Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Duty]

Does that physics stuff violate "Feynman's law" ("if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM") in your opinion, Jehanne? I'm crap at physics so can't make head nor tail of it...

Shut-up and calculate (or, calculate and shut-up, or, both!)

That's the other zesty QM quote hahaha, aces and answers my question...sorta (ie: pinch of salt dear fellow, pinch of salt).

[polymath257]

Even if the universe requires a cause, so what? Why can't that cause be natural?

I have posted this before on this board, but, I suppose that it deserves repeating:



A similar proof seems to be in Griffiths (although, Professor Griffiths would likely not approve of this!):

Yes, in QM, we usually allow t to go from -infty to +infty.  There are several issues with that, though.

1. It is typical in physics to have both space and time infinite to simplify the calculations. It is recognized that this is an approximation that needs to be addressed at the appropriate (usually in cosmology). Since most quantum processes are very fast, even a second can often be modeled as an infinite amount of time.

2. The second panel says NOTHING about time going from -infty to +infty. The limits on the integrals are over an infinite *space* not an infinite time. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with 'eternal time'.

3. We *know* that general relativity needs to be addressed at some point. And GR predicts a *finite* time duration. The problem is that GR is a classical theory, so what we *really* need is a theory of quantum gravity. Neither of your panels contain anything close to such. At best they are an approximation for flat spacetime.

General recommendation: don't post stuff that you don't understand as part of an argument you are trying to make.

---

Does that physics stuff violate "Feynman's law" ("if you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM") in your opinion, Jehanne? I'm crap at physics so can't make head nor tail of it...

Both are pretty standard QM. Griffiths is an *undergraduate* book. It's at the level of 'shut up and calculate'.

[Jehanne]

2. The second panel says NOTHING about time going from -infty to +infty. The limits on the integrals are over an infinite *space* not an infinite time. I'm not sure why you think it has anything to do with 'eternal time'.

If space can be viewed as being infinite, then time may be viewed as being infinite, also, as the speed of information transfer ("light") is finite. (Pease re-read Professor Griffiths' last sentence in the above.)

In any case, models of infinite cosmologies (both of time and space) exist, and have found their way into The Physical Review Letters, a peer-reviewed journal of the APS.

I am not a physicist, but have read Professor Griffiths' undergraduate QM texts (both the 2nd and 3rd editions) and have found his proof helpful in understanding Professor Sean Carroll's (who is a physicist) Quatum Eternity Theorem.

That's all I have ever claimed. (And, it's a free country, and I can post what I like subject to the moderators approval/disaprroval.)

[R00tKiT]

If there were no physical laws, there would be no causality at all.

This only means that causality is a necessary condition of physical laws. It doesn't mean it is a physical law per se.
I will again ask you to provide some reference citing causality itself as a physical law.

For there to *be* a designer takes enough structure and orderliness that some sort of physical laws (or laws governing the behavior of the designer) are required. So the most fundamental laws *cannot* be designed, but must be uncaused.

As I said earlier, all physical laws are descriptive, they merely describe the inner workings of a universe. They have ZERO explanatory power of the universe's existence.

So, your conclusion that laws are uncaused is simply ridiculous. Think about the game of chess, the fact that chess pieces can only move according to very precise rules doesn't mean they are uncaused, someone created the game. The rules of chess simply describe how the game should be played and have no independent existence.

Now, if we picture the universe as some giant chessboard where the laws of physics are analogous to the rules of chess, our scientific theories are merely the formulation of these rules, they still warrant an originator of the chess game....

In other words, laws point to a lawgiver, it's that simple.

No, it does NOT follow that the universe is eternal, just that the physical laws, time, space, matter, and energy are co-existent. It is *possible* that all are of limited duration. of course, it is also *possible* that they are all eternal (infinite in duration). We just don't know.

Aquinas gave the trivial reason for why there can't be a universe with an infinite duration hundreds of years ago: We are here, which means that there can't be an eternal past.

Your god proposition is neither self-evident

I am going to ask you again once:

Do you think the following proposition : There are infinitely many prime numbers.

1) Is falsifiable ?
2) Is experimentally verifiable ?
3) Requires empirical evidence ?

These are Y/N questions.

In order for a deductive argument to be sound, it needs to be valid and have true premises.

Why do you dismiss inductive and analogical arguments? Besides, the cosmological argument -as an example of a deductive argument- is completely valid, and does prove there is a cause to this universe. If you attempt to object to it, you have to bear the cost of either rejecting causality or dismissing modern cosmology, pick your poison.

The only way to demonstrate the truth of your premises is with evidence; ya know, that thing you said we were mistaken in asking you for.

No, you got it backwards, premises can be some facts or evidence within the universe, that's what an a posteriori argument means. What I was pointing to is the simple fact that we can't apply the scientific method which, above all, investigates repeatable phenomena, to a being who purportedly interacts with the world by rarely occuring miracles.

So, scientific experiments demand repeatable, maybe even reproducible phenomena.
A divine miracle by definition is neither repeatable nor reproducible.

Therefore, it is a category mistake to apply the scientific method to such a metaphysical being. I think this can't be clearer.

I haven't rejected the principle of causality.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  Because we know nothing about any predecessor universe, we cannot say that such a universe began to exist and therefore the assumption stated in premise one of the cosmological argument does not apply to that universe.  I haven't rejected causality.

Well, you don't get to assert that the cause of our universe is a universe in the first place. If we assume that this is the case, then, for the same reason mentioned above, it can't be eternal. An infinite duration must have elapsed within this universe before it suddenly, somehow, caused our own, which is clearly impossible.

 Theists suggest that a supervenient reason can explain why a good god allows evil, but when the same is applied to a malevolent god,

The word "evil" itself is meaningless outside theism, I am not sure what you're driving at here. The observable state of affairs is that we have, on average, a moral compass and a sense of justice, that's how we managed to form societies, and we are endowed with things like maternal instincts, empathy, altruism, etc. The instances of evil or malevolence are exceptions of these rules, and exceptions don't invalidate a rule, they confirm it.

You haven't shown that there is anything especially marvelous about the order of the universe.  

Well, look around, I guess? They say the sky at night is really awe-inspiring, did you ever bother to go out and take a look?

  First, the universe is not in any significant way like a machine, and so your analogy is as close to being useless as it can be. 

You're right, the universe is not like a machine, it's far better than it, so much so that we design insect-inspired helicopters. And if you really insist on this disingenuous nonsense, here's a challenge for you: replace your natural body parts with their artificial equivalents. I'll wait for visual confirmation.

Until you do that, this analogy is as strong and useful as it can be.

---

In any case, models of infinite cosmologies (both of time and space) exist, and have found their way into The Physical Review Letters, a peer-reviewed journal of the APS.

All kinds of models exist. Until they have experimental confirmation, they are nothing more than thought experiments, and so they can't be used in an actual argument.

[Angrboda]

I haven't rejected the principle of causality. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Because we know nothing about any predecessor universe, we cannot say that such a universe began to exist and therefore the assumption stated in premise one of the cosmological argument does not apply to that universe. I haven't rejected causality.

Well, you don't get to assert that the cause of our universe is a universe in the first place. If we assume that this is the case, then, for the same reason mentioned above, it can't be eternal. An infinite duration must have elapsed within this universe before it suddenly, somehow, caused our own, which is clearly impossible.

I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason. You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe in the absence of a god. You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith. On top of which is that Aquinas' opinions about change are mere ipse dixit and so don't necessarily hold. But by all means, present your argument against actual infinities. Until then, your objection is groundless.

Theists suggest that a supervenient reason can explain why a good god allows evil, but when the same is applied to a malevolent god,

The word "evil" itself is meaningless outside theism, I am not sure what you're driving at here. The observable state of affairs is that we have, on average, a moral compass and a sense of justice, that's how we managed to form societies, and we are endowed with things like maternal instincts, empathy, altruism, etc. The instances of evil or malevolence are exceptions of these rules, and exceptions don't invalidate a rule, they confirm it.

An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics. In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here. As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.

"You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.

The rest of your drivel about morals, evil, and societies, is, well, drivel. Evil has plenty of meaning outside of theism. You're simply mouthing inanities.

  First, the universe is not in any significant way like a machine, and so your analogy is as close to being useless as it can be. 

You're right, the universe is not like a machine, it's far better than it, so much so that we design insect-inspired helicopters. And if you really insist on this disingenuous nonsense, here's a challenge for you: replace your natural body parts with their artificial equivalents. I'll wait for visual confirmation.

Until you do that, this analogy is as strong and useful as it can be.

You have moved the goalposts from arguing that the universe was designed to arguing that life was designed. An insect's virtues is a red herring given what you were arguing. And life could be designed and the universe not.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations could have plausibly evolved through natural means and required no god. We don't know how the universe came about. Not so with an insect. If you want to argue that life was designed, feel free to make your case and be proven wrong once again.

As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed. The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design. Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf. That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.

In so much as your analogy is about the universe, as it was, it is wrong as an analogy. In so much as you make an analogy with an insect, you are wrong on the facts and are presenting a flawed argument. You don't get points for being doubly wrong.

[Jehanne]

All kinds of models exist. Until they have experimental confirmation, they are nothing more than thought experiments, and so they can't be used in an actual argument.

Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent, but, as you imply, such does not make them true. J.J. Thomson's model of the atom is one example; the ultraviolet catastrophe is another. What these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, you don't get to assert that the cause of our universe is a universe in the first place. If we assume that this is the case, then, for the same reason mentioned above, it can't be eternal. An infinite duration must have elapsed within this universe before it suddenly, somehow, caused our own, which is clearly impossible.

I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason.  You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe.  You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith.  On top of which is that Aquinas' opinions about change are mere ipse dixit and so don't necessarily hold.  But by all means, present your argument against actual infinities.  Until then, your objection is groundless.

The word "evil" itself is meaningless outside theism, I am not sure what you're driving at here. The observable state of affairs is that we have, on average, a moral compass and a sense of justice, that's how we managed to form societies, and we are endowed with things like maternal instincts, empathy, altruism, etc. The instances of evil or malevolence are exceptions of these rules, and exceptions don't invalidate a rule, they confirm it.

An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics.   In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here.  As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.

"You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.

The rest of your drivel about morals, evil, and societies, is, well, drivel.  Evil has plenty of meaning outside of theism.  You're simply mouthing inanities.

You're right, the universe is not like a machine, it's far better than it, so much so that we design insect-inspired helicopters. And if you really insist on this disingenuous nonsense, here's a challenge for you: replace your natural body parts with their artificial equivalents. I'll wait for visual confirmation.

Until you do that, this analogy is as strong and useful as it can be.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means and required no god.  We don't know how the universe came about.  Not so with an insect.  If you want to argue that life was designed, feel free to make your case and be proven wrong once again.  

As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed.  The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design.  Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf.  That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.

In so much as your analogy is about the universe, it is wrong as an analogy.  In so much as you make an analogy with an insect, you are wrong on the facts and presenting a fatally flawed argument.  You don't get points for being doubly wrong.

His challenge actually undermines his case actually as we have no observed examples of any intelligence creating a human. Let alone a nonphysical intelligence creating a human with magic. Would like him to show us an example of that. Hell let's be generous and ask for a microbe to be created from scratch in this way in case his god is feeling winded 

---

All kinds of models exist. Until they have experimental confirmation, they are nothing more than thought experiments, and so they can't be used in an actual argument.

Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent, but, as you imply, such does not make them true.  J.J. Thomson's model of the atom is one example; the ultraviolet catastrophe is another.  What these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.

But somehow he gets to use theological fairytales as arguments 

[R00tKiT]

I never suggested the existence of an actual infinite, which is what was Aquinas' objection, and so no, you haven't provided a valid reason.  You neither know nor can demonstrate that an infinite duration must have preceded the creation of this universe.  You are simply mouthing ignorant articles of faith.

I am not sure I follow. You said we can't apply the CA to a universe prior to this one because it could be eternal, and I am telling you that this very preceding universe caused our own at some point, and so cannot have an eternal past (because we must get to the point where it actually causes our universe). 

And I am not suggesting that it is actually the case there is a infinite duration preceding the univrse, I am simply ruling out its possibility.

An exception can prove a rule of convention, not a rule of logic, an inference, or a law of physics.   In such cases they are called counter-examples and falsify that being claimed, as here.  As noted, the existence of good isn't a bar to a malevolent deity.

Most inferences are done in the existence of exceptions. Inference is inherently probabilistic. We infer benevolence based on what we observe around us, if our world was some infinite loop where we repeatedly get squashed like bugs and then reincarnated, then yeah, maybe you can make a case for a malevolent deity. Instead, we have a world when people can experience pleasure, peace, empathy, have a wealthy life, etc. and where the universe is to some extent intelligible and predictable.

"You can't give what you haven't got," is simply invalid as a rule.

Why is it invalid? I already gave its equivalent within the universe, it's exactly the conservation of mass, or, even better, the conservation of energy. An isolated system's energy is constant, we simply can't have some ex nihilo energy popping out somewhere and prompting some movement or motion. In other words, a system can't give some energy it doesn't already have. Energy and mass are interchangeable (in theory) and can only be transformed, but never destroyed or created.

An insect isn't like the universe in that its wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means and required no god.  

Personal incredulity. Just because you can't imagine a god operating through these very adaptations doesn't mean he doesn't exist or isn't required. Is it really that difficult to understand that some agent must have started these "wonderful adaptations evolved through natural means".......

As to your moronic challenge, it's a non sequitur and I won't waste my time attempting something that would prove nothing even if I failed.  The fact that I can't design an artificial human proves nothing about design.  Hell, I can't even cook a decent meatloaf.  That tells us nothing about God, except perhaps, that there isn't one.

You didn't even understand the challenge.... The point wasn't that you can't design an artificial human, it's that you would keep your body parts even in the presence of artificial organs... they already exist.

---

Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent, 

The proposition : " 0=1 => Jehanne doesn't exist" is a also a true proposition, a mathematically coherent model..........

  what these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.

These models don't imply anything outside of the universe. A god is necessary because of the causality principle.

[The Grand Nudger]

We already know the agent, Kloro. It's called genetics. God isn't painting the roses red....even if there were a god...which, there isn't.

[Jehanne]

Cosmological models are at least mathematically coherent, 

The proposition : " 0=1 => Jehanne doesn't exist" is a also a true proposition, a mathematically coherent model..........

  what these models imply, however, is that an appeal to a creator god is unnecessary.

These models don't imply anything outside of the universe. A god is necessary because of the causality principle.

Please state your axioms and then provide a mathematical proof. As for the Cosmos, if such is eternal and infinite, then it needs no cause.