Sensible Debate For and Against God's Existence

[songbird36]

To try and inject some logic and reason into this debate, I thought I would post a really good link to a site which discusses the arguments *for* the existence of God and what these are based on.

The argument I'd like to see some discussion of is the Argument from First Cause. It is one of the more difficult arguments to refute, so I'd like to see what people come up with.

Here is the link:

www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

[cjs55]

Hmm...

1) Infinity is not bound by the laws of cause and effect. An infinite universe inherently is beyond the human conception that everything must have a cause and effect by its very nature.

Maybe even the idea that everything must have an initial mover is actually quite opposed to the concept of infinity. In other words, the universe cannot be infinite and created. Whoa...I can't tell if thats wrong or not.

2) I see no reason not to believe that the universe is not infinite, both in depth and breadth.

3) Even if the universe is not infinite, this argument seems to assume that time is always linear and not a malleable dimension. If time is not linear, then cause and effect becomes meaningless, the cause can become the effect and the effect the cause.

[MacGuffin]

I'd like to debate, but I take the position that God is alogical....

[songbird36]

Hmm...

1) Infinity is not bound by the laws of cause and effect. An infinite universe inherently is beyond the human conception that everything must have a cause and effect by its very nature.

Maybe even the idea that everything must have an initial mover is actually quite opposed to the concept of infinity. In other words, the universe cannot be infinite and created. Whoa...I can't tell if thats wrong or not.

2) I see no reason not to believe that the universe is not infinite, both in depth and breadth.

3) Even if the universe is not infinite, this argument seems to assume that time is always linear and not a malleable dimension. If time is not linear, then cause and effect becomes meaningless, the cause can become the effect and the effect the cause.

You seem to be saying that there is no "first cause" problem because the universe is infinite and thus it is perfectly logical to say that there was no "first cause" of anything. In other words, we can theoretically go back in the causal chain ad infinitum.

I agree that's one big problem with the "first cause" proof and dammit, I was really hoping to be able to disagree with you on this.

The other possibility the first cause argument doesn't account for is the possibility that everything in the universe just always "was" (i.e. was always there from the dawn of infinity). If that is the case, then there is no necessary requirement for a creator.

Point 3 is interesting and I'd like to see what others think about this. Is there any reason to suppose that time is not linear? Do we have any evidence to the contrary?

[songbird36]

I'd like to debate, but I take the position that God is alogical....

You're just a bloody pain in the arse... (and I mean that in the nicest possible way)

lol

[pintpi]

To try and inject some logic and reason into this debate, I thought I would post a really good link to a site which discusses the arguments *for* the existence of God and what these are based on.

The argument I'd like to see some discussion of is the Argument from First Cause. It is one of the more difficult arguments to refute, so I'd like to see what people come up with.

Here is the link:

www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
A lot of theists believe that "first cause" is a very strong argument but actually it is one of the easiest to refute.

What caused God?

I guess theists think their invention of a "alogical" being outside the bounds of logic and the causal chain solves the dilema of first cause. It certainly does in a sense but the problem with answering a question with an alogical being is that we can answer all questions like that. A big question that is still open in astrophysics is that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. For the moment we have attached the word "dark energy" to this as we don't currently know why this accelerating is occurring. We could just as easily say an alogical being is behind the expansion and he is doing to for some unknowable reason as he is outside the bound of logic. Certainly that provides an explanation but we are going to look quite stupid when someone discovers the real reason for the accelerating expansion.

When looking for answers to the first cause quantum mehcanicscan be quite useful. When we look at the universe on the very small scale (plank scales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units)) cause and effect seem to disappear. This isn't just because we don't understand this stuff enough and we are just missing something that is the true cause of quantum wierdness. When we look at things like the Aspect Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments) we can see that cause and effect does really lose it's meaning on these scales.

So under quantum mechanics, things don't actually need a cause. The universe could have really just came into being without being caused.

[booyalab]

I believe that God is alogical but I'll debate, since I can still refute everyone's arguments.

First Cause: Only points to something being infinite. It doesn't have to be God, and doesn't have to be a "big bang" because there's always the question of what happened before, in either possible scenario.

This levels the logical playing field, so to speak, for either side.

[Johnny]

...arguments *for* the existence of God...To me, this assumes we actually can argue for or against the existence of God and make Him real for it.

How about we ride the sensibility theme a little further and argue for our own existence first.

[booyalab]

To me, this assumes we actually can argue for or against the existence of God.

How about we ride the sensibility theme a little further and argue for our own existence first.

I want people to argue against the existance of God so I can shoot them down. COME ON! it will be fun!

[melancholeric]

To try and inject some logic and reason into this debate, I thought I would post a really good link to a site which discusses the arguments *for* the existence of God and what these are based on.

The argument I'd like to see some discussion of is the Argument from First Cause. It is one of the more difficult arguments to refute, so I'd like to see what people come up with.

Here is the link:

www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm
Didn't I already refute this?
http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=60110#post60110

I never understood the First Cause argument. Maybe I'm too stupid to understand it, but it seems to boil down to "what caused God?".

Then, given my limited understanding of physics, cause and effect may not apply on quantum level, including the first 10-^43 seconds of the universe, nor anything before that. Maybe the only cause was HUP. I might be wrong though, some of our resident physics geeks could come and correct me.

[songbird36]

I believe that God is alogical but I'll debate, since I can still refute everyone's arguments.

First Cause: Only points to something being infinite. It doesn't have to be God, and doesn't have to be a "big bang" because there's always the question of what happened before, in either possible scenario.

This levels the logical playing field, so to speak, for either side.

I'm not sure that "first cause" points to the universe as infinite. In fact it proceeds on the assumption that the universe began at a definite point in time and space, and everything else flowed causally from that.

The acceptance of an infinite universe does I think (as cjs55 pointed out) blow the argument out of the water, as then it is no longer necessary to accept that there must have been a supernatural "creator" of some description.

[songbird36]

A lot of theists believe that "first cause" is a very strong argument but actually it is one of the easiest to refute.

What caused God?

I guess theists think their invention of a "alogical" being outside the bounds of logic and the causal chain solves the dilema of first cause. It certainly does in a sense but the problem with answering a question with an alogical being is that we can answer all questions like that. A big question that is still open in astrophysics is that the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. For the moment we have attached the word "dark energy" to this as we don't currently know why this accelerating is occurring. We could just as easily say an alogical being is behind the expansion and he is doing to for some unknowable reason as he is outside the bound of logic. Certainly that provides an explanation but we are going to look quite stupid when someone discovers the real reason for the accelerating expansion.

When looking for answers to the first cause quantum mehcanicscan be quite useful. When we look at the universe on the very small scale (plank scales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units)) cause and effect seem to disappear. This isn't just because we don't understand this stuff enough and we are just missing something that is the true cause of quantum wierdness. When we look at things like the Aspect Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments) we can see that cause and effect does really lose it's meaning on these scales.

So under quantum mechanics, things don't actually need a cause. The universe could have really just came into being without being caused.

For the lay men and women amongst us, can you please explain why under quantum mechanics things don't need a cause? (without us having to go and read a whole lot of stuff about it).

[booyalab]

I'm not sure that "first cause" points to the universe as infinite. In fact it proceeds on the assumption that the universe began at a definite point in time and space, and everything else flowed causally from that.

The acceptance of an infinite universe does I think (as cjs55 pointed out) blow the argument out of the water, as then it is no longer necessary to accept that there must have been a supernatural "creator" of some description.

well, if you only adhere to the scientific method (like many here), there has to be a cause. (since the scientific method is based on cause and effect)

[cjs55]

Infinity is beyond the scientific method, and indeed, human comprehension.

[CreativeChaos]

Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Okay, here is a quote from the source. I highlighted the view I disagree with. The first cause does not have to be GOD, i.e. some human like being. It could be an "it".

From the beginning of time, people have always resorted to a god, or gods to explain that which they do not understand. Why should we do the same? Does not history show us why gods were created, and from that learn that just becuase we don't know something, doesn't mean we automatically substitute GOD in the blanks.

Leave it BLANK for Christ's SaKe!!!! Just say "I DON'T KNOW!!!!" "I WILL KEEP SERCHING FOR THE ANSWER, BUT I DON'T KNOW!!!!"

[booyalab]

Okay, here is a quote from the source. I highlighted the view I disagree with. The first cause does not have to be GOD, i.e. some human like being. It could be an "it".

From the beginning of time, people have always resorted to a god, or gods to explain that which they do not understand. Why should we do the same? Does not history show us that why gods were created, and from that learn that just becuase we don't know something doesn't mean we automatically substitute GOD in the blanks.

Leave it BLANK for Christ's SaKe!!!! Just say "I DON'T KNOW!!!!" "I WILL KEEP SERCHING FOR THE ANSWER, BUT I DON'T KNOW!!!!"

No history hasn't shown that gods were created or why. That's what interpretations have shown.

It's fine to say you dont know, but don't pretend there's even a possibility you'll find a hard fact that will reveal whether God exists or not. (hence the "I'll keep searching for the answer")

[booyalab]

Infinity is beyond the scientific method, and indeed, human comprehension.
so, might one say that it is, in fact, ALOGICAL? :shock:

[songbird36]

Okay, here is a quote from the source. I highlighted the view I disagree with. The first cause does not have to be GOD, i.e. some human like being. It could be an "it".

From the beginning of time, people have always resorted to a god, or gods to explain that which they do not understand. Why should we do the same? Does not history show us why gods were created, and from that learn that just becuase we don't know something, doesn't mean we automatically substitute GOD in the blanks.

Leave it BLANK for Christ's SaKe!!!! Just say "I DON'T KNOW!!!!" "I WILL KEEP SERCHING FOR THE ANSWER, BUT I DON'T KNOW!!!!"

No first cause does not dictate that there is a "God". But if you accept its premises then there is (or must be) some supernatural "essential" being that does not depend for its existence on anything or anyone else.

[cjs55]

so, might one say that it is, in fact, ALOGICAL?

lol, don't say that around EZ!

But you might be on to something there...

[booyalab]

But you might be on to something there...

WELL IT'S ABOUT TIME, I guess since I've posted so much it had to happen sooner or later.

[cjs55]

Life is all about probability, yes =)

[songbird36]

I sense that we are all now agreeing on a few fundamentals. Of course that will no longer be the case once Zedo comes on-line, or D Man notices this thread, but never mind we'll cross those bridges when we come to them.

We all seem to now agree that some things (such as the concept of infinity and a supernatural being) are "a-logical". Is that correct?

[booyalab]

I sense that we are all now agreeing on a few fundamentals. Of course that will no longer be the case once Zedo comes on-line, or D Man notices this thread, but never mind we'll cross those bridges when we come to them.

We all seem to now agree that some things (such as the concept of infinity and a supernatural being) are "a-logical". Is that correct?

also everything that isn't in a logical framework like the word: bunny, or any word or set of words that doesnt have an underlying premise and conclusion , but apparently no one else believes me there..so yeah...infinity and God too.

[Edmond Zedo]

What kind of perversion or madness made you want to create another thread on this? You know what I think already, so I don't need to fuel the fire.

[cjs55]

Everything is slightly alogical.

Or at least, inference requires more than just pure logic, it requires a somewhat 'romantic' ability to choose the most likely possible choices.

Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.

[songbird36]

What kind of perversion or madness made you want to create another thread on this? You know what I think already, so I don't need to fuel the fire.

A couple of reasons:

(1) None of the other threads related specifically to this question;
(2) I wanted to post a specific thing (the argument from first cause) that we could all then discuss

(3) I wanted a sensible thread that wasn't going to degenerate

You don't have to keep posting on this theme. It's your choice. If you have things to say that are new, you may want to.

[cjs55]

Hey booyalab, an argument against Gods existence:

If indeed the universe is infinite, then it cannot ever be created.

When I say the univse is infinite, I mean on every level. Depth, Breadth, Length, Time, Space, etc.

[songbird36]

Oops that was three reasons.

I'm going to point that out before you do, Mgbradsh.

[songbird36]

Everything is slightly alogical.

Or at least, inference requires more than just pure logic, it requires a somewhat 'romantic' ability to choose the most likely possible choices.

Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.

That book is more about the nature of quality, rather than the place of logic, as such.

[cjs55]

In order to describe quality he goes on in some detail about the scientific method and logic, and how those things don't describe quality.

And since quality is a part of every concept we have...

[pintpi]

For the lay men and women amongst us, can you please explain why under quantum mechanics things don't need a cause? (without us having to go and read a whole lot of stuff about it).
The interpretation of quantum mechanics I think makes the most sense is the Copenhagen Interprtation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) there are certainly other interpretations though.

Layman's explanation (http://higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm) of quantum mechanics. I tried to find something short and simple. I just skimmed it but it seems to be pretty good.

That is the problem with quantum mechanics though is that it is almost impossible to explain in layman's terms because it is so contrary to our everyday experiences. So we can't really give examples of comparable things from the macroscopic world. The closest thing that it can be compared to is randomness. The definition of randomness is that it is uncaused and hence unpredictable. So you might be able to get a sense of how things can be uncaused but I have the same problem as everyone else, in that I can't truely imagine uncaused events either, which I think is just a side effect of our brains having a immense drive to see patterns in everything even when there is none, I just know they exist as shown by the evidence.

[pintpi]

We all seem to now agree that some things (such as the concept of infinity and a supernatural being) are "a-logical". Is that correct?
I think we can all agree the concept exists, the real questions is do actual alogical things exist in reality? I would have to say no.

[booyalab]

Oops that was three reasons.

I'm going to point that out before you do, Mgbradsh.

that's what he does and does it well (and nothing else)
:D


If indeed the universe is infinite, then it cannot ever be created.

When I say the univse is infinite, I mean on every level. Depth, Breadth, Length, Time, Space, etc

Our perception sort of contradicts that, things seem to be created all the time. However, if things are just changing their form, then you can argue that the universe ,when it came to be, just changed from one form to another. That form could have been a part of God, and is still a part of him, possibly. Then that would mean the universe is/has been part of God forever.

[cjs55]

So we are back to a different form of berkeley's argument?

Fair enough.

That isn't very Christian though...seems much more pantheist.

[booyalab]

I think we can all agree the concept exists, the real questions is do actual alogical things exist in reality? I would have to say no.

What is 'reality' to you? What you can perceive? Or what is possible? Would you say that everything that isn't in reality is alogical or just some things?

[booyalab]

So we are back to a different form of berkeley's argument?

Fair enough.

That isn't very Christian though...seems much more pantheist.

So what? Maybe the difference between pantheism and Christians is that pantheists believe that the universe is infinite. I was only entertaining your premise.

[cjs55]

Ok ok, don't get all flustered!

[MacGuffin]

I think we can all agree the concept exists, the real questions is do actual alogical things exist in reality? I would have to say no.
"exist in reality" kind of removes it from the alogical category.

[CreativeChaos]

Yeah, it's alogical. And I EVEN know what the word means! Ha! Thanks to BOO!

But one can be "reasonable" with their alogical beliefs.

[songbird36]

The interpretation of quantum mechanics I think makes the most sense is the Copenhagen Interprtation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) there are certainly other interpretations though.

Layman's explanation (http://higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm) of quantum mechanics. I tried to find something short and simple. I just skimmed it but it seems to be pretty good.

That is the problem with quantum mechanics though is that it is almost impossible to explain in layman's terms because it is so contrary to our everyday experiences. So we can't really give examples of comparable things from the macroscopic world. The closest thing that it can be compared to is randomness. The definition of randomness is that it is uncaused and hence unpredictable. So you might be able to get a sense of how things can be uncaused but I have the same problem as everyone else, in that I can't truely imagine uncaused events either, which I think is just a side effect of our brains having a immense drive to see patterns in everything even when there is none, I just know they exist as shown by the evidence.

This seems to be turning the commonly accepted natural principle of causality on its head.

Perhaps quantum mechanics is most consistent with the view that the universe is in fact random and chaotic, and that it has always just "been"

[Geoff]

The difficulty here is trying to reconcile the chaotic quantum level with the practical rules we need to live our life by. We dont have the capacity to easily understand such a microscopic view, we have to think macro.
In practice, most 'laws' are emergent properties of the underlying chaos (like trends that commonly appear in a similar set of starting conditions).... Once you get to grips with that then it becomes clearer.

-Geoff

[CreativeChaos]

I have long since come to the conclusion that this stuff will never be resolved. Thus I look at beliefs on a practical INFP type of level. If the belief is positive, i.e., it helps people live better lives, better quality of lives, then I'm all for it.

If it is destructive, like the belief in hell, then I'm all against it.

One's imagination can come up with whatever crap. I'd like to see you all debate whether or not hell exists. Try that one on for size!!!

[Johnny]

"exist in reality" kind of removes it from the alogical category.Does logic exist in reality?

[pintpi]

What is 'reality' to you? What you can perceive? Or what is possible? Would you say that everything that isn't in reality is alogical or just some things?
I would say, everything that has an effect on us is part of reality. This just happens (well not quite on accident) to coincide with what science studies. Meaning science is the study of effects. This is the point people often miss about science. Science can study anything that has an effect on something else. So those that claim science has it's limits, I think are missing the point. If you claim you can experience God, supernatural, paranormal, etc..., you are claiming they have an effect on you thus bringing them into the realm of reality and subject to scientific experiments. The only way people can claim these things are not to be subject to science is if they stay with the belief of their existence being based wholly on faith. Faith being just a pure assumption for what ever reason they might have and has nothing to do with reality.

[CreativeChaos]

Does logic exist in reality?

Logic does exist, but it is purely subjective.


When a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

Objective Reality: No, it makes sound waves if an atmosphere exists.

Subjective Reality: It does not create "sound" unless a creature such as a human is near by and the waves vibrate the ear drums which is interpreted by the brain as "sound".

[Geoff]

I have long since come to the conclusion that this stuff will never be resolved. Thus I look at beliefs on a practical INFP type of level. If the belief is positive, i.e., it helps people live better lives, better quality of lives, then I'm all for it.

If it is destructive, like the belief in hell, then I'm all against it.

One's imagination can come up with whatever crap. I'd like to see you all debate whether or not hell exists. Try that one on for size!!!

Oh it does, I just havent worked out its exact location yet. It might well be the M25 (the major motorway that encircles London).

-Geoff

[CreativeChaos]

Oh it does, I just havent worked out its exact location yet. It might well be the M25 (the major motorway that encircles London).

-Geoff

Haaa!!! Hell for an INFP would be to be forced to read all 90 pages of that Are INTPs Religous thread. Hee! :D

[Dman]

Well, I know this doesn’t belong in this thread, but I couldn’t remember where I saw it – but someone was telling CreativeChaos to be careful what she posted about her boss or work or something.

Here’s a good example of why (and it’s kind of appropriate for this thread after all!) -

Type the words “example of alogical” into Google, and the 6th hit (when I did it) brings you to where else, but my own post asking for a clear example of alogical! So yes, everything you type is out there for anyone to see.

I’m also severely restraining myself on this thread, thank you very much.

Edit: ok, now it's number one AND two. Probably because of THIS post.

[CreativeChaos]

Well, I know this doesn’t belong in this thread, but I couldn’t remember where I saw it – but someone was telling CreativeChaos to be careful what she posted about her boss or work or something.

Here’s a good example of why (and it’s kind of appropriate for this thread after all!) -

Type the words “example of alogical” into Google, and the 6th hit (when I did it) brings you to where else, but my own post asking for a clear example of alogical! So yes, everything you type is out there for anyone to see.

I’m also severely restraining myself on this thread, thank you very much.

Edit: ok, now it's number one AND two. Probably because of THIS post.

Holy Moly! 8O I just googled "CreativeChaos" and there I was the third hit! Then I googled Creative Choas, and couldn't find myself anywhere. Damn!!! :angry:

[booyalab]

Well, I know this doesn’t belong in this thread, but I couldn’t remember where I saw it – but someone was telling CreativeChaos to be careful what she posted about her boss or work or something.

Here’s a good example of why (and it’s kind of appropriate for this thread after all!) -

Type the words “example of alogical” into Google, and the 6th hit (when I did it) brings you to where else, but my own post asking for a clear example of alogical! So yes, everything you type is out there for anyone to see.

I’m also severely restraining myself on this thread, thank you very much.

Edit: ok, now it's number one AND two. Probably because of THIS post.

try googling just alogical and then try googling arational

[Helios]

I believe that we have proof that the universe is not infinite, it is both finite and expanding. The issue at hand now regarding the universe is that, is the expansion too "slow" leading to a slowing/stopping and reversal (aka the Big Crunch") or will it be too fast and at some point the scope excede the mass and the universe will rip apart? The last time I read much about this the whole issue was clouded by the discovery of "dark matter" and "dark engery" which they now think forms the bulk of the unverse while what we see and know is only the smaller portion. Maybe these "dark" elemnent will hold the universe in balance, but no really knows. If these fact hold true we can draw two point A) the universe had a "start" or point of origin; B ) we haven't got a freakin' clue about the rest!

[Dman]

This seems to be turning the commonly accepted natural principle of causality on its head.

Perhaps quantum mechanics is most consistent with the view that the universe is in fact random and chaotic, and that it has always just "been"

Hmm... but is anything really random, when it comes down to it? Meaning there is always a cause and effect, it's just that sometimes there are far two many unpredictable variables to make any correlations, meaning things appear random to US.

Even at the quantum level, can we be so sure that indeed there is true randomness? Or just that we don't know the cause and can't predict it with any of our models?

[CoHo]

If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

This is so much bullshit. It doesn't prove or explain anything. For all we know our entire civilization could be a computer program and we are just sentient programs. Our universe could be chaotic because the program was wrote to be so, and that computer may reside in a very ordered and explained universe.

Yeah, being in a computer program, that's laughable, that's so silly! Eating crackers on Sunday so the boogey-god doesn't send you to hell, oh that's lots of sense right there!

Furthermore this suggests that the universe cannot be infinite; there can not be an infinite number of causes. The universe cannot simply collapse and big-bang forever. No, that's silly talk, in order to explain how our universe is so not-infinite we have this being, but He CAN be infinite.

So, why the hell can the universe NOT be infinite but our deity CAN?

It takes 5 seconds of common sense.


Not everyone can understand all the abstract details of the first-cause argument, but anyone can understand its basic point: as C. S. Lewis put it, "I felt in my bones that this universe does not explain itself."

Translation: In case you don't understand, try not thinking about it!

[Dman]

Logic does exist, but it is purely subjective.


When a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?

Objective Reality: No, it makes sound waves if an atmosphere exists.

Subjective Reality: It does not create "sound" unless a creature such as a human is near by and the waves vibrate the ear drums which is interpreted by the brain as "sound".

If no atmosphere exists, does a tree grow?

Objective Reality: No
Subjective Reality: Sure, if you dispute that reality exists

[songbird36]

Hmm... but is anything really random, when it comes down to it? Meaning there is always a cause and effect, it's just that sometimes there are far two many unpredictable variables to make any correlations, meaning things appear random to US.

Even at the quantum level, can we be so sure that indeed there is true randomness? Or just that we don't know the cause and can't predict it with any of our models?

This question is better directed to Pintpi. I don't know enough about quantum physics to be able to answer it.

[Helios]

I think we can all agree that infinitey in beyond us to truely grasp, so if that is key to this than the whole subject is beyond us.

For the record I doubt that Anyones care what I eat on Sunday or anyother day.

[CoHo]

If we could all agree on that then why are we having this debate? Why do people still insist that religion is logical and sensible?

[MacGuffin]

Does logic exist in reality?
Yes. It is chartreuse in color, weighs about 37 pounds and is currently located in room 112 at Av Alvear 1891, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

[pintpi]

Hmm... but is anything really random, when it comes down to it? Meaning there is always a cause and effect, it's just that sometimes there are far two many unpredictable variables to make any correlations, meaning things appear random to US.

Even at the quantum level, can we be so sure that indeed there is true randomness? Or just that we don't know the cause and can't predict it with any of our models?
I'll take this since I am the one that really brought up the idea of true randomness.

Yup, it sure does seem to be at the fundamental level the universe is truely random (random in the probalistic sense, meaning there is a probability of certain out comes, not that all out comes are equally probable).

I was going to try to give a layman's explanation of why this is but my explanation was becoming annoying long and complicated. I happened to find a pretty good explanation of the problems involved here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox) though.

Basically you are suggesting that there is a hidden variable behind quantum physics and under the Bell's Inequality section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox#Bell.27s_inequality) it is shown that experiments (primarily Aspect (http://roxanne.roxanne.org/epr/experiment.html)) have shown that there are no hidden variables. That quantum physics (Schrodinger's equation) is actually how the universe on this scale functions, meaning the true nature of particles is probablistic. They don't have definite positions, velocities, spins, etc...

I apologize for not being able to explain it in more simple terms. I'll have to look around from some better summaries of quantum mechanics.

[songbird36]

Pintpi has quantum phsyics set itself up as a rival school of thought to traditional causation theory?

This is what i really want to know. Is it an either/or?

[pintpi]

Pintpi has quantum phsyics set itself up as a rival school of thought to traditional causation theory?

This is what i really want to know. Is it an either/or?
I wouldn't really say a rival. The problem that still has yet to be solved in physics is, how can these quantum effects that seem to violate causation give rise to the macroscopic notion of cause and effect? This is still a very open question in physics. Currently phyics is split in two (General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory) and to answer that question we are going to have to find a "Grand Unified Theory" (possibly String Theory -> M-Theory), that shows how these two distinct views of the universe give rise to each other.

So basically at the fundamental level the universe is not confined by causation but causation is still a constrant of the macroscopic universe.

If anyone is interested in further reading on how quantum mechanics violates our notion of causation here is a start (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement).

I should stress "our notion of causation" here quantum physics still has causation but it is quite different than the everyday notion of one thing causing an effect in another thing. In quantum machanic there is still a notion of causation but it is a probabalistic causation. For example, if a photon is emited from an atom and then later absorbed by another atom, we can't say the state of the first atom caused the photon to end up being absorbed by the second atom. The only thing that can be said is that sometime between the emission and absorption, the photon choose at random one of the possible out comes from the emission of the photon.

[floid]

If we could all agree on that then why are we having this debate? Why do people still insist that religion is logical and sensible?

"Logical" and "Sensible" in real world practice are relative values that change dramatically from individual to individual, nation to nation, and culture to culture.

To the religious religion is logical and sensible because it has internal cohesion and makes sense to them.

To the non-religious religion is illogical nonsense because they have not undergone the experiences that make it sensible.

Some drugs called entheogens can make it clearer to you as can anything that makes you feel, keenly and personally, your own mortality, or, to some, just a realization of the transcendence of ordinariness that goes on right under our noses.

Without experience, as has been said before, you will gain no further knowledge.

If you are unwilling to gain the requisite experience for understanding the issue being discussed then you really have nothing of importance to say about it.

It's like asking "Does vanilla ice cream have flavor?"
And speculating ad infinitum over the question rather than just getting a scoop and tasting it.

God exists, but no argument will prove it.

[Dman]

God exists, but no argument will prove it.

YOUR definition of god exists in YOUR mind. That does not mean YOUR definition of god exists in anyone else’s mind, and even if it does, it does nothing to say god exists, save for those who claim “he” does.

Agreed it’s a different ballgame than scientific observations that can be tested and the same results experienced for all. So it is perfectly logical and acceptable to say that YOU believe god exists. But it is illogical to say that this god of yours is everyone else’s god as well.

[MacGuffin]

But it is illogical to say that this god of yours is everyone else’s god as well.
It's alogical.









*snickers*

[Lee]

It makes absolutely no difference either way whether God exists or not, the universe will carry on doing what whatever it is doing regrdless if God is making it do whatever it is doing or it is just doing it of it's own accord.

However I find it completely ridiculous that we insist on projecting human qualities onto a being that is in all likelyhood completely beyond our understanding.

I would suggest that God is infact amoral (if God exists) and has no opinion on anything, opinions and morales are only possible with a point of reference, God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and therefore creates and controls both extremes, there is nothing to measure agaisnt.

[Geoff]

Yes, it is a strange kind of self delusion.. like the traditional viewpoints on heaven, hell etc. Just what do people think they are actually going to experience and who with? Funny old thing, humans.

-Geoff

[pintpi]

It makes absolutely no difference either way whether God exists or not, the universe will carry on doing what whatever it is doing regrdless if God is making it do whatever it is doing or it is just doing it of it's own accord.

However I find it completely ridiculous that we insist on projecting human qualities onto a being that is in all likelyhood completely beyond our understanding.

I would suggest that God is infact amoral (if God exists) and has no opinion on anything, opinions and morales are only possible with a point of reference, God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and therefore creates and controls both extremes, there is nothing to measure agaisnt.
That I think is a god way to look at it but in effect aren't you really just describing the natural universe without any kind of creator?

I think what people really want in a creator is purpose and intent. The way you describe God it hardly deserves to be called a God, might as well just call it the universe.

[CoHo]

To the religious religion is logical and sensible because it has internal cohesion and makes sense to them.

To the non-religious religion is illogical nonsense because they have not undergone the experiences that make it sensible.

Some drugs called entheogens can make it clearer to you as can anything that makes you feel, keenly and personally, your own mortality, or, to some, just a realization of the transcendence of ordinariness that goes on right under our noses.

Right... I'm not about to run off and smoke some DMT with the expectation that I'm going to see god. Psychoactives are called such because they FUCK WITH YOUR HEAD DUDE! You'll see a whole bunch of stuff that is or is not real. This is the equivalent of saying "I had a dream about god, therefore he must exist".

If I hypnotize you into thinking you are a puppy does that make you one? If you get in a car crash and loose 1/4 of your brain and suddenly you can't remember anything past three minutes does that mean time is fucked or just you?


Without experience, as has been said before, you will gain no further knowledge.

If you are unwilling to gain the requisite experience for understanding the issue being discussed then you really have nothing of importance to say about it.

So your point is you can't see god unless you take drugs, if you are unwilling to take drugs then you can't add to this conversation. Well if you wanted to convince me that people that believe in god are stoners, well... HALLEIGHLUIA!

[CoHo]

I would suggest that God is infact amoral

Do you truly believe this or do you ATRULY believe this?

I'm going to go have an adrink at the abar until I apassout

[Lee]

Do you truly believe this or do you ATRULY believe this?

I'm going to go have an adrink at the abar until I apassout

Well to be Immoral or Moral requires a comparison to something.

and I believe nothing.

[Johnny]

Yes. It is chartreuse in color, weighs about 37 pounds and is currently located in room 112 at Av Alvear 1891, Buenos Aires, Argentina.I like that so much, I want to book a flight!


If no atmosphere exists, does a tree grow?

Objective Reality: No
Subjective Reality: Sure, if you dispute that reality existsYou are only offering here that reality is capable of being honored in collective experience. I'm not against this at all. My only problem would be imposing restrictions on what then is and is not real, either from a subjective or objective frame of reference. You really can't offer subjective and objective reality's answer and make any real sense...unless you are capable of stepping from reality and exploring the differences.

"I had a dream about god, therefore he must exist" can be rejected quite easily for an individual who thinks dreams to be an entirely selfish and self-composed experience. But it offers nothing with respect to what is truly real. I can claim that dreams are our responses to interactions we cannot perceive or understand on a conscious, waking level, without the inborn talent and open-mindedness on our part to explore those parts of us that do acknowledge those interactions.

The 3 Stooges makes the joke all the time:

Curly: I can't see! I can't see!
Moe: What's wrong?
Curly: I've got my eyes closed.

nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

[CoHo]

But you still can't prove that we aren't sentient programs on a computer. Therefore the possibility that we are just computer programs is just as likely as the possibility of a god.

[Geoff]

Not 'just as likely', merely not equally disprovable. When you do not know an answer, it is normal to attempt to make a guess as to the most likely solution. Not every possible solution is a reasonable choice. We could be waiting to be sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure - but there is a reason why most do not believe that (apart from Douglas Adams, may he rest in peace).

-Geoff

[Johnny]

But you still can't prove that we aren't sentient programs on a computer. Therefore the possibility that we are just computer programs is just as likely as the possibility of a god.No question. And so I include God in my worldview and look to honoring Him as I honor the world as best I can.

It's a moving target, so I ask that you be merciful...

[floid]

Right... I'm not about to run off and smoke some DMT with the expectation that I'm going to see god. Psychoactives are called such because they FUCK WITH YOUR HEAD DUDE! You'll see a whole bunch of stuff that is or is not real. This is the equivalent of saying "I had a dream about god, therefore he must exist".

If I hypnotize you into thinking you are a puppy does that make you one? If you get in a car crash and loose 1/4 of your brain and suddenly you can't remember anything past three minutes does that mean time is fucked or just you?



So your point is you can't see god unless you take drugs, if you are unwilling to take drugs then you can't add to this conversation. Well if you wanted to convince me that people that believe in god are stoners, well... HALLEIGHLUIA!

Drugs were one option.
Probably not the best one.
There was a time in your life when you pissed as shat on yourself.
If you live long enough, chances are you will be doing it again.
Does this tell you anything?
Does it make you wonder if there may not be something more to you than your brittle little intellect so assiduously arguing against "God"?
When you finally genuinely seek the answers to personal questions similar to this with you heart leading instead of your head, you will find answers and know, in whatever form he/she/they decide to reveal themseves to you, that there is a "God".

As to whether that knowledge is subjective or objective is totally irrelevant save for the amusement of argument.

Experience, like a tsunami, trumps everthing else in the end.

You will know, but the only thing you can objectively say about it is "I believe".

[CoHo]

There was a time in your life when you pissed as shat on yourself.
If you live long enough, chances are you will be doing it again.
Does this tell you anything?

Yes, it tells me your a nut-roll!

You aren't making any points, you aren't providing any content, you are saying "I'm enlightened and you're not". I can say the same thing, actually I can say I am MORE ENLIGHTENED because I went BEYOND the belief of god and found it to be false.

For some reason you seem to think that you are right, even though everything you describe is subjective. I don't see that as a case for a person with a strong intellect. I see that as a weak minded individual grasping on the aprons of fairy tales.

So what are you then? What religion are you?

[floid]

I can say I am MORE ENLIGHTENED because I went BEYOND the belief of god and found it to be false.


By the rationality you hold so dear the above statement is complete nonsense.

The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement.
For an absolute statement to be true, you must have absolute knowledge.

"There is no gold in South America."

What do you have to know for the above statement to be true?

A: No knowledge of gold in South America
B: Partial knowledge of gold in South America
C: Absolute knowledge of gold South America

If you wish to be reasonable you cannot state "There is no God".
You can only state, reasonably "Based on my limited knowledge of the universe there is no God".

Which boils down to an opinion -- same as mine.

I like mine

You like yours

Peace

[Lee]

Drugs were one option.
Probably not the best one.
There was a time in your life when you pissed as shat on yourself.
If you live long enough, chances are you will be doing it again.
Does this tell you anything?
Does it make you wonder if there may not be something more to you than your brittle little intellect so assiduously arguing against "God"?
When you finally genuinely seek the answers to personal questions similar to this with you heart leading instead of your head, you will find answers and know, in whatever form he/she/they decide to reveal themseves to you, that there is a "God".

As to whether that knowledge is subjective or objective is totally irrelevant save for the amusement of argument.

Experience, like a tsunami, trumps everthing else in the end.

You will know, but the only thing you can objectively say about it is "I believe".


I think this is ignorance disgiused as wisdom.

Deep emotional experiences do not prove God, they prove only that you had a deep emotional experience and that you seem to attribute this to God. If you are happy with this answer then I really am pleased for you, I however cannot accept this as a satisfactory answer.

[CoHo]

By the rationality you hold so dear the above statement is complete nonsense.
The declaration "There is no God" is what is known as an absolute statement.

No shit? That would be a great argument if I ever made that statement.


If you wish to be reasonable you cannot state "There is no God".

And if you want to be reasonable you cannot state "There is a God". Since I've never said "There is no God" then I am not unreasonable, BUT you have stated there is a God so you are unreasonable.

Me = reasonable
You = Fruit loop

[songbird36]

Not 'just as likely', merely not equally disprovable. When you do not know an answer, it is normal to attempt to make a guess as to the most likely solution. Not every possible solution is a reasonable choice. We could be waiting to be sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure - but there is a reason why most do not believe that (apart from Douglas Adams, may he rest in peace).

-Geoff

Yeah where is Arthur Dent when we need him in this debate? The meaning of life is, after all, 42...

[earwax]

Yeah where is Arthur Dent when we need him in this debate? The meaning of life is, after all, 42...

Coming soon! http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html

[MacGuffin]

If you wish to be reasonable you cannot state "There is no God". [....]And if you want to be reasonable you cannot state "There is a God"....
Huh. Sounds like God is alogical!

[CoHo]

Coming soon! http://hitchhikers.movies.go.com/main.html

I cant wait! I really hope they do a good job and don't bastardize it like some other books that have been turned into movies (Johnny Mnemonic / I, Robot)

[Geoff]

I cant wait! I really hope they do a good job and don't bastardize it like some other books that have been turned into movies (Johnny Mnemonic / I, Robot)

Yes, please dont let them ruin it. By the way the next two books have been dramatised by BBC Radio 4 in the last year and are now available on CD. The radio series always were the best versions (and the 'real' one I feel).

Most of the original cast have been brought back for it too!

-Geoff

[Ascending]

From the trailer it looks great!

Floid, you've got skills, ever consider becoming a cult leader? I understand the money is good for the minimal investment of a dark pair of 80's shades.

[songbird36]

Yes, please dont let them ruin it. By the way the next two books have been dramatised by BBC Radio 4 in the last year and are now available on CD. The radio series always were the best versions (and the 'real' one I feel).

Most of the original cast have been brought back for it too!

-Geoff

Fuckin' A!!