infinite regresses to be able to fit G-d in the equation. Outside the physical world our conceptions of reality have no meaning. Thus saying that the First Cause (FC) was created or not is pure speculation. In any case the FC has pretty weird properties...

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
So I'm actually learning quantum field theory

The "uncertainty relation" beween energy and time is very different than that between momentum and position.  The latter governs our observations but the former does not.  "Virtual particles," as physicists call them, are not observed like "real" particles.  All observed particles obey Lorentz invariant physics (with the possible exception of superluminal nutrinos, which have yet to be independantly confirmed), and Lorentz invariance implies space-time translation invariance which implies conservation of energy and momentum.

In quantum mechanics, energy-momentum conservation can be "violated" (by "virtual particles&quotEye-wink only over very short time scales.  I am unaware of anything like particle number conservation or charge conservation being violated in this way, even at very high energies.  In fact, everything I'm learning now about quantum field theory says that particle number (and anti-particles count negatively toward particle number) and charge are not violated even in quantum processes.  Those symmetries do not have any uncertainty-like relation with time, so if there is a violation, it would not be analogous to the temporary violations of energy-momentum conservation.

 

On the other hand, charge and particle number each have negatives.  Creating a particle plus an antiparticle results in no particle number change (because antiparticles count as negative particles), and creating a particle along with its antiparticle results in no change in charge (because antiparticles also have the opposite charge of their particle counterparts).  As Bob suggested, if we had a source of negative energy (perhaps gravity), then we could create particles + negative energy without violating conservation of energy (remember, mass is basically just energy), which in turn means no quantum mechanical time limit. 

In fact, this is exactly what happens when you try to pull quarks apart.  Because the strong force (which binds quarks) increases in strenght as the distance increases, the energy in a pair of quarks increases significantly as you pull the quarks appart.  Eventually this energy will be enough to spontaneously create a quark-antiquark pair, which leaves you with two multi-particle states, rather than two free particles (as you would expect if you pulled a proton away from an electron).  The energy you put into pulling the quarks apart spontaneously turns into more quarks (and antiquarks) to make more bound states.  Hence, no free quarks.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

voicelord wrote:

If it helps, here is my (partial) argument:

 - Premise 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

I find the easiest way to deal with things is to deal with assumptions.


I have never observed everything. I know of no one who has. Upon what do you base this assumption?

On top of that, none of these quantum pairs the "come into existence and annialate" have ever been observed. They simply fall out of equations which, although extremely useful, have no basis for acceptability other than utility.

Or I can take you one step ahead to where I am but physics is not and may be too smart to ever be. Time does not exist until it is observed. IF we could observe these particles then we could only observe them during the time of their existence. But observing them would perturb them and that would not satisfy the equation which predicts their existence. In other words, there is no way to directly confirm the prediction. Indirect confirmation only confirms direct confirmation is not possible.

Time does not exist until it is measured and ceases at the end of the measurement. It is just a matter of how you look at it. Nothing I said disagrees with anything in either quantum theory or relativity. It does disagree completely with HG Wells' Time Machine. Unfortunately our ideas of time are Wellsian while the physics is something else entirely. I am not saying physicists know the difference. I have heard Wheelchairguy try to explain how the ideas of Wells may work. www.giwersworld.org/science/time.html for more discussion.

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Teralek
Theist
Teralek's picture
Posts: 614
Joined: 2010-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Origin of the Universe

If premise 1 is correct then it has to answer the infinite regress problem but if it is wrong it poses a proble to the Big Bang

3 possibilities for Universe origin:

Intentional First Cause ----> Doesn't need multiple Universes/dimensions to explain the Fine-tuned Universe. Needs at least another plane of reality from where this FC acted to create our own reality. Begs the question of who or what created the FC. This question is perfectly valid in "our" reality which is contained in the known laws of logic, mathematics and physics.... however the "other" reality most likely has inconceivable laws that we don't know nothing about. Any attempt to study it is biased by our own nature from which we are forever bound to. Things that are non sensical in this Universe might not be on the other. The only thing that can be inferred to this unknown FC is that it created this Universe intentionally for the purpose of creating conscient observers, thus is intelligent and most likely conscient.

Blind First Cause (M-Theory) ----> Needs multiple universes up to a scale beyond imagination. The scale of constants, force relations and possibilities of Universes with conscient observers is close to impossible to calculate in order to explain away the Fine-tuned Universe. From here on the M-theory faces the same problems as the IFC. Who or what created the 11th dimension? Is there infinite regress in the 11th dimension? If the crash of 2 branes creates another Universe in infinite succession into the future then there will be infinitely more Universes in the future. BUT! there will also be infinitely LESS Universes in the past. How did the first 2 branes came to be?

Singularity (no cause) ----> It is a possibility to begin with but it's the one who explains less about the origin of the Universe. It doesn't explain fine-tuning and the singularity itself is complete non sensical object that sprouted from absolute nothingness. I assume that nothing can come from nothing. When you talk about quantum fluctuations that come from nothing that is not true. Those fluctuations are a emerging property of the space-time continuum! There was no space-time continuum at Time=Zero

Question: Does time even makes any sense in the big picture or is just an emerging property of THIS Universe?

Question: How to conciliate or resolve at least one of 2 paradoxical problems? ----> Infinite regress of time of causality and Existence sprouting from absolute nothingness.

What do we know? According to our best guess the Universe DID start with the Big Bang. The scale of this problem is so big that the more prudent posture is humbleness to the solution, thus every guess is valid at this time. I would go with the first 2 because they answer more than just the singularity. I prefer the first to the second because it more easily explains the fine tuning although I know I'm incurring in the Anthropic principle illusion.

 

______________________________________________________________
"I once prayed to god for a bike, but quickly found out he didnt work that way...so I stole a bike and prayed for his forgiveness"

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max Planck)

"the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." Paul Davies


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
http://www.rationalresponders