Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

So your basic claim is wrong: determinism doesn't work in QM the way you claim it does. It works at the level of probabilities, not at the level of events.

But couldn't there (hypothetically) be events that do cause the nucleus to decay, but we aren't aware of them/are unable to observe them?

Not asking in the context of the debate... just in a "curious about science" way.

Qunatum mechanics rules out local hidden variables (i.e. causes), so the only hidden variables would have to be global in some sense. See David Bohm's theories.

[polymath257]

So your basic claim is wrong: determinism doesn't work in QM the way you claim it does. It works at the level of probabilities, not at the level of events.

But couldn't there (hypothetically) be events that do cause the nucleus to decay, but we aren't aware of them/are unable to observe them?

Not asking in the context of the debate... just in a "curious about science" way.

For quantum mechanics in general, there are the so-called Bell's Inequalities that follow from any 'hidden variable' theory that is local and with things having definite properties. These Inequalities are violated in actual experimental situations. So, such hidden events are excluded in some quantum systems.

For nuclear decay specifically, I am not aware of a Bell type inequality that applies or has been tested, so technically hidden variables *might* be possible. That said, most nuclei are entangled in a very strong way that is precisely why the Bell inequalities are violated, so I would very much doubt that a hidden variable theory would work.

That, along with the fact that QM is literally the best, most comprehensive physical theory we have ever had and it is a non-causal theory is quite enough to show that causality isn't a 'law of thought', but is a scientific hypothesis that may or may not be true.

---

Ergo, not every event (in physics, something that happens at a particular point in space at a particular time) has a cause; most, in fact, do not.

When discussing causality in theology, they are not talking only about efficient causes, which is what you're referring to.

Aitia (Greek: αἰτία), the word that Aristotle used to refer to the causal explanation, has, in philosophical traditional, been translated as "cause." This peculiar, specialized, technical, usage of the word "cause" is not that of everyday English language.

"The cause of X" in theology means something like "that which must be the case in order for X to be the case." All of the events in physics which you're talking about require something to be the case in order for them to happen. For example, the universe must exist. The laws of nature must be as they are. etc. etc.

Everything you're talking about has αἰτία. 

And exactly what 'has to be the case' for a nucleus to decay at a specific time? NONE of the laws of physics that we know of determine that. There is not even a *hint* that new laws of physics would have such.

Instead, ALL that we have is a probability of a decay in an interval of time.

So, if you want to say that the universe is 'the cause' of everything within it, then might have a concept that is at least coherent, but ultimately useless.

AND, it is far from obvious that everything that exists has a cause in this sense. For example, it could be quite possible for the universe to 'just exist' in which case *nothing* is required for it to be the case.

---

If it can't be measured, then, it doesn't exist, or, at least it doesn't matter if it exists or not.

One can't measure stupidity.

If that were the case, we would never be able to determine if someone is stupid or not. The fact that we *can* do so  shows that we *are* measuring it and evaluating that measurement. it may not have as good of precision as a measurement of the fine structure constant, but *any* observation *is* a measurement.

[R00tKiT]

You're doing it again.  No one has to shoot down any principles.  A person can grant causality in full.....and still think your god inference is poorly constructed.  I know I do.  Because they don't have anything to do with each other.

Groundbreaking insights here. Perhaps you should start publishing articles and send them to popular journals on the philosophy of religion. You can't write a more stupid assertion than causality not having to do anything with proving God's existence.

All known arguments (maybe except the ontological type) attempting to prove God's existence start by some premise about the world then conclude there is a cause or origin to whatever is in the premise. The second step is to infer properties of this cause from the observable state of affairs, when enough properties are obtained about this cause, they label it God.

Tell me again.. can you precede your mother's existence?

Unbelievable.

The evidential problem of evil directly refers to this when positing indifference.  You can be given cause, and even be granted supernatural beings - and it will then be argued that supernatural indifference is a better explanation for the state of affairs in this world than theism.

They can argue for "supernatural indifference" if they manage to rule out an afterlife or somehow prove it's inherently incoherent (flash news: nobody did it). In so far as an afterlife is a possibility, you just don't have the whole picture to say that the deity is definitely indifferent.

But sure, the door is open to the opponent to build his ((cumulative case)) against God by pointing out catastrophes, diseases and seemingly unanswered prayers -an impressive heap of arguments from ignorance. 

However, the bit at the end there is where the logical problem of evil arises. 

The logical problem of evil is, as I repeatedly pointed out in this board, a completely debunked problem. You can check that out by opening any introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You're better off arguing for the evidential variant.

 Being omnipotent has logical consequences.  The tri-omni combination also has logical consequences, compounded with every purported omni-attribute.  

All the purported disproofs of God based on its attrbutes are doomed themselves. They either demand God to do the logically impossible or point out that God "can't think" or "doesn't have free will", etc, etc. All of which are basic misunderstandings of omnipotence and omniscience.  But I would be really surprised if you have an actual disproof as you pretend here. Here is by the way a good list of this kind of arguments, pick your favorite, then.. I guess

http://www.disproofatheism.org/conceptual-disproofs/

Able, but not willing?  Not omnibenevolent.  

Basically any theodicy attempts to show that this doesn't follow. Simply because you don't take the free will parameter into account. Once you do, it's possible to derive ingenious scenarios where both evil and omnibenevolent exist in some possible world. That's what Plantinga managed to do. If there exists a scenario (even if theoretical) where benevolence and evil can coexist, there is no more logical problem of evil.

The point is that causality isn't a principle of thought. It is a testable hypothesis about how the universe works.

No, it isn't. After doing a bit of reserch on the matter I found out that causality is an axiom of Quantum theory (attempt to bring together QM and GR).

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709026
Quote : Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality - both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion - while respecting relativistic causality.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6451
Quote : Quantum theory can be derived from purely informational principles. Five elementary axioms-causality, perfect distinguishability, ideal compression, local distinguishability, and pure conditioning.

https://archive.org/stream/naturalphilosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt 
Quote: physics has given up causality is entirely unfounded. Modem physics, it is true, has given up or modified many traditional ideas ; but it would cease to be a science if it had given up the search for the causes of phenomena. (The author is Max Born, the famous German physicist)

So no, causality is not a testable hypothesis, but an axiom embedded in the framework of all modern physical theories.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kloro, it's just your silly god, do you understand?

Because you insist that your god is the grand nudger, you think that something about causality must be central to gods and demonstrating them...but if it turned out that there were gods, and they weren't grand nudgers..as the vast majority of gods ever invented by people anywhere at any time, it wouldn't be an issue.

Fundamentally, it can't be an issue for any existent god however the causality cookie crumbles - because either way...if a god exists, it exists concurrently with whatever facts about causality are true - even if the true fact turns out to be that causality isn't.

Your theodicies aren't compelling to me, but they are an implicit admission that the world does indeed look the way the objection contends. That this alleged gods alleged acts do look pretty bad for god, even from the point of view of the apologist.

[R00tKiT]

Kloro, it's just your silly god, do you understand?  

Because you insist that your god is the grand nudger, you think that something about causality must be central to gods and demonstrating them...but if it turned out that there were gods, and they weren't grand nudgers..as the vast majority of gods ever invented by people anywhere at any time, it wouldn't be an issue.  

Fundamentally, it can't be an issue for any existent god however the causality cookie crumbles - because either way...if a god exists, it exists concurrently with whatever facts about causality are true - even if the true fact turns out to be that causality isn't.

I already said I agree with what's above. I assume you're aware that you are repeating a tautology -that arguments don't change reality. Sure, nothing about any principle's validity will introduce a deity into existence. But here we're only discussing whether there is a conclusive argument. We can't do better than that....

Your theodicies aren't compelling to me, but they are an implicit admission that the world does indeed look the way the objection contends.  That this alleged gods alleged acts do look pretty bad for god, even from the point of view of the apologist.

The same way you think the appearance of design isn't compelling, I think the appearance of "pretty bad acts" isn't compelling either....

[The Grand Nudger]

Kloro, it's just your silly god, do you understand?  

Because you insist that your god is the grand nudger, you think that something about causality must be central to gods and demonstrating them...but if it turned out that there were gods, and they weren't grand nudgers..as the vast majority of gods ever invented by people anywhere at any time, it wouldn't be an issue.  

Fundamentally, it can't be an issue for any existent god however the causality cookie crumbles - because either way...if a god exists, it exists concurrently with whatever facts about causality are true - even if the true fact turns out to be that causality isn't.

I already said I agree with what's above. I assume you're aware that you are repeating a tautology -that arguments don't change reality. Sure, nothing about any principle's validity will introduce a deity into existence. But here we're only discussing whether there is a conclusive argument. We can't do better than that....

I'm not telling you that arguments don't change reality, I'm telling you that if the understanding from qm, for example, is more accurate with respect to reality -and a god exists-..then you've been tilting at windmills.  You were wrong about an existent god.  

Is that not a possibility for you?  God is stuck, forever, with whatever happens to fall out of your head and your head specifically?  If things are any way other than you believe them to be..gods shit out of luck?

The same way you think the appearance of design isn't compelling, I think the appearance of "pretty bad acts" isn't compelling either....

Correct, I don't find your churlish misunderstandings of biology compelling at all.  I bet an existent god would be a little embarrased for you, too.  I mean, you're his handiwork, after all..eh?

Pretty fish, therefore djinn.

[R00tKiT]

I'm not telling you that arguments don't change reality, 

Backpedalling already ?

I'm telling you that if the understanding from qm, for example, is more accurate with respect to reality -and a god exists-..then you've been tilting at windmills.  You were wrong about an existent god.  

I doubt you even read what's above. It turns out that causality is an axiom of quantum theory... all modern physical theories take causality for granted. anything you want to add?

Pretty fish, therefore djinn.

I mean.. since appearances are important for you -turning your back on valid theodicies and clinging to the appearance of evil- shouldn't pretty fish be a compelling reason to believe .. after all?

[The Grand Nudger]

Kloro, what do you know about other gods? Gods other than your own, I mean? Do you understand that it's not necessary for there to be a grand nudger for there to be a theistic god? A personal force that intervenes, here in this world, on our behalf? Can you see why you don't have to die on any hill of causility to establish the claim of theism..and, further..can you see how the claim of theism isn't actually satisfied even if there is a grand nudger?

The god you believe in didn't start out as a grand nudger, either, isn't that cool?

[Jehanne]

The logical problem of evil is, as I repeatedly pointed out in this board, a completely debunked problem. You can check that out by opening any introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You're better off arguing for the evidential variant.

A purely Evil God is not a logical impossibility, either:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_God_challenge

[The Architect Of Fate]

The logical problem of evil is, as I repeatedly pointed out in this board, a completely debunked problem. You can check that out by opening any introductory book on the philosophy of religion. You're better off arguing for the evidential variant.

Not even close