Again, "not all effects have causes" is an oddly specific claim to attach to to our inability to ascertain any given cause. We've been in this position countless times (and we are in this position with other things as well) - Did rain "not have a cause" before we discovered it? Why do you imagine that you need to throw causality out the window in the face of QM in the first place? You don't. Even though we are in the dark, what we do observe can still be modeled and predicted with deterministic methods (this is a dividing line within the larger field, and while I know next to nothing about it I like to keep up with the usual apologist/wooster claptrap). This "QM or causality but not both" shit is just ridiculous. Do you really want to attach this to your god?

"God" isn't going to follow from anything that states, very simply - that there are things at some level of some interaction in any field which are beyond our ability to ascertain. You'll need much, much more to even claim that this would suggest god specifically, as a possibility - or could be supportive evidence of some god hypothesis. There's a disconnect, something has either not been done, or it has been left unsaid.

(November 1, 2014 at 10:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Again, "not all effects have causes" is an oddly specific claim to attach to to our inability to ascertain any given cause. We've been in this position countless times (and we are in this position with other things as well) - Did rain "not have a cause" before we discovered it? Why do you imagine that you need to throw causality out the window in the face of QM in the first place? You don't. Even though we are in the dark, what we do observe can still be modeled and predicted with deterministic methods (this is a dividing line within the larger field, and while I know next to nothing about it I like to keep up with the usual apologist/wooster claptrap). This "QM or causality but not both" shit is just ridiculous. Do you really want to attach this to your god?

You don't get it. Its not an inability to ascertain.

Bells theorem tells us for some events, there are no local causes. That leaves you two choices that I can see A)some events are un-caused. B)the causes of some events are non local. Unless we throw out the last century of physics...this conclusion about our world is not going to change.

Which still doesn't matter, as you just claimed that you would have to throw out cause and effect - which you would not.....you are now blathering on about a particular type of cause, a local one. Throw that one out if you like. You'll still be able to appeal to cause (and in fact proponents of Bells make such appeals), but a particular type of cause will have to be deemed insufficient. At present, if wiki can be trusted, no conclusive experimental test have been run that are "loophole free" but if you want to throw your chips in you can certainly do so (Bells won't "tell us" any such thing until that's accomplished, btw-heres where the phrase "what the evidence suggests" is actually appropriate). Even if they were, we still could not rule out determinism, and so we would still be able to appeal to cause, or, if you prefer, it wouldn't need to be thrown out. Not all effects have causes is not equal to "not all effects have local causes" Nor is our inability to ascertain whether or not some effect has a local cause, or our ability to determine that there is no local cause, proof that it doesn't have a cause. Again...even further out is the plugging in of "god" to this variable, or suggesting that because there is a variable, "god" should be squeezed in as though the rest of our body of knowledge on the subject is suddenly whisked away by magic.

QM has put physics in a bit of a newtonian mechanics state recently, sure. The old physics still works, but QM seems to work better at this level of scrutiny (far removed from our experience of course). Perhaps you should continue looking into all the other things that Bells Theorem would rule out before making that dive though. I'm willing to place money down that it also rules out some favored attachment to your god. Personally, I;m just looking forward to getting on with whatever the next trendy "science" apologists for all stripes of the divine will hop on to in service of their master. I'm getting tired of QM being the dead horse.

I believe that I have knowledge.

But how do I know what to believe?

(October 31, 2014 at 10:21 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 3:24 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The non-local cause thing would actually have been an interesting check mark for your side...if any of you had posited it BEFORE we discovered quantum weirdness.

Theists didn't have to posit it. Atheists posited it for us. Long before the discovery of quantum wierdness, atheists were proclaiming that if God exists we should see evidence for His existence in the world....like some event which can't be caused by anything in our reality. Low and Behold its discovered that some events do not have local causes. Apparently causes which are not part of our reality no longer get the check mark. You guys keep moving the goal posts back.

To be evidence of God it has to point to God, an intentional being, not poorly understood physics, which is just a God of the gaps. Some quantum phenomenena is clearly actually causeless, some may be tied up with parallel universes or additional dimensions, but that would just mean that 'reality' is bigger than we thought. There's absolutely no evidence that any of what's going on is intentional. To be evicdence of something, it has to be evidence of a particular thing, not just 'we have another mystery, therefore God'.

---

(October 31, 2014 at 10:37 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(October 31, 2014 at 10:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's a bit vague for a prediction. I don't think it would pass peer review. Bit like the weatherman "Tonights weather will be dark, ending with light at dawn."

Actually I don't like that last statement and would like to take it back. I don't know what atheists thought before the discovery of quantum wierdness. I only assume they thought such things. I just think MA criticism that it would have gotten a check mark if predicted ahead of time is a little ludicrous. He's taking a position that if someone made the prediction ahead of time....that prediction somehow changes the evidence. It does not.

Retraction accepted, belatedly.

You misunderstand me. Making the prediction ahead of time would be evidence that it was actually useful in making a prediction. Going back after something has been discovered to see if you can retrofit it into indicating prior knowledge is childish.

(November 1, 2014 at 12:03 pm)whateverist Wrote: I believe that I have knowledge.

But how do I know what to believe?

Reason applied to experience.

(November 3, 2014 at 11:39 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Retraction accepted, belatedly.

You misunderstand me. Making the prediction ahead of time would be evidence that it was actually useful in making a prediction. Going back after something has been discovered to see if you can retrofit it into indicating prior knowledge is childish.

When it was discovered by Hubble that the universe was expanding. Did that evidence bolster or weaken General Relativity? It bolstered it, because although nobody predicted an expanding universe, they should have....because it was an implication of the theory.

The same is true here. It doesn't matter that nobody predicted the appearance of effects which do not have local causes....it is still an implication of an existent God.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: The same is true here. It doesn't matter that nobody predicted the appearance of effects which do not have local causes....it is still an implication of an existent God.

Baseless assertion. You must realize that this is an argument from ignorance; we observe something that to date defies explanation, therefore God.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm)Cato Wrote:

(November 3, 2014 at 12:02 pm)Heywood Wrote: The same is true here. It doesn't matter that nobody predicted the appearance of effects which do not have local causes....it is still an implication of an existent God.

Baseless assertion. You must realize that this is an argument from ignorance; we observe something that to date defies explanation, therefore God.

Negative....not an argument from ignorance....there is no explanation which defies us because we know these effects do not have local causes. I am claiming the observance of effects without local causes is exactly something we should expect to see if an unseen God exists and interacts with this world.

Why - and particularly why god as opposed to any other "unseen cause" (notice here that we are still..you and I both, referring to causality even though we are entertaining QM - neither of us have been required to make any choice between the two) the field for which must be infinite almost by definition. Even allowing the suggestion of an unseen(or even harder, an "un-seeable") cause - this still does not yield a god. A further suggestion is required, which you have supplied. It;s not the evidence suggesting god, in other words. It's you. Did...and I'm just loving this one these past few days - the evidence suggest that some god made it rain, before we discovered elsewise? What evidence suggested that? In what way is this example you've offered different?

I understand that you don;t feel that this is an argument from ignorance - and I have a suggestion as to why that might be so. You feel that because we know that there is no local cause for some given event - that you are arguing from a point of knowledge (not ignorance). That would be fine, as long as you stuck to that narrow fact. You are, instead, positing the "unseen unknown cause" behind that known non local. You're arguing a related (rhetorically), but not equivalent point. Understand? Drawing the data and making the conclusions regarding one subject - but misattributing them to the other. Your hidden cause behind the known lack of local cause is an additional and cumbersome argument from ignorance. To claim that the evidence suggests this with nothing more than the claim itself as evidence isn't likely to yield any informative data about the issue at hand.

But suppose that the evidence did suggest god? Okay, we're in the situation I mentioned before. We have two explanations that would seem to fit the evidence. Now make some predictions. Get some of those checkmarks.

Do work. If the other guys are busting their asses and you aren't even trying to keep up I don't see why you would expect to find yourself in any situation other than the one you are in. Those folks have done, and continue to do- the work..and show their work. Is it really that surprising that people would throw their chips in with that lot, as opposed to the lot that makes claims and lets them hang in the air? Personally, I'm tired of testimonials and claims. I want to see some religious -work-. Shy of producing a god that's all that I have the patience for anymore - from those seriously intent on advancing the god position. I want to see that the god position can at least produce the quality of work - to a similar standard- that it;s opposition does. Otherwise, I'm laying the responsibility for the decline of religion solely on the shoulders of those advancing the position for having failed to so much as make the effort.