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

[I_am_not_mafia]

Sorry, didn't realise that I was lapsing into my native tongue there.

[possibletarian]

This is getting silly. An idea is always immaterial. What you mean is that at no time does it not reply on the material. Even if I granted that, so what? It is still an abstract object which by definition is not material. 

Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. They are most commonly used in philosophy and semantics. Abstract objects are sometimes called abstracta (sing. abstractum) and concrete objects are sometimes called concreta (sing. concretum). An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstraction.[1] The term abstract object is said to have been coined by Willard Van Orman Quine.[2] The study of abstract objects is called abstract object theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_and_concrete

I would agree about the silly, but not for the same reasons as you.

We can imagine abstract things, but the thought process that gets us there is material, it's the brain doing what the brain does, re-organising, collating and storing information, and every second of that is a material process, thoughts rely on energy to power the brain, the brain rely's on energy from food so on and so forth.

What we think of may be abstract, but we didn't get to that thought in a immaterial way. For that abstract though to continue in any way it must be stored, and shared in a material way. In other words the very thought is created in a material way.. no immaterial needed at any point.
And if not shared and the brain that has stored it shuts down, it is gone. We have no evidence to support an 'other wordly, existence or creation of idea's.

Idea's definitely do exist in a certain time and place The idea to write this reply existed at a certain point and will persist for, well as long as it does, and it certainly did exist and will exist in in my brain, and on the internet.

At what point do thoughts leave the material word and become immaterial objects of their own?

[Mister Agenda]

So what's the status on the refutation of the existence of Odin?

[The Grand Nudger]

Pending.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

It does seem that QM often like evolution, can be used as an answer for everything. A quick look at Bell's theorem, shows, a couple of things. First, that it only claims to rule out local variables. Second, that it's implications are still disputed.

So what are we saying, if there is not reason; at the quantum level? Would you agree, that the things at the quantum level, are the foundation for what is classical mechanics and what we see? If one is saying that there is not reasons at this level, then wouldn't that be magnified and we see nothing but chaos the more this is multiplied out. I'm not an expert in QM by no means. But it seems that often, there is a difference in vocabulary, that is between the technical and the everyday use of terms. I don't see a description as indeterminate as meaning that it is without cause or without reason. That we can make certain predictions, because they do follow a general path, that there can be a study of them, because there is reason behind it.

Note: This is only some random thoughts and speculation: But I wonder if some of the "mysteries" of QM may be explained, because a continuum is per-supposed (with all the ending / nonending sequences) where at the very small point of view the effects of moving through with minimal base units may be seen.

[Mister Agenda]

The quantum level seems to be fundamentally probabilistic due to unavoidable uncertainties at the Planck level.

My experience is that QM is usually used as an answer for things to which QM applies and evolution is an answer to things to which evolution applies. I doubt your mileage differs that much.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Is there a reason that it cannot be both?  

I would disagree, and say that there is a point, where a snowflake begins to exist.   To clarify if you have a prior point with no snowflakes, and a later point, where you have at least one snowflake then the snowflake had a beginning.  By your same logic, then you could say that you existed 2 million years ago.

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Is there a reason that it cannot be both?  

I would disagree, and say that there is a point, where a snowflake begins to exist.   To clarify if you have a prior point with no snowflakes, and a later point, where you have at least one snowflake then the snowflake had a beginning.  By your same logic, then you could say that you  existed 2 million years ago.

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.

Do you think 'everything that changes, has a cause' would a fair restatement of the first premise of the KCA?

[SteveII]

No, science does NOT rely on a 'Causal Principle'. For example, quantum mechanics is an inherently acausal scientific theory. In *most* quantum events, all that can be predicted is a *probability* of what can happen, not what actually *will* happen. There simply is not a strict cause-effect relationship.

That statement is so wrong in so many ways. Really, you should have taken that Philosophy course that you thumbed your nose at --it would have provided a better foundation for thinking through these things. Now you're left with incredibly crappy reasoning skills. 

 First, YES, science does rely on a Causal Principle. These are the very first sentences of the relevant articles:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

You cannot do even one experiment without having a philosophical assumption of a causal principle (part of the Philosophy of Science).

Regarding quantum mechanics--this is such a red herring. Virtual particles or other quantum particles come from the quantum vacuum and the energy that’s stored up in the vacuum and it’s definitely a causal process that produces these, even if it is indeterministic in that the time at which these things come into being is spontaneous. But this is clearly a causal process. 

And we can go further: there are very strict limits based upon observation concerning what 'hidden variables' could potentially explain the actual evidence of the real world. In particular, if you assume causality and relativity, the observations requires a very, very strict supercausality where *everything* is precisely determined at the outset.

More specifically, what science requires is that consistent initial events have consistent subsequent events, whether 'caused' or not. It requires *predictability*, not *causality*. And the consistency required is not on a case-by-case basis, but can be at a level of overall probability.

More nonsense. This from the second sentence of the relevant article:

Causal determinism has a strong relationship with predictability. Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictability

Notice my bold. Perfect predictability implies a perfect understanding of causal principles. How much clearer could that be? 

You may ask what is so special about the universe that it does not need a cause. Easy: the universe is ALL of space and time and ALL matter and energy throughout both. Anything in the universe has a duration within the universe, but the universe itself does not. But we can dig a bit deeper on this. Causality requires time and time is *part* of the universe. So ALL causes are causes inside the universe. So, in particular, time itself cannot have a cause, even if it 'has a beginning' (I put scare quotes because the concept of 'before time' is clearly inconsistent).

More philosophical missteps. Causality does not require time. If anything, time is a product of causality OR, if you prefer, time is not a thing, it is illusory (as I think you have claimed in the past). Anyway, it is certainly not the way you are characterizing it. 

The same argument can be stated as follows: everything within the universe that begins has a cause within the universe. But the universe itself is not something *within* the universe. So it need not, in fact, cannot have a cause because ALL causes are within the universe!

You are making a huge assertion with literally no justification: "ALL causes are within the universe". How in the world could you make that statement with a straight face?  You certainly don't get to that from your reasoning above. Also, the cosmologist that talk about multiverses and possible conditions before the Big Bang have not gotten your memo. 

It may be 'natural' on the macroscopic level to 'look for a cause', but we have learned through experience that such is not always available. What we *can* find is aspects that affect probabilities. We can and do find patterns of behavior in those probabilities. And we can ask to what extent those patterns apply to the early universe. When we apply them, we find that the *known* conservation laws allow for the production of all known matter and energy from a 'vacuum' containing neither matter nor energy without a causal precursor. On a theoretical level, that alone destroys the KCA.

No causality in the old Aristotelian sense is required for science. In fact, it is even shown to not be the case in practice.

What are you talking about? What vacuum caused all "known matter and energy"? 

---

I am saying that while we can look to our inductive experience as a guide, people who think about such things like before the universe are also using inductive reasoning. You seem to think the only tool that can be used is experience. However, since they know that the our laws of physics do not necessarily apply to other states of reality, they are reasoning into a lot of assumptions. 

I thought that was what you were thinking--that's why I brought it up. The onus is not on me if the position is that these are near universally held beliefs. There is a good reason why most challengers to the KCA do not try to attack Premise (1). Being skeptical of Premise (1) carries a high price because to make any headway against the argument, you can't just bring up the objection, you have to say that the Premise (1) is not likely. Simply bringing up a remote possibility does nothing to an inductive argument. 

If you want to go with questioning a causal principle as an objective feature of reality, you have to answer questions like why only universes pop into existence and why not other things like dogs, pasta, and VW Beetles. They are infinitely more simple than universes. 

Your second sentence would be an objection to Premise (2). To that, I say there is the math problem about an infinite series of causes as well as the most promising and well-received models do posit a universe starting a finite time ago. Again, simply putting up a possibility does not get make Premise (2) unlikely. That is a much bigger task because I will continually trot out the majority of the cosmologists and their take on things. And like I said above, I can throw in the rather significant infinity problem to push it way over the top. So, I have both scientific grounds and philosophical grounds to support Premise (2). Jehanne has a fringe theory and an uphill philosophical battle to contend with. 

I don't think we are too far off. Just you think that your objections carry more weight than I think they do. 

You can't describe a structure to a state that has no causal principle. The only law would be that there are none. I really don't see how anything could exist without a causal principle. You can't have matter, movement, or enduring through time. I am not sure you can even have what would pass for space without a causal principle. The very question of whether anything could exist without it seems legit. This is why I claim that a causal principle seems to be an objective feature of reality/existence.

Universes 'pop into existence' because, initially, they are *much* simpler than things like automobiles and brains. In fact, one of the basic characteristics of the early universe is how *simple* it is: depending on how far back you go, the picture is simpler and simpler. For example, prior to the era of nucleosynthesis, the whole of the universe consisted of neutrons and photons. That's it: a very hot 'soup' of those two components. Later, the neutrons decayed providing electrons, protons,  and neutrinos. The condensation into things like stars and automobiles came much much later.

What precisely happened before that is still largely speculation, but it is clear that the complexity we are all familiar with is a late development, not an aspect of the initial conditions.

And no, you don't have to assume space and time for initial conditions. At least in speculation based on laws we know, no such initial space or time is required.

This is great. Your argument is that universes are fundamentally simple and therefore can pop into existence. It's really hard to argue with that logic--so I will just leave it at that.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.

Was it this? I found it the other day when searching for the phrase "begins to exist".

I really want to know whether quantum mechanics really is stochastic rather than deterministic because I want to know if quantum computing is ever likely to happen in practice.