Additional means of falsification:

3. Show causality does not exist.

In which case get ready for your nobel prize!!

---

(June 12, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Nestor Wrote: 1. Assume that nothing exists without a cause.
2. Assume that the universe is not eternal.
3. Allow yourself to specially plead that everything you assumed was not possible in and by nature is in fact possible in and by the power of an additional mysterious substance.
4. Problem solved!

Evidence? I hear assertions need them.

1. Evidence of things existing without cause.
2. Evidence of infinite causal regression.
3. Evidence of eternal nature of the Universe. (I believe this is contra to thermodynamics and current evidence supporting the big bang.)
4. To prevent special pleading evidence 1, 2 or 3.
5. Evidence awaited.

By the way I am willing to accept synthetic apriori and aposteriori evidence. So you may evidence by logic or experience.

(June 12, 2015 at 1:59 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 12, 2015 at 1:51 pm)Nestor Wrote: 1. Assume that nothing exists without a cause.
2. Assume that the universe is not eternal.
3. Allow yourself to specially plead that everything you assumed was not possible in and by nature is in fact possible in and by the power of an additional mysterious substance.
4. Problem solved!

Evidence? I hear assertions need them.

1. Evidence of things existing without cause.
2. Evidence of infinite causal regression.
3. Evidence of eternal nature of the Universe. (I believe this is contra to thermodynamics and current evidence supporting the big bang.)
4. To prevent special pleading evidence 1, 2 or 3.
5. Evidence awaited.

By the way I am willing to accept synthetic apriori and aposteriori evidence. So you may evidence by logic or experience.

1-4. Nobody knows either way as the evidence is both insufficient and inconclusive and our reasoning is ill-equipped to fully apprehend the terms involved in the matter (and your belief about thermodynamics/big bang would be misinformed).
5. Acknowledgement of ignorance and uncertainty awaited.

(June 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Anima Wrote: So let me see if I got this straight.  The touted empirical data shows that nothing exists without a cause.

And you infer from this fact that there must therefore be something which must have existed without a cause.  This doesn't seem like a very sound inference to me.

Quote:First I did not say "God made everything"  I simply said that according to the logic there must be a single cause without cause and that cause must be proactive (not reactive).  It just happens to be we already have a term for that which is the single proactive cause without cause and that term has been God.  We may use another term if God is to icky.  Perhaps Dark Cause?  Or Darth Genesis?

As you are a declared Catholic, you'll forgive me for flipping ahead a couple pages and assuming that when you talk about a single uncaused cause, you're talking about a Catholic God, and are currently laying the groundwork for such.

But it doesn't really matter.  Your central thesis is that all we know points to a special case which must necessarily violate all we know.  Call it what you want, but a magic wand is still a magic wand.

Quote:Now if wish to anthropomorphize the Universe such that it may behave proactively, very well.  I await your evidence of Universal proaction (not reaction) to beget itself?  Bear in mind that in anthropomorphizing the Universe you will be providing an argument to theist who contend God is everything while no particular thing is God.

We need to talk about the relationship between frameworks and the things found in them.  I agree that something must be unique: a framework has properties which the things operating within it do not.  I do not agree that you need to posit any extra entity or additional framework to solve the philosophical problem of regression.  This is because we can just as easily assume that the framework called Universe can have all those mystical, magical properties you insist must be attributed to that extra quantity.  In other words, if you are going to insist on brute fact, then the net should be cast as near as possible.

Quote:As I imagine you do not have direct experience with everything you consider to be factual

I didn't say I need direct experience.  I said that you have to provide me with some kind of experience that accords better with the God idea than without it.  I can tell you in no uncertain terms that this hasn't happened.

Quote:thus I would state once again that you are imposing a bias threshold of proof.  If you accept the same threshold of proof than the evidence is as you say just outside your window.  You do not observe infinite regressive causal chains and you observe existence outside your window.

I've said that evidence will be any experience which resolves (or at least contributes to a resolution of) a question posed to my world view.  Nothing I see outside my window in a literal sense, or in my experience of the world in a more general sense, accords better with the idea of God than that of not-God.  I don't require scientific proof, or even physical proof, of God.

Your logic is: "Infinity cannot be possible, therefore something infinite made the universe."  You might as well just say, "Existence is a paradox," or even just "This sentence is false."

(June 12, 2015 at 1:01 pm)Anima Wrote: First I did not say "God made everything"  I simply said that according to the logic there must be a single cause without cause and that cause must be proactive (not reactive).  It just happens to be we already have a term for that which is the single proactive cause without cause and that term has been God.

It is true that we cannot describe the uncaused-cause of of Aquinas. But then ... it's really not that simple. First of all, we don't know if space is finite or infinite. You may hear scientists say something like space is not "nothing" -- it has attributes, and we have no way to describe space beyond our universe (some would say, IMO erroneously, it doesn't make sense to think in terms of a space beyond our universe).

And it gets tricky, because physicists like to use confusing terminology when answering this question (mostly because there's no consensus on this issue, but also, we see a shift between old physics and new physics, and terms like "particle space" and "non-particle space" are now being used by some physicists, while others are still beating what appears to be an outdated mantra), but there are many hypotheses that postulate something beyond our universe, and indirect evidence that points to spontaneous universe formation (which would tend to support the multiverse hypothesis). For example, the Casimir effect for creation of virtual particles under zero point energy, provides indirect evidence that VPs can form in a vacuum or vacuum like conditions (indicating that particles can spontaneously form from nothing -- a vacuum).

Here's a great video that you might enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo

Another point of confusion here is the use of language like "created out of nothing." Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles. We can observe virtual particles when running experiments (like the experiment ran by Hendrik Casimir), and these experiments perform best when calculated in terms of zero point energy (essentially, mimicking a vacuum). But is a vacuum nothing? That would seem to be more of a philosophical question, and while there hasn't been enough of a consensus to produce dogma on this issue, physics is running away from this position, and not only younger physicists, but many leading theoretical physicists. The implications of the Lambda-CDM model are a multiverse, implying the existence of a "beyond our universe" ... and so I'm glad to see physicists giving this property a description.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse." Alan Guth (theoretical physicist who was an early pioneer of inflation theory, which btw is remarkably consistent with measurements taken from the NASA WMAP mission).

But honestly, I'm not really sure why people still argue these points. Even if through our study of dark matter, quantum gravity, etc., we find evidence supporting these theories, and we're able to point to an uncaused-cause; that would not rule out the possibility of a god (although I suppose the arguments would become considerably more strained, but that hasn't stopped religionists before, so I don't expect very much to change in that regard). After all, proclamations by prominent physicists like Stephen Hawking saying stuff like "god wasn't necessary" for the formation of our universe, hasn't swayed religious apologists in the least.

Nonetheless, most of these questions have NO concrete answer, and so sure, there's a gap where you can fit a god. But then again, I remind everyone of the pattern. As the gaps where you can fit a god have narrowed, the story has continually changed (pivoting from literal to figurative interpretation).

But there is one tasty irony that you (and other religious apologists) might find amusing. My position here is at direct odds with what I view as the philosophically extreme position that if you can't measure it ... it isn't real. So maybe that gives you a gap the size of a swimming pool where you can fit a god, or gods, or some sci-fi version of creation. So it's not as if I'm not open minded enough to accept the possibility of the existence of something we can't detect, measure, etc. I would just say that in the case of at least the Abrahamic faiths, we have a long long track record that we can analyze

(June 12, 2015 at 9:19 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo

I FUCKING LOVED THIS!!  It made me whip out my Quantum Mechanics books which I have not looked at since I got my Master's in Electrical Engineering.  Great shit!!!

1.  The Irony:  The irony is indeed amazing.  While I am positing the existence of a single proactive cause which was not caused by anything else to avoid an infinite regressive chain at the beginning (and hearing staunch opposition).  You are positing the existence of innumerable virtual particles at all times to establish the existence of "some kind of space-time quantum foam sort of something existed before our own universe began."  Now I delayed response to research and to see if everyone was as opposed to this as what I was positing.  Somehow the majority seem okay with the existence of innumerable virtual particles while be opposed to a single proactive cause without cause (I am still geeking out about it!!!):
https://youtu.be/MzzlgxTvCIM
By general atheistic threshold of proof you would need to evidence these virtual particles in a manner that is not implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  Now I recognize as soon as I say that, others will say that threshold of proof does not need to be satisfied by this theory; in which case one may argue special pleading or bias.  However, I am content with implicit circumstantial proof and am willing to consider the existence of these virtual particles.

2.  Virtual Particles:  From what I have researched in my old texts and online, virtual particles are explanatory method utilized in Feynman diagrams to describe the interaction of actual particles in such a way as to not simply state spooky action at a short distance.  Which is akin to saying, "imagine electron flow through a conductor as water through a pipe where Voltage = Water pressure; while Amperage = Rate of Water Flow."  While beneficial as an explanatory method this is not to say electrons are water.  In like manner virtual particles as an explanatory method for describing the interactions between actual particles should not be considered actual particles of an independent existence such that they alone may comprise quantum foam. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_pa...n_diagrams).  

"The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescopes have detected that among gamma-ray photons arriving from the blazar Markarian 501, some photons at different energy levels arrived at different times, suggesting that some of the photons had moved more slowly and thus contradicting the theory of general relativity's notion of the speed of light being constant, a discrepancy which could be explained by the irregularity of quantum foam.[3] More recent experiments were however unable to confirm the supposed variation on the speed of light due to graininess of space.[4] Other experiments involving the polarization of light from distant gamma ray bursts have also produced contradictory results.[5] More Earth-based experiments are ongoing[6] or proposed.[7]...  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)

Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects. This force has been measured and is a striking example of an effect captured formally by second quantization.[3][4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect)

The calculation that underlies the Casimir experiment, a calculation based on the formula predicting infinite vacuum energy, shows the zero-point energy of a system consisting of a vacuum between two plates will decrease at a finite rate as the two plates are drawn together. The vacuum energies are predicted to be infinite, but the changes are predicted to be finite. Casimir combined the projected rate of change in zero-point energy with the principle of conservation of energy to predict a force on the plates. The predicted force, which is very small and was experimentally measured to be within 5% of its predicted value, is finite.[32] Even though the zero-point energy is theoretically infinite, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that infinite amounts of zero-point energy are available for use, that zero-point energy can be withdrawn for free, or that zero-point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point..._cosmology)

Ordinarily, quantum field theory does not deal with virtual particles of sufficient energy to curve spacetime significantly, so quantum foam is a speculative extension of these concepts which imagines the consequences of such high-energy virtual particles at very short distances and times." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam)

3.  Pair Production:  Review and research into Heisenberg uncertainty principle generally holds particles which are created must conserve the total fermion quantity in the universe.  As such a fermion is not created without creating an anti-particle which annihilates readily with the particle.  From the theory being presented it is stipulated that within this quantum foam hesienberg uncertainty would allow for the spontaneous creation of fermions on the scale of 1x10^-3 grams.  Given the mass of a proton is 1.67x10^-24 grams and other fermions which are even smaller this would be stating that Heisenberg uncertainty would allow for the creation of numerous virtual particles (6x10^20) without the creation of virtual anti-particles at the same time which would annihilate almost immediately in a highly confined volume of 1x10^-99 cubic cm.  Thus under this theory the quantity of fermions is not conserved.

“Thus, virtual particles are often popularly described as coming in pairs, a particle and antiparticle, which can be of any kind. These pairs exist for an extremely short time, and mutually annihilate in short order. In some cases, however, it is possible to boost the pair apart using external energy so that they avoid annihilation and become actual particles.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_pa...n_diagrams)

4.  Vacuum:  In philosophical terms I would not consider a vacuum as nothing (and it does appears that physics is coming to agree with the philosophy).  While it may not consist of particles it does already consist of dimensions of space and time.  As such it would seem that stating the quantum foam as existing within a vacuum of any given space or time (even of planck length or time) would be considered begging the question.  As the aforementioned would simply be describing the expansion of the already existing space and time, while using heisenberg uncertainty to get some “stuff” rather than the beginning of existence.

Perhaps we may get Alex K to explain a little more.  As I confess my quantum mechanics is rusty.  In either case I love video and hope they are able to verify this theory!!!

(June 14, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 12, 2015 at 9:19 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo

I FUCKING LOVED THIS!!  It made me whip out my Quantum Mechanics books which I have not looked at since I got my Master's in Electrical Engineering.  Great shit!!!

1.  The Irony:  The irony is indeed amazing.  While I am positing the existence of a single proactive cause which was not caused by anything else to avoid an infinite regressive chain at the beginning (and hearing staunch opposition).  You are positing the existence of innumerable virtual particles at all times to establish the existence of "some kind of space-time quantum foam sort of something existed before our own universe began."  Now I delayed response to research and to see if everyone was as opposed to this as what I was positing.  Somehow the majority seem okay with the existence of innumerable virtual particles while be opposed to a single proactive cause without cause (I am still geeking out about it!!!):
https://youtu.be/MzzlgxTvCIM
By general atheistic threshold of proof you would need to evidence these virtual particles in a manner that is not implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  Now I recognize as soon as I say that, others will say that threshold of proof does not need to be satisfied by this theory; in which case one may argue special pleading or bias.  However, I am content with implicit circumstantial proof and am willing to consider the existence of these virtual particles. . . . (rest of post omitted for the sake of brevity)

Nice job ... and so it remains to be seen whether or not this can account for the creation of a universe. This is obviously a super-interesting topic (for science geeks anyway, and although I'm a molecular biologist, I've taken quite a few physics courses, as you had to for EE). So I wonder how the possible existence of a multiverse effects the theology of the Catholic church?

It even remains to be seen whether or not some other underlying cause exists (i.e. even if this hypothesis is largely true, is there something else causing things like quantum fluctuations)? The answer is of course ... we don't entirely know. But it is possible that this hypothesis describes a non-particle space that represents the end of the chain of causation (though I should say, one major problem I've always had with cosmological arguments is they're premised on human intuition, and I'm not a fan of measuring scientific possibilities against human intuition, since humans really only have the capacity to understand things, roughly speaking, between grains of sand and mountains, we did not evolve in a way that enables us to understand quantum mechanics intuitively, as I'm sure you'd agree).

Moreover, as I said, even if we can one day come up with ways to test this hypothesis, it would not rule out a god (quite frankly, I think it's impossible to "rule out" a god scientifically, it's almost an absurd to think we can). But in response to the point you raised about the need for evidence in this case, I fully agree, although it may be possible to test this hypothesis in ways that do not require the seemingly impossible (e.g. somehow traveling to the boundary of our universe and seeing if we can observe the existence of something beyond it).

Personally, I've accepted the fact that we don't know everything. In my mind it's okay to say that "we don't know" ... more investigation is needed, without feeling the impulse to attribute these things to the myths of our ancestors. For me, an analysis of religion starts with, well, an analysis of religion. What do they claim today, what were they claiming yesterday, the day before that, the century before that, and so on. And the fact remains that religious theology continues to rely on a god of gaps argument, and by now so many of those gaps have closed, the credibility of these arguments are strained.

A good analogy might be ... a snake oil salesman comes to town. The first concoction he sells people makes them sick. The second concoction has no effect at all (but again, it fails to live up to its promise of curing illness). Third concoction, fourth concoction, etc., all turn out to be bullshit. Do we continue to buy the snake oil?

I'll grant the Catholic church this much, it seems to do a better job with this fact than other faith systems. It does seem to expend considerable time and effort on massaging its theology in a way that sort of keeps the issue cloudy enough to maintain some level of (almost) plausible deniability. Of course the problem with the Catholic take on these things is the Catholic church has a very long history that we can reach back to (which is why, I suspect, it expends so much time and energy on gently massaging its theology in way that obscures the fact that they do keep shifting the goal post, while at the same time, they're able to plausibly --in the minds of its adherents at least-- hold on to the claim that their official doctrines are infallible).

Moreover, I like Pope Francis so much that I really don't want to spend very much time criticizing (he's almost as left wing as I am, with the exception of issues like gay and reproductive rights, albeit I understand that no Pope could change the churches position on these issues in a credible way, but even in these sensitive areas, he's not very dogmatic, which again is commendable). Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in having a decent society where people care about each other as opposed to wasting huge amounts of time and energy battling with religionists over questions that we'll probably never resolve. I'd be happy enough if people became a little more skeptical, to the point where they no longer feel like they have a mandate from a god instructing them to commit murder or inhibit the rights of others and so on (as far as I'm concerned, I love our Bill of Rights, and I think that people have a right to their beliefs, again, as long as they're not impeding the rights of others). Like the Catholic church wants to say that a small collection of cells, which are not sentient in any reasonable sense, somehow comprise "life" ... and as absurd as I may think that position is, I'm not bothered by the fact that people hold this view, I'm only bothered when these views inform our public policy). This is why we have a judicial branch of government. To enforce our Bill of Rights, which is to say that we're a secular democracy founded upon a separation of church and state, and thus where religious dogmas appear in our public policy, our court system should strike it down. But then, our courts are only as good as the justices who sit on the bench, and there's always the possibility that we could return to a dark and theocratic society (especially in a reactionary culture, where the religious feel threatened by the encroachment of other faiths, like Islam, and instead of dealing with that threat in an enlightened way, it's very easy for a society to reflexively go down the path of tribalism).

But again, for me, religious arguments are not persuasive. It's as if on his fifth attempt, the snake oil salesman refined his sales pitch. Those earlier concoctions did in fact have some curative effect, even though it wasn't obvious at the time, and so I never lied. It's just that you'll need a dose of my new concoction to realize those benefits. Ahhhhhh

I guess we also have to deal with the fact that many people are not "quantitative" in their outlook, they're visual, artistic types, who in many cases have an affinity towards spirituality (even if they're not formally religious). So of course in comes the guru's, the Deepak Chopra types, who blend eastern mysticism with quantum jargon (that has no relationship with real science). Ultimately, their case in chief reduces to personal experience, which can be easily explained by conventional psychology and/or neuroscience. But then, you can't deny the artist their spirituality or their perceptions regarding personal experiences, unless you want to have a long drawn out bickering contest with new age types, and what would be the point anyway (although I still reserve the right to pick on Christian Scientists, because it's really fun to pick on Tom Cruise and his flaky sheeple, and their anti-science posture really does need to be challenged, because it's potentially harmful, like some people do really need psychotropic drugs, even though we may overuse these drugs ... but in that case, it's capitalism not science causing the problems)? And also, here in the US, evangelicals are a real problem. They are in fact influencing public policy, literally going as far as changing history books to conform with their essentially mythical version of American history, they work hard to keep real science out of our schools, and so if we want to remain economically competitive and intellectually progressive, we have to challenge this crap. At the same time, I'm real apprehensive about Pope Francis' call for a truce of sorts with atheism (I think that really reflects a church that's worried about the increasing secularism of Europe, and to a lesser extent, the US). Pope's die, our next Pope could be another Benedict type (or worse), and so I'm not gonna team up with the RCC just because the current Pope seems like a really nice guy, who seems so devoted to socialism that he might be willing to roll out a sleeping bag and do some protesting with us. Nonetheless, I have worked with Catholic groups (and some Episcopalian clergy members) during occupy wall street (which I was somewhat involved in), and consider many of them to be good friends (I've maintained those relationships, because they're good people who give a shit). And incidentally, I've always viewed Jesus as the first famous anarchist (and I really think that somewhere along the way, some Roman inserted that bullshit about 'give to Caesar' ... since it's so inconsistent with everything else Jesus said, and so obviously self-serving for the then existing Roman government). I'm willing to view Jesus as an anarcho-socialist superhero of sorts, just not a godman.

I should also say, the church (to its credit I suppose) does not draft dogma arbitrarily or without significant thought (including with regard to its scientific implications). So it is true that many of the changes we see in the Catholic church did not necessarily involve official doctrinal changes (but rather changes in the way these doctrines are taught). So for instance, at one time the church was steeped in a view that the earth stands in the center of our universe. But was that explicitly official dogma? The church is smart in the sense that it almost always leaves itself enough wiggle room to adapt to changing information (in particular, new scientific discoveries).

I'm not sure how it treats claims like those contained within the Exodus narrative, which many archaeologists consider mythical at this point (there's been many excavations of the Sinai over the last century, and although the digs should have found evidence supporting the Exodus narrative if it indeed happened, nothing has been found, leading to the conclusion that the Exodus narrative never happened).

Genesis, Exodus, mythical, figurative, but then if these foundational narratives are not historical truth, how does that affect the credibility of the Jesus narrative (who is linked to these earlier forebearers of Judaism by a number of New Testament passages)?  

Faiths will even point to their continued existence over the course of centuries (or longer) to bolster their claims, but I'm not sure why we should find that fact compelling?

(May 21, 2015 at 4:12 pm)Anima Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Iroscato Wrote: And I am an olympic-level triathlete with two impressively-proportioned penises called Clive and Gary.
I'm also a genius and can invent a new language every week, particularly ones built around requests for sexual debauchery.

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, sire.

As is mine.

Praise be to your ability to invent the profane.

Your belief not with standing I have achieved what I have stated.

Too bad you haven't achieved enough experience on the internet to know what bringing up your qualifications unasked looks like. Nothing speaks to your actual level of education more than the quality of your posts.

Welcome to the forum, it seems an odd subject for debate, but I hope you get a taker.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Anima Wrote:

(May 21, 2015 at 4:18 pm)TRJF Wrote: Yeah, you're going to need to do a... far better job of explaining your position before someone will agree to debate you on it.

As you wish:

I understand the atheistic position to not accept that which may not be empirically verified.  Therefore it may be said atheism does not recognize that which is metaphysical and cannot be verified empirically.  

I further understand atheism to contend that our sentiments, feelings, compulsion, instincts, and so forth are simply a result of of the chemical reactions in our brains.  Thereby rendering us as meat automatons which react to stimuli.

Being meat automatons that react to stimuli means there is no "person" and we are no different than a rock which reacts to its surroundings or bacteria which reacts to stimuli.

You've got atheism and empiricism mixed up. All there is to atheism is not believing in any deities actually being real, full stop.

That first misunderstanding contributes to the next two, but not fully. You skipped a step between 'chemically-based' and 'meat-automatons', probably are using a peculiar defintion of 'automaton', and probably meant to say 'only react to stimuli', because it would be very odd if we didn't react to stimuli, God or not, right?

At any rate, you're about as wrong as would be expected from someone who hasn't bothered to find out the first thing about us before forming conclusions that reassure you that there's not the slightest possibility of an opinion on the topic of God's existence differing from yours having any inkling of merit. Good strategy for staying safe and comfortable in your current worldview, but visiting us isn't, so I have some hope that you're reachable.

(May 21, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Anima Wrote: Correct.  The argument is predicated on empiricism and physicalism(sub branches of idealism).

That would have been the thing to say instead of 'atheism', then.

---

(May 21, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Anima Wrote: Regarding your question of the rock I would respond what rock does not react to its surroundings?  The rock weathers in response to the weather.  The rock falls in response to gravity.  The rock stops rolling in response to friction. And so forth.

There are important differences between being subject to events and being able to react to them (or act on them).