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

[GrandizerII]

It may be noted, that Grandizers theory is testable.  If I am trying to avoid discussion, then all one would have to do, is present questions or arguments concerning either to what I had said or present an case for what you think is more compelling.  If he is correct, and I want to avoid logical and coherent objections, then it would follow that I would continue to do so.  I will note , that mere disagreement is not avoidance.  If however I don't have issue with interacting with other ideas, then it would seem that the seemingly self serving hypothesis  would be false.

You couldn't handle logical and coherent objections posted just a page back, and you won't address them anytime soon.

I do avoid some topics.  I try to avoid topics that are largely subjective or a matter of opinion.  I may avoid a topic, because I don't think the person will contribute anything of value or has a history of just attacking the person or name calling; rather than thoughtful discussion.  However this is a topic I like.

And yet, you avoid addressing the objections I've presented to you specifically because you just don't know how to effectively refute them. This is why you're resorting now to the tactics that you usually resort to when you can't address the logic.

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

No one except naive theists apparently. After all, you believe the whole fucking universe popped out of literal "nothingness". At most, atheists argue that particles appear to emerge a-causally from some quantum vacuum, but then again, the vacuum is not the same as the philosophical conception of "nothingness". And as for reason, your god apparently exists without reason.

[RoadRunner79]

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

I admit, that I was having a bit of fun there, and I didn't expect that anyone would agree with that or that this represents their position. But if we get rid of the principle of sufficient reason, then why not? If things can begin to exist without cause, then what would limit an elephant from appearing without cause? Given enough time and chance, isn't anything possible?

[GrandizerII]

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

I admit, that I was having a bit of fun there, and I didn't expect that anyone would agree with that or that this represents their position.   But if we get rid of the principle of sufficient reason, then why not?   If things can begin to exist without cause, then what would limit an elephant from appearing without cause?  Given enough time and chance, isn't anything possible?

You theists dismiss the principle of sufficient reason when it comes to your god anyway. You only demand it of the universe and the things in the universe. And yet, paradoxically, you're still all too happy to accept that the universe came into being without a material cause. How is that sufficient reason exactly?

And as for your last couple of questions, laws of physics perhaps? When you get to see an elephant pop into being for no reason, let us know.

[downbeatplumb]

You alleged "god" is supposedly a sentient thing with powers, where did it come from and how did it acquire the powers and the stuff and time make the universe? Where did it exist before it did all that?

Positing a god only adds questions that I have never seen any theist even try to answer.

So far, we have only been discussing that the universe has a cause. 

But a common objection is that everything needs to have a cause then.  This is why the premise is formulated as "that which begins to exist".  For something which didn't begin to exist, it is nonsense to require and explanation for that beginning (which did not occur).

Please explain HOW god did all the things you assign him. What was the process and where is your evidence in support of it?

Because without any of that stuff it is just unsupported speculation.

  Similarly, God's power would not be something which is traditionally understood to be acquired.  So to ask how it was acquired would be a non-sense question. [/quote]

Well that is a non-answer of previously unheard of magnitude.

Also, while the idea of God may invoke a number of questions, and we may not have answers for all of them; the KCA is making specific claims, of which it is saying that the classically understood God of theism best fits as an explanation to those attributes.

But they explain nothing and beg more questions than they are supposed to answer. It is easier to say the universe was created by some at present unknown natural event than to posit an intelligent agency that exists out side of every known aspect of the universe.

[Abaddon_ire]

RoadRunner, you have a problem with your argument. Kalam supports any deity of choice. Yahweh, Allah, Odin whatever. You have no option but to accept that gods which are not yours must also exist.

[LadyForCamus]

RoadRunner, you have a problem with your argument. Kalam supports any deity of choice. Yahweh, Allah, Odin whatever. You have no option but to accept that gods which are not yours must also exist.

Oh, well that’s where the science and math talk ends, and the “testimony as evidence” argument begins. 😇

---

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

I admit, that I was having a bit of fun there, and I didn't expect that anyone would agree with that or that this represents their position.   But if we get rid of the principle of sufficient reason, then why not?   If things can begin to exist without cause, then what would limit an elephant from appearing without cause?  Given enough time and chance, isn't anything possible?

Lol, what are you talking about?

[polymath257]

Given what we know of quantum field theories, it is far more likely that things pop into existence without cause.

What limits this process? The size of Planck's constant. Subatomic particles are far more likely to pop into and out of existence than larger things. Electron-positron pairs are more likely to pop into existence than Z-particles or massive quarks.

And, this appears to be simply a fundamental aspect of 'nothing'--i.e, the vacuum. Other than the rather self-referential 'explanation' that the laws of physics say that such probabilities exist (which is more of a description, than a derivation), this seems to be a bare fact about the universe we live in.

Furthermore, we have good, observational and theoretical reasons to think this lack of causality is basic to the nature of our universe. Causality as most people think about it derives from an average of these probabilistic events and isn't itself fundamental.

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people). 

And I agree. When there is a vacuum, there is NO THING in that vacuum. And yet, that vacuum can 'decay' and produce THINGS. So, yes, Some *thing* can come from no *thing*.

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

Yes, it does. It is the correlation between identical situations that shows a violation of causality. A good read for this is a little article by Mermin 'Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?'

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin%20longer.pdf

Mermin is, by the way, a very respected physicist with a long publication record and a very frequently used book on Solid State Physics.

[RoadRunner79]

Please explain HOW god did all the things you assign him. What was the process and where is your evidence in support of it?

Because without any of that stuff it is just unsupported speculation.

  Similarly, God's power would not be something which is traditionally understood to be acquired.  So to ask how it was acquired would be a non-sense question. 

Well that is a non-answer of previously unheard of magnitude.

Also, while the idea of God may invoke a number of questions, and we may not have answers for all of them; the KCA is making specific claims, of which it is saying that the classically understood God of theism best fits as an explanation to those attributes.

But they explain nothing and beg more questions than they are supposed to answer. It is easier to say the universe was created by some at present unknown natural event than to posit an intelligent agency that exists out side of every known aspect of the universe.

There are some philosophical reasoning, that there must be a necessary prime mover.   These things also follow from what the Jewish/Christian God has said about himself (a long long time ago).   Are you not familiar with Christianity?  You seem to act like these are some ad hoc explanation?

As to being a non-answer.  I don't know how else to explain it.  If there was no beginning, then it doesn't make sense to ask about a beginning which never occurred. 

As to your claim, if the only difference that you are positing is that one is an unknown natural event, and the other is an intelligence, then that doesn't get around your objections either.  Also, why do you say that it is easier?

---

RoadRunner, you have a problem with your argument. Kalam supports any deity of choice. Yahweh, Allah, Odin whatever. You have no option but to accept that gods which are not yours must also exist.

I agree.... It is a general argument which doesn't point you to any particular history or religion.  However it doesn't follow then, that you must accept all God's or gods that fit that description (I don't believe Odin does fit).  It's not necessary that all are required, so why multiply beyond necessity.

[GrandizerII]

Please explain HOW god did all the things you assign him. What was the process and where is your evidence in support of it?

Because without any of that stuff it is just unsupported speculation.


Well that is a non-answer of previously unheard of magnitude.


But they explain nothing and beg more questions than they are supposed to answer. It is easier to say the universe was created by some at present unknown natural event than to posit an intelligent agency that exists out side of every known aspect of the universe.

There are some philosophical reasoning, that there must be a necessary prime mover.

You mean ancient Aristotelian reasoning? Why then do you reject the necessity of material causation? Be consistent at least.

These things also follow from what the Jewish/Christian God has said about himself (a long long time ago).   Are you not familiar with Christianity?  You seem to act like these are some ad hoc explanation?

Oh, your god speaks then? When was "a long long time ago"?

As to being a non-answer.  I don't know how else to explain it.  If there was no beginning, then it doesn't make sense to ask about a beginning which never occurred.

So, if it is possible for the universe not to have had a beginning, then why the massive leap of faith? Why posit a supernatural being for which there is an utter lack of evidence?

As to your claim, if the only difference that you are positing is that one is an unknown natural event, and the other is an intelligence, then that doesn't get around your objections either.  Also, why do you say that it is easier?

Because an added entity implies an extra set of assumptions. And in this case, it appears to be a set of unwarranted assumptions.

[polymath257]

It may be noted, that Grandizers theory is testable.  If I am trying to avoid discussion, then all one would have to do, is present questions or arguments concerning either to what I had said or present an case for what you think is more compelling.  If he is correct, and I want to avoid logical and coherent objections, then it would follow that I would continue to do so.  I will note , that mere disagreement is not avoidance.  If however I don't have issue with interacting with other ideas, then it would seem that the seemingly self serving hypothesis  would be false.

I do avoid some topics.  I try to avoid topics that are largely subjective or a matter of opinion.  I may avoid a topic, because I don't think the person will contribute anything of value or has a history of just attacking the person or name calling; rather than thoughtful discussion.  However this is a topic I like. 

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

Very few.

Now, why does that not happen? Because of the size of Planck's constant. It is a small enough number, and it controls the rate of 'popping' in such a way that larger masses are less likely (exponentially) to 'pop' than are smaller masses.

So, for example, electron-positron pairs are far more likely than muon-anti-muon pairs simply because a muon is around 200 times the mass of an electron. Both types of 'popping' are still pretty common, though. When you get to something the mass of a proton, the probability (and thereby the rate) of 'popping into existence' is far, far lower. For larger atomic nuclei, the probability is so low, it doesn't tend to happen in practice. For something like a molecule, we would have to wait longer than the age of the universe for a 'pop' to happen.

So, you wanted to know why we don't see an elephant 'pop into existence'. That is the reason: elephants have way too large of a mass to make the probability of 'popping' significant.