Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[The Grand Nudger]

Im not worried about your god argument nutter. I’m just pointing out that your supercauser needs a caused universe.

That’s why you got QM wrong.

[polymath257]

By that I mean that individual events are random, 

You probably should've mentioned that this is only one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics. John Bell showed that, in theory, there can be hidden determinism behind the curtains, that sets up how things should play out, giving room to manoeuvre for the theist. It's only when the hidden variables are local that they conflict with the predictions of QM.

But QM is, in fact, both local and non-causal.

The only way to rescue hidden determinism, given the violations of Bell's inequalities, is for there to be a type of super-determinism (which would mean there is no free will). of course, if that is the case, then there is also no way to actually do any testing at all, since all tests are pre-determined as well as their outcomes. So it is *far* more reasonable to accept non-causality and locality.

---

I’m not confusing anything with any other.  You, and no one but you, has decided that the world must be a particular way for your god to exist.  That makes your mistake, about the way the world is according to physics, a necessary component of your beliefs.

Carry on.

You're doing it again. I am only saying that the world can be sufficient to make an agument for God, not that it must be in some particular way.

---

In other words, the Correspondence Principle:

And if, according to this principle, causality is preserved at the macroscopic level (relativistic causality), doesn't this mean that the apparent violation of causality in quantum field theory is just that, apparent...?

Nope. For example, assume there are completely random dice. Individual outcomes are uncaused, but the averages are reliable. That is a type of causality for the averages, just like what happens in QM.

It is a fairly basic fact about QM that the averages of observables obey classical mechanics.

Correct me if I'm wrong: We know that any observation or measurement in QM is limited because of the uncertainty principle, and because of that, we can't observe the underlying causal structure that governs the behavior of subatomic particles.

No, it actually means there is no underlying causal structure. This is a basic aspect of how science is done: if it cannot be detected, even in theory, it is meaningless to say it exists.

[R00tKiT]

Im not worried about your god argument nutter.  I’m just pointing out that your supercauser needs a caused universe.

That’s why you got QM wrong.

I didn't get QM wrong, lol. QM is irrelevant. It's silent on whether there is an underlying causal structure. The uncertainty principle reflects an inherent limitation of human knowledge, the best we can ever do is to assign probabilities to states. If our measurements are limited, our measurements can't really detect a violation of causality, which means that poly was shooting himself in the foot all along.

And because, on the macroscopic level, there is indisputably an axiom of relativistic causality, this gives very good reason to accept it as valid universally.

But QM is, in fact, both local and non-causal.

I already provided a source on what the word "acausal" means. It doesn't really mean what you're implying here. It just means that we can't point out a cause to effects at the subatomic level, due to quantum indeterminacy. 

Nope. For example, assume there are completely random dice. Individual outcomes are uncaused, but the averages are reliable. That is a type of causality for the averages, just like what happens in QM.

It is a fairly basic fact about QM that the averages of observables obey classical mechanics.

Your assertion in bold is unsubstantiated. As I stated before, you can't rule out hidden determinism. There might very well be a cause that is outside the purview of QM, and given that, on average, we do have causality, this is all the more reason to postulate that there is hidden causality setting up individual outcomes.

No, it actually means there is no underlying causal structure. 

Non-sequitur. We can't even measure both the position and the velocity exactly....! How can you measure with 100% certainty whether there is causality or not..? 
And also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. 

No, it actually means there is no underlying causal structure. This is a basic aspect of how science is done: if it cannot be detected, even in theory, it is meaningless to say it exists.

It's still very meaningful for the theist.

[Jehanne]

It's still very meaningful for the theist.

With me at least, you are pounding on open doors. Your beliefs may be absolutely true, but, per the principle of parsimony, I reject all of them. Planets and stars may move due to invisible angels who are pushing them, with the equations of Einstein and Newton being their "rulebook" with the subtle chaotic behavior in all celestial motion being postulated as evidence of "angelic consciousness". Even if such is true, it's unnecessary to believe, as such a proposition is one of an infinite number of nonverifiable, nonfalsifiable beliefs.

If God exists, let him/her/it spontaneously heal an adult amputee on live television under controlled conditions; that will grab my attention, rather quickly.

Until then, you'll have to do better as opposed to your ad nauseam repetitions. After all, you've been at it now for nearly 3 month's, and you've convinced no one here. The only reason that I am here is, as an interested layperson in physics, I am both somewhat amused and certainly enlightened by Polymath's trashing of your understanding of modern physics.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Countdown till Poly brings the hammer 

[R00tKiT]

With me at least, you are pounding on open doors.  Your beliefs may be absolutely true, but, per the principle of parsimony, I reject all of them.  Planets and stars may move due to invisible angels who are pushing them, with the equations of Einstein and Newton being their "rulebook" with the subtle chaotic behavior in all celestial motion being postulated as evidence of "angelic consciousness".  Even if such is true, it's unnecessary to believe, as such a proposition is one of an infinite number of nonverifiable,  nonfalsifiable beliefs.

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.

If God exists, let him/her/it spontaneously heal an adult amputee on live television under controlled conditions; that will grab my attention, rather quickly.

God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Until then, you'll have to do better as opposed to your ad nauseam repetitions.  After all, you've been at it now for nearly 3 month's, and you've convinced no one here

I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how nobody here understands a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the necessity of a creator. How stupid.

I am both somewhat amused and certainly enlightened by Polymath's trashing of your understanding of modern physics.

Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that .

[Jehanne]

With me at least, you are pounding on open doors.  Your beliefs may be absolutely true, but, per the principle of parsimony, I reject all of them.  Planets and stars may move due to invisible angels who are pushing them, with the equations of Einstein and Newton being their "rulebook" with the subtle chaotic behavior in all celestial motion being postulated as evidence of "angelic consciousness".  Even if such is true, it's unnecessary to believe, as such a proposition is one of an infinite number of nonverifiable,  nonfalsifiable beliefs.

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.

If God exists, let him/her/it spontaneously heal an adult amputee on live television under controlled conditions; that will grab my attention, rather quickly.

God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.

Until then, you'll have to do better as opposed to your ad nauseam repetitions.  After all, you've been at it now for nearly 3 month's, and you've convinced no one here

I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how everyone here doesn't understand a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the need of a creator. How stupid.

I am both somewhat amused and certainly enlightened by Polymath's trashing of your understanding of modern physics.

Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that .

Yeah, I posted this before in this thread and you never replied to it, but, most scientists are atheistic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

As are most philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

But, you know more than anyone else, apparently?

[R00tKiT]

Yeah, I posted this before in this thread and you never replied to it, but, most scientists are atheistic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

As are most philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

But, you know more than anyone else, apparently?

Ever heard of Argumentum ad populum ?

It's understandable that a proficient scientist finds christianity unconvincing, many of its core doctrines are extremely silly and simply too hard to swallow (God resurrecting Himself, having a Son, etc.) even for someone who tolerates belief without evidence.

Add that to the fact that deism is untenable, because believing in an impersonal God doesn't have any implications.

Christianity aside, Abdus Salam is one counter-example I can think of. He is an Ahmadi Muslim and a Nobel Prize laureate.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I wasn't advocating for angelic consciousness, but merely for a personal cause of the universe. 

Feel free to ridiculize my position if that makes you feel better.


God, being God, is under no obligation to meet your demands, or your biased requirements of how he should reveal Himself.


I am not interested in gathering converts. It's enough for me that I proved how everyone here doesn't understand a lick about modern science, and about the fact that it's completely silent on the questions that theology attempts to answer. You are nothing but a naive advocate for scientism, you think making the world intelligible dispenses with the need of a creator. How stupid.


Poly was proven to be wrong more than once already. But I suspect unmotivated laymen didn't notice that .

Yeah, I posted this before in this thread and you never replied to it, but, most scientists are atheistic:

https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

As are most philosophers:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

But, you know more than anyone else, apparently?

His response is essentially denial and rationalizations

And he thinks he's defeating Poly. That's adorable.

[R00tKiT]

Ah.. and one more thing : around 150 Jewish people won the Nobel Prize.

Another thing: Newton, Gödel, Gauss, Planck, Euler, and many other prominent figures in sciences are theists/deists.

Scientists being mostly atheists is a very recent phenomenon, and given the names I just cited, it doesn't seem that their success was due to their atheism, *shrugs*