(December 22, 2021 at 2:42 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Why..? modern theories just add more layers of complexity to classical notions. In the context of QM, we know that our scope of observation will be limited forever due to the uncertainty principle. Therefore, if our observations are simply limited, our ability to observe causes to effects is also limited, a fortiori. 

There is no apparent violation either, we don't detect an effect arising before a purported cause (and even if we do, it's still possible that we are chasing the wrong cause), we simply don't detect the cause

Case in point.  Rode in on assertions of an evidentiary case, but are now arguing what is not in evidence, what is not detected.  

Quote:I am asserting this based on classical physics as a good approximation of reality. This is my support. Someone who claims causality isn't a good notion to describe reality, should provide decisive examples of causality violations.

There is another way to put it, although I am not completely sure: if there were truly violations of causality happening casually at the quantum level, then we would expect causal events and retrocausal events to somehow cancel out when we observe things from afar as in classical physics, which means we wouldn't observe causality in classical physics.

-and such a person could do so, and has done so, which is why classical physics has been superceded...but.that's just a red herring.  What you've been doing is making demands of your god, insisting that such and such is a description of your god, on the basis of theories which we know are badly wrong. 

That's a mistake...but it's an honest one that islam has been making since the beginning, and it's no one's god but your own to shit on, in the end.  

If the universe must be some particular way for your god to exist, your god posited as the explanation for the universe being that particular way...but the universe is not that particular way..then your god doesn't exist. Same self inflicted wound that the authors of the quran fell into when they cribbed greek medicine as a part of their divine pitch.

: shrugs: 

Quote:Sorry, I meant omniscience. Omnipotence doesn't seem to imply full knowledge about anything

Obviously, yeah.

(December 22, 2021 at 4:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is the real cause of the Cosmos:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

You can't disprove it, therefore, it must be true.

Another variant of Last Thursdayism.

Like pure solipsism, it cannot be proven wrong. But anyone who actually believes it is legitimately crazy.

In both cases, it is necessary to define precisely how it is possible to talk about things that cannot be proven to exist, but which are mighty convenient for hypothesis testing.

(December 22, 2021 at 7:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 4:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is the real cause of the Cosmos:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

You can't disprove it, therefore, it must be true.

Another variant of Last Thursdayism.

Like pure solipsism, it cannot be proven wrong. But anyone who actually believes it is legitimately crazy.

In both cases, it is necessary to define precisely how it is possible to talk about things that cannot be proven to exist, but which are mighty convenient for hypothesis testing.

Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

(December 22, 2021 at 9:04 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 7:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Another variant of Last Thursdayism.

Like pure solipsism, it cannot be proven wrong. But anyone who actually believes it is legitimately crazy.

In both cases, it is necessary to define precisely how it is possible to talk about things that cannot be proven to exist, but which are mighty convenient for hypothesis testing.

Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

The absence of the world even for a nanosecond would cause a great deal of chaos.

Your first statement is unsupported by any evidence.
Second statement is untrue due to lack of evidence from the first statement
Conclusion is also unsupported by any evidence.

(December 22, 2021 at 10:14 pm)Rahn127 Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 9:04 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

The absence of the world even for a nanosecond would cause a great deal of chaos.

Your first statement is unsupported by any evidence.
Second statement is untrue due to lack of evidence from the first statement
Conclusion is also unsupported by any evidence.

According to your own standards.

But, you see, this is beyond science.

(December 22, 2021 at 10:51 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 10:14 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: The absence of the world even for a nanosecond would cause a great deal of chaos.

Your first statement is unsupported by any evidence.
Second statement is untrue due to lack of evidence from the first statement
Conclusion is also unsupported by any evidence.

According to your own standards.

But, you see, this is beyond science.

So it's outside of the outside.
Gotcha

(December 22, 2021 at 9:04 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 7:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Another variant of Last Thursdayism.

Like pure solipsism, it cannot be proven wrong. But anyone who actually believes it is legitimately crazy.

In both cases, it is necessary to define precisely how it is possible to talk about things that cannot be proven to exist, but which are mighty convenient for hypothesis testing.

Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

One of the positions taken in Islamic theology. God renews the universe between each instant and the next, creating anew in whatever way he desires.

Because of this, the notion of 'natural law' is seen as being anti-Islamic in medieval Islam.

(December 23, 2021 at 7:52 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 9:04 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

One of the positions taken in Islamic theology. God renews the universe between each instant and the next, creating anew in whatever way he desires.

Because of this, the notion of 'natural law' is seen as being anti-Islamic in medieval Islam.

Oh shit, they will now start claiming that the Many Worlds interpretation of QM proves Islam!

(December 22, 2021 at 5:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Case in point.  Rode in on assertions of an evidentiary case, but are now arguing what is not in evidence, what is not detected.  

I am not sure what more do you need to concede that causality holds.

Classical physics, even if superceded, is still a good approximation of reality. In fact, one can derive Newton's law of gravitation from GR, for example:
https://qr.ae/pG6gAE
If QM doesn't provide us with an actual exemple of violation of causality (do you have one?), but only with a theoretical limit of what one can observe, then there is no reason to abandon the causal principle. 

(December 22, 2021 at 5:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: -and such a person could do so, and has done so,

Who? Where?

(December 22, 2021 at 5:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:   What you've been doing is making demands of your god, insisting that such and such is a description of your god, on the basis of theories which we know are badly wrong. 

I am not sure why you are doubling down on this. I am not making demands of anyone. If causality is indeed false, and my argments towards a deity are wrong, this just means I can't prove theism, it doesn't mean it's unprovable, or that God doesn't exist, or that Islam is false.

---

(December 22, 2021 at 9:04 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Every nanosecond the world is destroyed and recreated.

That's how we perceive the passage of time and how we move.

If it didn't happen, we'd be stuck in one moment, one position, for ever.

Can anyone prove me wrong?

Good example. Conversely, nobody can prove by a logical argument that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, or that there is an external world, or that there are other minds.

These examples should make an atheist realize that not everything is proven by empirical observation.

(January 4, 2022 at 5:17 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 22, 2021 at 5:29 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:   What you've been doing is making demands of your god, insisting that such and such is a description of your god, on the basis of theories which we know are badly wrong. 

I am not sure why you are doubling down on this. I am not making demands of anyone. If causality is indeed false, and my argments towards a deity are wrong, this just means I can't prove theism, it doesn't mean it's unprovable, or that God doesn't exist, or that Islam is false.

Insisting all through this thread that a gods existence is necessarily tied to and convincingly demonstrated by a causal relationship with every other thing, where god sits at the bottom of it all - the one explanation for all things.  You think the world looks that way (which is awfully empirical..but I digress).  Simply put....If p, then q.

If, however, there is no such causal relationship...say...because we live in a fundamentally acausal universe, then there is no god.  Not q, therefore not p.  QED.

Hey, let's consider the rest though, right?  The Grand Causer may be DOA in an uncaused universe (there goes Big Mo's imaginary friend and any claim to that effect in magic book)...but, you're absolutely correct.  In an uncaused universe, theism could still be true.  It could still be that there's a personal and intervening deity.  There was never any requirement that a theistic god be The Grand Causer in the first place.  With that in mind, I consider it pretty much a given that you're personally incompetent.