Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe it is possible for me to precede my mothers existence..but I don't need to know that yay or nay to know my mother exists or persuasively and competently argue for her existence..  So too, if there's a god..there's a god regardless of what the case with causality turns out to be and regardless of whether that god or gods had any relation to it such as the one you conceive for your own.

Causality being valid doesn't suggest or imply anything about gods..and if you want to argue for some gods..you're probably going to have pick something that does.  Doesn't that make sense?

No, it really doesn't make any sense.....

Then there's your trouble, the rest of this post being yet another demonstration to that effect.

You can basically say the same thing about any argument about anything. Sure, an argument doesn't introduce things into existence... Clearly, an argument is directed to the opponent who disagrees with you on some given assertion, not to the object of the argument....

A psychiatrist arguing with a psychotic patient about the existence of external reality is clearly irrelevant to the latter's existence... it's still a useful argument because the patient simply rejects this trivial matter..

Oh, and no, you can't precede your mother's existence... Thank God causality works.

No, I can't say the same thing about anything.  There are things that do suggest or imply other things.  I noted that nothing about the nature of causality or the validity of the concept suggests or implies anything about a god...explicitly and specifically.

If you intend to argue for a god, it would be more compelling if you argued from something which did suggest or imply a god. If you want to concern troll people about whether they accept classical notions of causality..then there's no use pretending that you're having an argument about gods. It's a clumsy attempt to steal the credibility of an unrelated idea, presumably because your unrelated idea has no credibility of it's own.

If I had to guess.

[Jehanne]

And, so, God long, long ago decided what decay products would be emitted from which U238 atoms and when those emissions would occur?  If so, how about an atom bomb?  The upper limit is about 25% efficiency, Fat Man & Little Boy being well below those yields.  Did God decide which U235 atoms would participate in those explosions and which would not?

Well, God purportedly gave room for free will and things like that... He surely dictates the rules (natural laws) but there is no reason to invoke God's intervention in the various human events. And clearly, Project Manhattan is responsible for Little Boy, not the deity.

You did not answer my question.  Not all of the U235 atoms in Little Boy participated in the atomic explosion (a very rapid and very violent conversion of rest mass energy to kinetic energy, hence, the hypersonic blast wave); most of the U235 atoms "survived" the blast.  Did God decide which U235 atoms would be part of the chain reaction and which would not?

[R00tKiT]

No, I can't say the same thing about anything.  There are things that do suggest or imply other things.  I noted that nothing about the nature of causality or the validity of the concept suggests or implies anything about a god...explicitly and specifically.

Can't believe I am reading this.... does the first premise of the cosmological argument ring any bells ....?  Aquinas's second way ..stil nothing? What are you doing to these huge chunks of literature lengthily discussing efficient causes and causal chains....... ? needless to say that causality is fundamental in many traditional arguments for God's existence.

It seems you're looking for some short proof for a God. If the only thing you accept as proof of a deity is A implies B without some intermediary steps, lemmas, corollaries, etc. then you might be disappointed.

---

You did not answer my question.  Not all of the U235 atoms in Little Boy participated in the atomic explosion (a very rapid and very violent conversion of rest mass energy to kinetic energy, hence, the hypersonic blast wave); most of the U235 atoms "survived" the blast.  Did God decide which U235 atoms would be part of the chain reaction and which would not?

God dictated the natural laws responsible for the chain reaction, so yes, he indirectly decided which atoms would participate in the reaction. But before you continue, you really should take free will into account.

[Jehanne]

God dictated the natural laws responsible for the chain reaction, so yes, he indirectly decided which atoms would participate in the reaction. But before you continue, you really should take free will into account.

Little Boy had an efficiency of 1.4%, and Fat Man was at 17%.  Did God "will" those yields, at least "indirectly"?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I can't say the same thing about anything.  There are things that do suggest or imply other things.  I noted that nothing about the nature of causality or the validity of the concept suggests or implies anything about a god...explicitly and specifically.

Can't believe I am reading this.... does the first premise of the cosmological argument ring any bells ....?  Aquinas's second way ..stil nothing? What are you doing to these huge chunks of literature lengthily discussing efficient causes and causal chains....... ? needless to say that causality is fundamental in at least many traditional arguments for God's existence.

To make a long story short, I think that cosmological arguments are trash, and of no utility in establishing the existence of gods even if they weren't. It's just your silly god, Kloro - the vast majority of gods are not creator gods and don't have to be..to be gods, or to be existent gods. Tell me, does anything about causality establish or disprove Venus' existence?

It seems you're looking for some short proof for a God. If the only thing you accept as proof of a deity is A implies B without some intermediary steps, lemmas, corollaries, etc. then you might be disappointed.

I'm not looking for any proof of god, Kloro....but you are here trying to communicate one to us.  A little more effort might help.

[Foxaèr]

Okay, this bears repeating: let's cut the crap.

It is doubtful that when relying on substitution to use the same argument but with a different deific concept that the argument is no longer valid to the theist. Because, what may work for the Christian God will never be accepted by believers of Allah and vice versa. The argument remains the same, it's validity hasn't been changed, but it shows what a waste it is to rely on it as anything more than hooey.

[R00tKiT]

We're not discussing the merits of these arguments, I am simply pointing out the fact that causality intervenes in the premises. You think the CA doesn't lead per se to the theistic God? Guess what ? I completely agree. But I also think it's a useful, intermediary step towards theism, we still need to deal with the regress of causes. You, on other hand, toss the argument carelessly and pretend we're still on ground zero.

---

Little Boy had an efficiency of 1.4%, and Fat Man was at 17%.  Did God "will" those yields, at least "indirectly"?

Yes, @Jehanne, anything that happens anywhere is kind of decided by God, including evil stuff, and what's above... No theist will argue that God somewhat can't control evil.

[Foxaèr]

Theists like to think they're a step above the ground because they invented the god concept, when in reality their imaginations have deluded them.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and no further explanation or description of causaulity has lead to any revision in the god concepts allegedly premised upon god as the grand nudger.

Because they don't have anything to do with one another, don't suggest or imply anything about one another, and aren't interchangeable as arguments for each other. So..yeah, no amount of poly explaining the difference between classical notions and quantum mechanics has done a thing for you, huh?

Ground zero.

---

Yes, @Jehanne, anything that happens anywhere is kind of decided by God, including evil stuff, and what's above... No theist will argue that 

They will and have.  Positing, for example, that evil is not decided upon or done by god - but by man, or through a privation of gods creation.

It's this good guy god that the problem of evil was explicitly created to address. If he's a good guy, what's with the parasites..and... if the parasites aren't his bad - but he's a good guy who can fix things and does want to...well..what's with all these parasites...again? If he's not any of those things - if he's not a good guy or doesn't have the power to fix it or doesn't want to..or all of the above, then fuck him anyway. Or, more politely put, "why call it a god". In it's weakest form it's the evidentiary case - and it's well in evidence. In a stronger form, it's a comment of logical incoherence between the god concept and reality. Our world couldn't be this way if god was what they describe him as or existed-as-such.

[R00tKiT]

-and no further explanation or description of causaulity has lead to any revision in the god concepts allegedly premised upon god as the grand nudger.

Because they don't have anything to do with one another, don't suggest or imply anything about one another, and aren't interchangeable as arguments for each other.  So..yeah, no amount of poly explaining the difference between classical notions and quantum mechanics has done a thing for you, huh?

Ground zero.

Don't tell me you think QM violates causality......... For the upteenth time: QM changes the definition of an object, a particle at the quantum level can display counterintuitive phenomena such as quantum entangement. Once we adopt the "quantum definition" of the particle, we can plug the new definition into the assertion of causality and the principle remains valid. This misunderstanding only arises if one tries to fit causality with outdated definitions of particles as in classical mechanics.

I still can't believe people here are seriously second-guessing causality, what else is left if we start shooting down the simplest principles of thought..

They will and have.  Positing, for example, that evil is not decided upon or done by god - but by man, or through a privation of gods creation.

This is a really downgraded definition of a deity. If the benevolent deity is also omnipotent, then nothing escapes its will, including evil.