Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't think that you are realizing, that for the most part I am agreeing with you.   I wasn't talking about reason as it some ultimate purpose or making any statements about going back to a single cause, but as I think that you are not listening very well, and trying to make assumptions that go further back, then what I was stating.

So your "Religionists use such language because " spiel seems like a bunch of hooey in this context


I don't see a problem, if after I agreed with you; that you still wanted to go through your snowflake example.  There may be others who you wished to convey the idea.   However for you to still try to say that I was avoiding the question and just the general tone of your post, make me think that you completely didn't comprehend what I was saying.

OK my apologies then. Sorry.

[polymath257]

Another aspect of all of this is that most things do not have a *single* cause. The vast majority of events have multiple, converging, causes.

And that suggests that even if you disallow infinite regress (which is a logical possibility), that there will be *multiple* uncaused causes, possibly at different times and different locations.

And, of course, we know this to actually be the case: many quantum events are, in fact, uncaused causes and there are so many of these that the whole argument is blown out of the water.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and then we reassert ourselves.  There's some unknown cause underneath the quantum this or that's.
(it's jesus)

[RoadRunner79]

Another aspect of all of this is that most things do not have a *single* cause. The vast majority of events have multiple, converging, causes.

And that suggests that even if you disallow infinite regress (which is a logical possibility), that there will be *multiple* uncaused causes, possibly at different times and different locations.

And, of course, we know this to actually be the case: many quantum events are, in fact, uncaused causes and there are so many of these that the whole argument is blown out of the water.

How do we know this?   How is it determined that something is without a cause?

[polymath257]

Another aspect of all of this is that most things do not have a *single* cause. The vast majority of events have multiple, converging, causes.

And that suggests that even if you disallow infinite regress (which is a logical possibility), that there will be *multiple* uncaused causes, possibly at different times and different locations.

And, of course, we know this to actually be the case: many quantum events are, in fact, uncaused causes and there are so many of these that the whole argument is blown out of the water.

How do we know this?   How is it determined that something is without a cause?

Look into Bell's inequalities. It turns out that any causal system has to obey certain laws of correlation simply because it is a causal system.

The universe has been observed not to obey those laws, so it is not causal.

---

-and then we reassert ourselves.  There's some unknown cause underneath the quantum this or that's.
(it's jesus)

Except that isn't an option. The point is that *all* causal systems have to obey certain laws of correlation but quantum events do NOT obey those laws. Hence, they are uncaused. This is the whole point of Bell's inequalities.

The only way around this conclusion is to violate another aspect of causality: that causes lie in the past, which forces them to lie in the past light cone. This would then force a type of 'super-determinism' where everything is uniquely determined throughout all time and space by any single event.

Most people do not really understand the huge impact the violation of Bell's inequalities have on our understanding of causality.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that isn't an option.

Obviously it was, lol.   

I wasn't signing off on the reassertion...only predicting the future by reference to the past.  This entire thread will continue to circle so long as the opportunity is given.  I keep suggesting that everything be granted..but only because I lknow how that ends as well.  By ending.  Grant that caused shit has a cause and you'll have granted a tautology, entirely exhausted the apologists body of knowledge, still be left hanging with no god..and the thread will die until someone makes a new thread to reassert the contents of the old thread..never getting any further than this...because the argument is thousands of years old and was initially employed to prove pagan gods.

It has made no progress and proved no gods since that time..because it can't.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Postulate! That's what we should do. It's like granting but we're formally acknowledging that we're granting it only for the sake of the argument.

Great word! Sounds a bit icky though.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's just missing an "r", eh?

[possibletarian]

It's just missing an "r", eh?

Lol, i know what you were doing, but being British recognised the word.

icky
ˈɪki/
adjectiveinformal
adjective: icky; comparative adjective: ickier; superlative adjective: ickiest; adjective: ikky; comparative adjective: ikkier; superlative adjective: ikkiest

unpleasantly sticky.
nasty or unpleasant.
"the kids were eating something icky"
distastefully sentimental.
"a romantic subplot that is just plain icky"

[Mister Agenda]

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

Um, snowflakes don't begin to exist. They are a re-arrangement of existing matter. If the sense in which you're using 'begin to exist' includes snowflakes forming, then it includes our universe transforming from a previous state of existence.