When I started this endeavor over four years ago, I was able to be more patient with the refusal of commenters to step out of ideology and into a non-prejudiced search for whatever might be true. As time has worn on I have become less tolerant of that, to my own detriment and the detriment of the blog. Now I am rather easily irritated when someone engages in conversation, but refuses to accept logic or science as presented and then demands that I justify my position even further, without any need to justify his own position or rejection. There is a point at which unreasonable conversation needs to stop, of course, and where that point lies is debatable. But my own inclination at this stage is to disengage almost immediately when the other person starts into refusal mode, by which I mean that no matter what the evidence, be it logical failure of the Atheist argument due to obvious fallacy, or obstinant refusal to accept even science, the person refuses to accept the obvious. It is especially annoying to me when science and logic "loving" persons wish to argue from a position of complete ignorance of either modern science as it pertains, or the fundamental principles of logic.
The intent here is to engage in rational conversation using the known and accepted methods of logical analysis which are grounded in known axioms and are the basis for mathematics, science, and critical analysis of propositions. In a sense, one result here has been to illuminate the entrenchment of Atheist minds into materialist ideology, and the refusal to accept any deviation from ideology despite evidence which they cannot and do not refute.
The Category Error is so ingrained into the Atheist ideology that it apparently cannot be seen from that perspective. It seems that every conversation ends at the same issue: the demand that I provide material evidence for non-material existence. The form the demand takes changes, but the error is the same. The second error is the Atheist refusal to take responsibility for his own views, i.e., to provide material evidence for the non-existence of non-material existence.
These two points are used to stall conversations, because the Atheists cannot proceed beyond this logical error and obvious fallacy. By demanding material evidence, they halt any further rational discourse because they refuse, to a man, to budge further. Or at least that is my experience with Atheists here on this blog.
Now since that is an expectation of conversations with Atheists, or at least it should be by now, there is no reason for me to be irritated when it occurs. But at the moment, I am. And that is not good, it is a step out of the rational, and that is a deviation from the purpose of this blog.
I do encourage others to converse while I take some time off to determine whether to continue this.
76 comments:
What about the other eBook that you were suppose to finish, "Spectrum of atheism"?
And will you still reply to sent emails?
I wrote part of the book; I doubt that I'll finish it. I need to either clean up that website or take it down.
Emails, yes, but not immediately. I've never been very prompt with emails, but I do get to them ultimately.
I hope you stick with us Stan, your blog is great! I understand your frustration however, I get it all the time in the sphere of political 'discussion'. People aren't really wanting to listen, they're wanting to talk until you either make an error or slip of the tongue and ignore everything else you say, simply to move onto the next encounter and use that experience as a 'proof' that they are 'right'.
If they're not listening, I cut the conversation short after a quick capsule of facts that hopefully sink in later on down the road.
Either way, if you focus on the main spokespeople of atheism rather than internet trolls, perhaps that would be less frustrating?
Hope you keep at it and God bless, my friend!
Morgan,
"...focus on the main spokespeople of atheism..."
That's good advice, thanks!
Stan
Oh this saddens me deeply. I have just recently found your blog and was hoping to follow you further. I understand your grief and frustration and wish to thank you for your analysis thus far. You have done an outstanding job.
I can understand this type of frustration Stan. I've had to ban a couple of people from my site in the past for simply refusing to answer simple, direct questions when put to them.
Often they will counter with "You just didn't like the answer I offered" when trying to defend the dicey bit of evasion they provided as an excuse for an answer.
Just concentrate on quality rather than quantity. Your blog is great!
>I need to either clean up that website or take it down.
Haha, I'll be desperate if you do. It's one of the greatest websites for the existence of God I've ever been to, and for many other people too. :)
And you can finish the book at any time. I've always wanted to write a book regarding atheism in the future and publish it, and you're website is one of the fundamental sources that I'll use for reference.
I send people to this blog to reassure them of their faith and to show them how wrong and evil atheists are. Don't stop.
HI to all. Since Stan is leaving, I am left with some hanging questions that anybody can reply to, as I am interested in hearing different opinions.
AFTER re-reading previous threads, and especially the argumentation for agent-causation of the universe, I came to narrow the reason for not believing in Stan's God as the following.
AS Stan agreed to, the following image is:
"...seems pretty accurate (with the caveat that the universe is a sphere, appearing flat only to humans due to the light speed horizon), noting the extreme non-linearity at the beginning and the growing non-linearity at the far end, both attributed to negative gravity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg
NOW, let's add to it what I personally believe:
http://i.imgur.com/c8FEvh.jpg
AND what I understand from Stan according to the argumentation for agent-causation of the universe:
http://i.imgur.com/f5t2Nh.jpg
FIRST, let me know what I did wrong with the two images.
THEN, why I should believe that Stan's version is more accurate than mine?
"...focus on the main spokespeople of atheism..."
Take that advice on board stan.. your blog is quality!
Don't stop yet :D
Atheists are great in foolish statement and to talk nonsense and in superficial thinking.
The atheist idea on God is based on a giant strawman mixed with reification fallacies, appeals to novelty, arguments from ignorance, and many cognitive biases; it's large to explain. And always ad hominems.
Go on, go forward, Stan; your blog is great.
Jim,
>THEN, why I should believe that Stan's version is more accurate than mine?
You need to be aware of the theistic arguments to know why we should postulate such a being, and they all kind of supplement each other.
First one is from Leibniz:
1. Everything that is contingent has an explanation for its existence outside itself
2. The universe is contingent
3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation for its existence outside itself
The argument is logically valid. To escape the conclusion, you need to deny one of the premises. Premise 1 is strongly supported by our experience, especially in the sciences, and we've never seen a counterexample to it. Premise 2 can be shown with a sub-argument:
1. Anything that can be logically described to have gone differently is contingent
2. The universe can be logically described to have gone differently
3. Therefore, the universe is contingent
Premise 1 is true by definition; that's what it means to be "contingent." Premise 2 is shown by reading any cosmologist, who will describe how the universe would be today it X property had been different at the Big Bang.
Note that this argument has nothing to do with how old the universe is. Allow it to be infinitely old, if you like.
So to escape the conclusion ("the universe has an explanation for its existence outside itself"), you need to hold to one of the following premises:
1. Not everything that is contingent has an explanation for its existence outside itself
2. Not everything that can be logically described to have gone differently is contingent
3. Cosmologists are not able to logically describe the universe having gone differently
I don't see how you can deny 2 or 3, as those are both true, one by definition, and one by pulling up any of numerous examples.
So that leaves 1. You wish to deny 1, you need to give evidence for it.
1. Everything that is contingent has an explanation for its existence outside itself
Maybe everything IN this universe... does it apply to universes and how do you know?
MARTIN, the conclusion you presented is:
"the universe has an explanation for its existence outside itself"
YES, that's the big '?' I put on my version.
MY question is why should I replace this '?' by something else.
STAN wrote:
"Now let’s examine the basic claim for agent-causation of the universe."
The hypothesis for an existence which is outside and beyond mass / energy is this:
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
I don't know anything about this existence prior to the existence of mass/energy so I cannot conclude that it is non-physical. Using your words above; I don't know anything about the universe's "explanation".
WHAT do you know about it and why? Is the image of Stan's version accurate according to you?
Hello Stan:
It usually happensand is actually understandable. It is really difficult to keep an open mind towards another position when some people impose it in a closed-minded fashion.
Frankly, I believe the worst and only superstition is the emotional denial of anything.
The self-avowed skeptics, no only the internetz type but also at least the ones I communicate with in a daily basis, in a contemporary, post-modernist timeline, specially in the kind of youth I'm actually experiencing with and being myself in my early twenties,
tend to be disrespectful and arrogant, wasting time in posting politically extreme and anti-religious crap on facebook, with that obvious characteristical pseudo-humoristic smugness. There's no much to expect from those kinds of "group-thinking" people.
No different from any mass of people working as Human Discrimiation Machines, and does not worth the effort every time, as you've shown at least to me with astounding empirical evidence.
I wholeheartedly, and from a strategic prospect, agree with JD Curtis and Morgan's suggestions.
If anything, thanks again for the content you've been offering for the latter two years.
Kind Regards.
I am an atheist genuinely interested in reasons for religious belief. Yet it seems to me that as soon as pressed for such reasons the religious have absolutely nothing substantial to present.
Inevitably their defense turns into an attack. The atheist is a close minded materialist. Atheism has no moral basis. Atheists are evil, disrespectful, arrogant, smug and prone to group think.
The irony of course is that this is from a group who gathers each Sunday to reaffirm their belief that they were uniquely created by a supreme intelligence who loved them so much he sent forth his only son to be brutally tortured and murdered. And if you do not believe as they do, well then you will merely be condemned to an eternity of torment.
Yet it is the atheist who is close minded, arrogant and immoral.
Stan has repeatedly asserted that the demand for material evidence of the immaterial is a Category Error. That may very well be the case. However noting it is a Category Error leaves no reason to accept the proposition "A God Exists".
Jim, I've read your resent conversation with Stan with great interest. Having seen several others attempt to wrangle some semblance of rationale from Stan's self proclaimed logic, I very much appreciated your approach.
Concise, polite and open minded to say the least. Yet when backed into a logical corner, Stan erects his atheist strawman and floods the conversation with irrelevancies.
"Should I believe in one of these gods that I have heard of?"
"If this is the sum total of what you want me to answer, then I have nothing to contribute."
And once again, the theist has nothing to present.
Jeremy,
It's interesting that this comment to which you refer occurred right in the middle of a presentation which Jim has rejected based on Materialist skepticism, a position which he initially rejected.
Prior to this comment he indicated that the approach which I was taking was what he wanted to see, then he changed his mind, mid-stream, asking for me to know his mental state and prior history as if I were a psychic.
He also initially rejected Philosophical Materialism, the exact position which he now takes in order to stop the conversation at his rejection of non-empirical knowledge. His position is fundamental skeptical rejectionism: he "cannot know" the thing which will bring his ideology to its knees. He asks for material proof in order to avoid the consequences of the logic.
He cannot support his own rejection based on rational deniability, because all the actual evidence points away from his rejection. Therefore he must assert Materialist rejectionist skeptical denial instead.
It is interesting that the easiest knowledge to destroy is the Materialist claim, followed by Scientistic claims, followed in turn by science claims themselves: false, false, and contingent; non-coherent, non-coherent, and eminently fragile. In fact, deniability is built into science in the form of falsification, which is different from ideological denial.
Jim has stepped into the realm of denial using Philosophical Materialism, which is intended to destroy logical approaches and halt conversation regardless of the actual science plus logic which is presented. Therefore there is no point in conversing further with him because he does not, will not, cannot accept logic as a source of probable knowledge. So the conversation has ceased.
As for your comments above, they are not sustainable for any reading of the entire comment chain. Unless, of course, you also assert Materialist skeptical rejectionism, which we can very likely trace back to solipsist roots and the intent to destroy knowledge which is inconvenient to the Materialist position.
So your assessment is not the case, and is rejected.
JEREMY, thanks for the comment. I have the same feeling regarding what is supposed to be a civil discussion being turned into an attack on a strawman atheism. Stan's reply to your comment confirms it...
STAN said:
"...Jim has stepped into the realm of denial using Philosophical Materialism, which is intended to destroy logical approaches and halt conversation regardless of the actual science plus logic which is presented. Therefore there is no point in conversing further with him because he does not, will not, cannot accept logic as a source of probable knowledge. So the conversation has ceased..."
AGAIN, for someone who decided to stop commenting, he seems to be unable to do so.
FOR someone who pretends to have logical reasons for his beliefs, he prefers to attack a strawman position and never go back to defending the assumptions that I rejected.
I insisted that I don't adhere to what he describes as Philosophical Materialism. I don't intend to destroy logical approaches. I don't stop the conversion because of actual science. I am actually doing the opposite by asking questions about the reasoning instead of rejecting it right away or saying that it's false. And I accept logic as a source of probable knowledge. So the conversation has ceased... because Stan has nothing to offer to support his assumptions.
AGAIN, I like to be clear and repeat; the only thing I rejected up to now is this:
"Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
I reject the notion that it's "given" that the universe started as a non-physical entity. Nobody can explain why it must be the case.
AGAIN, again, I am not claiming the opposite, I am not claiming that the universe stated as a physical entity. I am not claiming that the universe started out of literaly nothing. I am asking why we should conclude that it's more probable to have a non-physical entity before the universe rather than anything else. The only reason I heard right now to believe that 'Part 1' is reasonable because we are able to conceive a non-material entity... but there are so many things we are able to think about. Why is this one more probable?
LOOK at what Martin said for instance:
"...this argument has nothing to do with how old the universe is. Allow it to be infinitely old, if you like."
He does not seem to realize the irony of his statement. By saying that it could be infinitely old, he basically gave an example of a physical universe without an external non-physical cause. If the universe is infinitely old, by definition, it would have no beginning nor end; there is nothing prior to it since 'prior to it' is meaningless. We know it's not the case for the 'observable universe' around us, so I don't believe it to be the case. BUT! I also fail to understand why I should dismiss this option! I fail to see why this should make me believe the opposite: the universe has a non-physical cause.
SO, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me their reasons for accepting Stan's version of the universe rather than the one I presented with a big '?' for what's outside...
Stan, regardless of what you decide to do, thank you!
I guess my question wasn't interesting enough so I'll expand it.
What makes people think that rules that apply IN the universe apply TO universes?
Jim,
"FOR someone who pretends to have logical reasons for his beliefs, he prefers to attack a strawman position and never go back to defending the assumptions that I rejected."
and
"And I accept logic as a source of probable knowledge. So the conversation has ceased... because Stan has nothing to offer to support his assumptions."
Jim, this is blatantly false. The reasons were given; you ignored them and continue to ignore them. You claim that you don't know. Or rather can't know. Your position is merely that the proposed hypothesis is a claim which you cannot deduce from known facts... that you are ignorant of the physical facts, and/or that all possibilities must be considered with the same probability weighting them: you cannot ignore any of them, including an infinite universe life.
You have missed or ignored the entire purpose (and method) of generating probable knowledge from probable facts concerning the current science of cosmic birth. You are now asserting ignorance as a truth statement.
Support the position that you cannot deduce or hypothesize from known facts. That is how science works. Show us how unreasonable in terms of the probability of the conclusion being a subset of the facts. Calculate the probability for us. Then we would have something to discuss, whereas with the claim of forced ignorance there is nothing left to discuss.
If you continue to claim ignorance as your supreme knowledge, then explain why the conversation should continue. Your assertion of ignorance is quite obviously your attempt to stop the chain of hypothesis deduction: no knowledge can proceed from the piece which you claim to have destroyed by your ignorance of physical fact; claiming a forced ignorance is a poor excuse for knowledge. However, it is your right, as it is anyone's, to remain as ignorant in the attachment to material, physical fact as possible. You may cling to your posit of ignorance, and surely no one can argue that with you. Your claim of accepting logic as a source of knowledge rings false. You have quite effectively stopped any further probable knowledge from entering the realm of your zone of comfort.
And you have done so with the fallacy of skepticism - radical skepticism is the intellectual tool of ideologists. In the limit you will not be able to prove that you even exist, outside of your mental machinations. It is a tired ploy. It proves only that reasonable, probable knowledge is easily destroyed by intellectual vandalism.
"AGAIN, again, I am not claiming the opposite, I am not claiming that the universe stated as a physical entity. I am not claiming that the universe started out of literaly nothing. I am asking why we should conclude that it's more probable to have a non-physical entity before the universe rather than anything else. "
"Anything else" than non-physical would necessarily be physical. Show your work. Show that physical elements in the periodic table indeeed are a rational expectation in, and before, the planck nugget. Show that subatomic particles are a rational expectation in, and before, the planck nugget. Calculate the probabilities from known science. That is what is required to demonstrate your position of forced ignorance.
You are insisting that someone prove you are wrong. But you have not shown that you have rational reasons for declaring forced ignorance, nor have you disproved the opposing posit which uses rational probabilities.
The burden is yours.
Sparks said,
"What makes people think that rules that apply IN the universe apply TO universes?"
Which points to the issue of why a physical universe would necessitate a physical pre-universe, as Materialism requires.
Jim,
Yes, I've gone around this with Stan. What started off as a pleasant hypothetical degenerated into a series of aggressive straw man arguments against atheism.
I've seen him repeat this same pattern with several atheists. Granted a couple of those other atheists were exponentially more aggressive than yourself. Which is why I so much appreciated your approach and thought .. "Surely, this time, Stan must present some basis for a belief in a deity."
What you have to understand is that Stan refuses to shoulder any burden of proof. He won't even discuss his own personal theological stance.
Reread his last paragraph. Unless you can explain how the universe can and did arise from sources unrecognizable as a deity, atheism is illogical. This should be immediately recognizable as a nonsensical position to hold .. yet here we stand.
Rather than provide the minimum amount of reason or evidence any sane person would require for an extraordinary claim, he insists you must explain EVERYTHING or his unsubstantiated, unfalsifiable claim holds sway.
a) Explore every cubic inch, every cubic angstrom of space, during every femtosecond of time – historically, current, and future, for a deity which is not material in any sense, with instrumentation data on the lack of discovery
at every point onthe universe;
AND,
b) Explore everything before the Big Bang using the best material technology to provide instrumental data that there is no such no-material existence.
~Stan
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.ca/2010/11/challenge-to-atheists-prove-that-there.html
But we're the radical ideological skeptics? We are the intellectual vandals? Well I call bullshit. I mean, what utter nonsense. What a complete abdication of reason and responsibility. Intellectually vacuous doesn't even begin to cover it.
Yes, of course. The Atheists with no proof of anything, those who wish for logic to bend to Free Thought, those who provide only skepticism without any contribution to actual knowledge... those are the ones who call bullshit.
And those who deny their materialist brain lock-down still use materialism as the excuse for their lack of proof. It's irrational, they say to ask for such proof from us: but you are required to produce it FOR us.
The case presented was clear. When you can show that the probability being discussed is in fact rationally improbable, you will have an actual position. Otherwise you are merely spewing. So far, none of you has attempted to show that the presentation is false, you merely make the unsubstantiated claim of Straw Man, the standard Atheist admission of defeat.
And yes, when you make a universal claim, then either universal data or sound probabilistic logic is required, whether you approve of it or not. Atheists who make the positive assertion that there is no God are making the extraordinary claim of universal knowledge, which of course, they cannot prove, either logically or materially/empirically. Their claim is unfalsifiable and without evidence, yet they claim to be logical and evidence based. Their entire existence is based on that fallacy: the Category Error.
When Atheists show up with firm empirical evidence for their belief system, then they will have something to discuss. In the meantime they merely blather forth in skeptical denigrations, calling out non-existant fallacies against the charges they cannot refute.
"We must have proof for that which we believe". Bertrand Russell, Atheist.
Proof! Proof! We must have proof! Thomas Edison, Atheist
But of course these admonitions are just for the other guy, not for Atheists, ever. Atheists excuse themselves from the burden of proof, and are incensed at having it placed on back on themselves. It's all part of Free Thought, untethered from the rational rules which apply to the rest of us.
If you want to demonstrate your logical abilities, your rational deductive approach, or even your evidence, then do so. So far, none of you have demonstrated any of those capabilities, beyond those of negation and unsustained skepticism.
Is that all there is to Atheism? Where is the actual logic?
Jim
I had asked you about your view on naturalism and supernaturalism. I think that you said that both positions are incoherent. Could you elaborate on that?
Stan, you demonstrate your ignorance of both what atheism entails, and on who the burden of proof falls.
Atheism is a rejection of the claim that a god exists. This rejection is substantiated because there exist neither material evidence nor immaterial reason to warrant the assumption that the proposition is true.
The positive claim is that a god exists. If this claim was not being made, the atheist's position would be nonsensical.
And yes, that pretty much wraps up all there is to atheism.
"I see no reason to accept the claim that a god - especially your specific deity, Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu - exists."
But you know this. It's been told to you at least a half dozen times since I started reading your blog.
Still you insist atheists shoulder the burden to prove the universe is absent of something you can call god.
It's just intellectually dishonest.
It is intellectually consistent to require the same evidence for claims of the same value.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.
The claim that a deity exists is extraordinary. The evidence and reason to support this is at best, flimsy, and at worst, non-existent.
You agree there is no Material Evidence to support the existence of a deity (a category error), so all we are left with is your flimsy reasoning.
A reasoning, which as Jim concludes is more honestly answered with a question mark rather than the assertion that Goddidit.
Donchathink?
Stan, thanks for all the time and effort you have put into this blog. It has been very educational.
And thank you for having so much patience. I'm sure it must get tiresome to dissect the same atheist arguments over and over.
Jeremy says,
” Stan, you demonstrate your ignorance of both what atheism entails, and on who the burden of proof falls.
Atheism is a rejection of the claim that a god exists. This rejection is substantiated because there exist neither material evidence nor immaterial reason to warrant the assumption that the proposition is true.
Quite the contrary, of course. Atheism is the positive position that no deity exists. The claim you make is the new, retreating approach which at one time was attributed to agnosticism, but is now claimed by Atheists who realize that they have exactly no evidence or logic to support their position. The burden of course is on the refuter who is burdened with rebuttal, a necessity for rational debate, but anathema to those who have nothing rational to contribute in the form of refutation. The form which they adopt is that “there exist neither material evidence nor immaterial reason to warrant”, which of course they refuse to back up with either data or logic.
This has been adequately demonstrated here, where the refusal is in the form of radical skepticism, which involves the cheap trick of denying something without presenting any actual reason for the denial, just as you have done, above.
” The positive claim is that a god exists. If this claim was not being made, the atheist's position would be nonsensical.
Wrong. The claim being made here is that there are rational reasons developed by induction which are not being refuted logically and which point to the probable existence of a creating agent.
”And yes, that pretty much wraps up all there is to atheism.”
Actually the Atheist’s position is nonsensical either way, because no Atheist provides either evidence or logic in refutation, just denial. So there is no “sense”, only denial without analysis, evidence or logic.
(continued)
” "I see no reason to accept the claim that a god - especially your specific deity, Yahweh or Allah or Vishnu - exists."
But you know this. It's been told to you at least a half dozen times since I started reading your blog.
Still you insist atheists shoulder the burden to prove the universe is absent of something you can call god.
It's just intellectually dishonest.”
And that illuminates the concept which Atheists use for intellectual honesty: If I, an Atheist, say there is no reason, then no reason exists purely because I say so; I have no burden to give any reasons for rejecting, any evidence, or any logic, purely because I am an Atheist. I am allowed to deny merely for no reason, and if challenged, then the challenge is intellectually dishonest.”
” It is intellectually consistent to require the same evidence for claims of the same value.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence.”
And here you prove the point exactly, without meaning to do so. Yes, absolutely. When demanding empirical proof for a deity from party A,” it is intellectually consistent to require the same evidence for claims of the same value,” i.e. demanding empirical proof for no deity from party B.
And the trite tautology from Sagan again proves the point: if you claim that there is “no evidence” or “no reason”, then those claims must be supported, as must the claim that there is no deity. And since they are mere negations, then all and every argument and piece of evidence must be defeated, and defeated using the material empirical techniques which Atheists approve.
” You agree there is no Material Evidence to support the existence of a deity (a category error), so all we are left with is your flimsy reasoning.”
False. The Category Error is the Atheist demand for material evidence of a non-material entity. But in fact there are material challenges which Atheists cannot defeat materially, such as the miracle at Lourdes. If you are up to that challenge then go for it.
” A reasoning, which as Jim concludes is more honestly answered with a question mark rather than the assertion that Goddidit.”
The assertion of forced ignorance is certainly your right. Is it honest? Hardly. None of you has even examined the case presented, much less made a rational attack on it. You declare ignorance as a rational force without having analyzed; I think that says a lot about Atheist mentality, ideology, and rational capabilities.
I think this exchange illustrates a basic point - it is impossible to teach those who refuse to learn.
There's a reason Theistic apologists tend over time to become dismissive of Atheists who ask for "evidence": far too often the request is insincere.
The Atheist will move the goalposts, change his ground, pretend not to be able to follow the argument, change the topic, refuse to accept logic, etc etc.
This is because such people are not seeking truth, they simply want to convince themselves of what they have already decided to believe.
As CS Lewis put it, such people will just waste one's time.
I think this exchange illustrates a basic point - it is impossible to learn from those who refuse to teach.
There's a reason Atheists tend over time to become dismissive of Theists who pretend to have "reasons" to believe: far too often the reasons are unjustified.
The Theist will move the goalposts, change his definitions, pretend the reader cannot follow the argument, change the topic, refuse to accept logic, etc etc.
This is because such people are not seeking truth, they simply want to convince themselves of what they have already decided to believe.
As someone who is not CS Lewis put it, such people will just waste one's time.
For a view into the depths of Atheist absurdities, offer them the "miracle at Lourdes" for them to debunk - using empirical techniques of course. The response to that has always been a reduction into blithering denialism and charges of "Straw Man", the Atheist signal of defeat.
Sometimes I agree with CS Lewis's assessment, and other times I think it is important to demonstrate the type of thinking process which Atheists claim to be "logic". Frequently they will point to text book logic and claim that it is my own invention, and that's a sure sign that they have zero education in the thing which they claim they have.
I think that Atheists enjoy a certain amount of success when they attack unsuspecting Christians who have moved on from the the fundamentals which are the tar pits for Atheists. I do wish that more Christians would study logic and rational discourse in order to deal with flank attacks. Atheists have exactly no ground to stand on, which is why they don't want to have to defend it, and so they try squirming every which way to avoid it.
As we have seen here, they would rather revere ignorance than to calculate a simple probability.
STAN said:
"The reasons were given; you ignored them and continue to ignore them."
NOPE, I don't ignore them; I am telling you in plain English why the reasons are bad and why I don't believe them. If I were not interested in the reasons, and if I were to ignore them, I would not be here :)
"You claim that you don't know. Or rather can't know.
...
If you continue to claim ignorance as your supreme knowledge, then explain why the conversation should continue."
NOPE, I claim that I know one thing, and I know it with an extremely high degree of certainty: From observations, it appears to us that the universe was compacted into an extremely small size 14 billion years ago.
BUT, we don't see past a certain point (around 100,000 years after the Big Bang if I recall correctly?), so we can only extrapolate to try to figure out what was there before, by using the equations that describe the universe after that 100,000 year mark. What we find is that the universe was most likely compacted into a size so small that the equations that work well now start to break down because of the introduction of infinitys and 0s in them.
WE thus label that moment and place in time a 'singularity' because it's a conceptual representation of what the universe's components would look like at t=0. The key point is that it's not a literal description; it is an extremely good approximation, but it is still just an approximation.
BESIDE that, go see the image I posted earlier, I don't claim to know more.
AT this point though, Stan does claim something:
"Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity"
WHEN I ask to justify this claim, you do so by invoking the same non-material equations we use to describe everything else in the universe. Because you use non-material equations to describe that universe, you conclude that it is the universe itself that was non-material. I am not good at naming fallacies but... affirming the consequent?
BEFORE you say, again, that I ignore your justifications, let me quote you from the other thread (cutting a bit to prevent long post):
"... none of these theories is directly observable using material techniques...
...because the dimensions of space/time are wrapped into planck length also, there is no material way in which to measure or judge it. In fact, the status of the space/time dimensions is thought to become non-coherent...
...no reason to presume that the existence within the planck nugget is the same or even similar to the existence which we term “physical”... If they are actually merely probability waves compacted into near zero space, they are non-physical. No matter what they actually are compositionally, they are non-empirical in terms of knowledge.
...within Quantum Theory where particles do not exist except as probability waves"
THIS is what I have problems with. I don't ignore it. I even agree with everything up to 'If they are actually merely probability waves...'. I don't agree that they are non-physical. Yes, they are non-empirical in terms of knowledge, because by definition we cannot observer them, but we built these equations because we observed particles!
IN other words, using the last words, I don't agree that particles do not exist except as probability waves. We describe our observations of such particles in terms of probability waves, but it is a logical error to conclude that they only exist in the form of these non-material equations.
CHRIS,
" Jim
I had asked you about your view on naturalism and supernaturalism. I think that you said that both positions are incoherent. Could you elaborate on that?"
NOT really...
I don't believe the claim 'something exists outside the natural world'
I don't believe the claim 'all that exists is inside the natural world'
STAN
" As we have seen here, they would rather revere ignorance than to calculate a simple probability."
THE cause of the entire universe is a matter of calculating a simple probability? The arrogance is strong with this one ;)
IN other words, using the last words, I don't agree that particles do not exist except as probability waves. We describe our observations of such particles in terms of probability waves, but it is a logical error to conclude that they only exist in the form of these non-material equations.
So you are denying the basic premise of Quantum Mechanics. You apparently are doing so because it violates your sense of materialist existence, which you take as a premise of logic. Or possibly you think that every such conclusion cannot be made for the reason that a materialist explanation must exist, yet you have no such explanation (I’m guessing) for the results of the basic slit experiment , or for the need of Feynman to posit the path integral to account for the propagation of the probability wave.
What is your proof of this denial of the evidence? This science has been established for nearly a century now. It would be revolutionary if you could disprove it.
But I suspect that your evidence is merely that it offends your sense of materialist existence, not that you have actual evidence to show in defense of your denial.
But the real point is that you have not shown any inclination to provide a disproof of the hypothesis-deduction, certainly no calculations that I have seen regarding even the cumulative size of known particles in the universe vs the size available in the planck-size nugget. This would seem to be an essential part of your argument. Neither that nor the calculation of the probability that all physical existence as we experience it in our universe actually existed inside the planck-sized nugget as you insist it actually could have.
So your protestation is not really related to the process being used, nor is it endowed with any facts that are compatible with known science.
(Perhaps if you read up on Schrodinger’s cat…?) The original idea that the wave function was a statistical representation of underlying deterministic existence is no longer mainstream. The thinking now seems to be that the wave function is a probability function wherein all possible existences reside simultaneously but probabilistically until the equation is collapsed (decohered?) or resolved into separate universes. This is not understandable under classical physical constraints because the simultaneous existences are paradoxical and not classical. This then leads to the observer having a wave function, too. The lack of classical determinism leads to some interesting complexities.
So under what interpretation would you propose that quantum pre-collapse existence must be considered physical in the classical sense?
So, how do you defend your position against charges of skepticism without corresponding evidentiary support?
"THE cause of the entire universe is a matter of calculating a simple probability? The arrogance is strong with this one ;)"
And yet despite the Ad Hominem you provide no reasoning as to why you do not provide such a calculation which shows the improbability which you hope for. You are invited to stop dodging, and provide some actual evidence on the one hand, or do the calculation on the other hand. So far you have only taken shots at the concept in attempt to kill it so you don't have to deal with it.
After a quick re-read, I think I might have misinterpreted your statement: QM does not take the position that particles do not exist except as equations, except prior to "equation collapse", as I have described several times. Also this is thought to be the form of Bose-Einstein "foam" at temperatures nearing absolute zero. Of course particles exist, but only after equation collapse (or decoherence, or separation into separate universes).
It is prior to equation collapse that the classical form of "existence" is not valid. That is why Hawking in his previous book compared the start of the universe to the equation collapse, only on a larger scale. It's because the existence of the universe at that scale is not the classical form of existence: it is not the physical particle/atom/molecule existence with which we are familiar on a macro scale.
STAN said:
"So you are denying the basic premise of Quantum Mechanics."
OF course not :)
"You apparently are doing so because it violates your sense of materialist existence, which you take as a premise of logic."
WHAT do you mean by sense of materialist existence? I have one in the sense that I have a material body with which I sense things...
"Or possibly you think that every such conclusion cannot be made for the reason that a materialist explanation must exist,"
ACTUALLY, I do have a NON-material explanation: everything we know about what the universe looked like before it was at least 100,000 years old. We don't have material explanation because of the event horizon.
I need to jump to the next comment:
"After a quick re-read, I think I might have misinterpreted your statement: QM does not take the position that particles do not exist except as equations, except prior to "equation collapse", as I have described several times."
THIS looks like a 'you were right' but I don't think I will get more than that from you.
"Of course particles exist, but only after equation collapse (or decoherence, or separation into separate universes). It is prior to equation collapse that the classical form of "existence" is not valid. "
THAT's where we need to stop and clarify something. When you say 'of course particles exists', you mean as material things existing in the physical universe we observe. You then go on and label this as the classical form of "existence". I agree.
I also agree that, prior to the equation collapse the classical form of "existence" is not valid.
"...compared the start of the universe to the equation collapse, only on a larger scale. It's because the existence of the universe at that scale is not the classical form of existence:"
YES, again, not the classical form of "existence", not the physical universe we observe.
"it is not the physical particle/atom/molecule existence with which we are familiar on a macro scale."
YES, again, not the classical form of "existence", not the physical universe we observe.
SO why do we disagree then? Because this contradicts:
"Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
THE word universe refers both to the classical form of "existence", the physical universe we observe. and to the non-classical form of "existence", anything not in the physical universe we observe.
BASICALLY, Part 1 does not say much more than:
- BEFORE the universe was classical mass / energy universe, it was not a classical mass / energy universe.
- or, BEFORE the universe was the way it was, it was different, thus, the universe was different...
P.S. If you have 4 minutes to spare, you might like this analogy for Black Holes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOqR1Csv7yg
NOTHING completely new I am sure, but I see an interesting parallel with the current discussion.
”I also agree that, prior to the equation collapse the classical form of "existence" is not valid.”
OK.
”YES, again, not the classical form of "existence", not the physical universe we observe.”
OK.
”YES, again, not the classical form of "existence", not the physical universe we observe.
SO why do we disagree then? Because this contradicts:
"Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity."
THE word universe refers both to the classical form of "existence", the physical universe we observe. and to the non-classical form of "existence", anything not in the physical universe we observe.”
Not correct: the word “universe” does not include “anything not in the physical universe we observe”. It does include the universe in its non-physical form.
There is no contradiction. You admit to “not the physical universe”, but you cannot accept “non-physical” universe when it is stated as “non-physical entity”? This is absurd. You appear to be grasping at straws, invoking a contradiction where there is none, and it is obvious that there is none.
And you still have not addressed the issues at hand (constantly deflecting off into this non-issue): First: Show that the physical (mass/energy) universe is expected to fit into a planck size nugget (10^-33cm) in its physical form. Second, Show your calculation for the improbability of the existence in the planck size nugget being purely non-mass/energy (non-physical).
Here is the crux of this comment chain: you have attempted to deflect the hypothesis-deduction process by doing these things. First you have created an issue where there is none (Red Herring: “I can’t know or deduce”); second, you have created another issue where there is none (Red Herring: “not physical is not the same as non-physical”); third, you have continuously avoided performing the calculation presented by which you could show the improbability of the universe being non-physical when in the planck nugget… IFF that were the rational case. Your only comment on this is that it is arrogant to do so… a value judgment, not an assessment of rational acceptability.
I’ll not let this conversation be perpetually deviated into senseless deflection issues while avoiding the necessity of addressing the actual issues which were presented to you.
Kindly either show your work, or admit your failure to support your skeptical claims.
”P.S. If you have 4 minutes to spare, you might like this analogy for Black Holes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOqR1Csv7yg
NOTHING completely new I am sure, but I see an interesting parallel with the current discussion. “
He makes two claims that are iffy: that inside a black hole space is infinitely warped, and mass is infinitely dense. If that were the case then the Guth negative gravity would force the black hole to expand as in the inflationary portion of the Big Bang. Either that or the Guth negative gravity does not actually exist. I imagine that he overlooked this issue for dramatic effect, since his audience appears to be high school level science classes, and his presentation is quite drama laden.
And so it goes.
Shift the burden of proof. Erect straw man. Knock down straw man. I think you left out the part about atheists having no basis for moral judgments though. Saving that zinger for the next corner you get stuck in eh?
If I stopped claiming a god doesn't exist, are you going to stop claiming a deity does exist? No of course not. If the theistic stance was non-existent then so would be the atheistic stance. The inverse is NOT true. Atheism only exists as a response to theism. This is so obvious.
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
~Sam Harris
By your standards atheists must explain the entire universe and every phenomenon within to fulfill your asserted burden of proof.
Whereas by my criteria, theists need only to provide the same amount of proof any neutral person would expect to accept any extraordinary claim. The same standards we apply to evolution, global warming and bigfoot.
1 Kings 18:20-40 CEV. Here's a good example. Shocking how much Elijah sounds like your modern day snarky atheist. Or how about John 20:19-31. There is a man who has evidential standards. Good old St. Thomas.
No such basis for belief exists. That is why "faith" is a virtue. That is why you shift the burden of proof and shift the goal posts all the way to demonstrating the non-existence of gods throughout every femtosecond! of past! present! and future! Everyone please, reread this preposterous stance until it sinks in. If we leave a single femtosecond unexplored (in past present or future!) we are unjustified in our atheism. That's logic is it? Can there possibly be a larger Red Herring. Is this not the ultimate in logical fallacies; Explain god? NO YOU EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THAT IS WAS AND EVER WILL BE!!! mmmwhaahahahaha ;)
This is not the position of an open minded person interested in reasoned argumentation. This is the position of an ideologue. A colossal logical fail Stan.
Theists make the positive claim. The burden of proof is on the theists.
Well,
We've come to the crux of the matter, eh?
What's interesting is that the atheist is a strong atheist when engaged in offensive operations, but then puts on his humble hat and becomes an agnostic when put on defense.
The atheist is not exempt from the burden of proof. Agnosticism is not an argument.
OK, drum roll, the atheist reply: "Godditt" isn't either.
What's puzzling to me is that atheists seem to be totally ok with the notion that there may very well be realities that are simply beyond human prediction and control. Only if such unknowns are understood as mysteries of complexity and degree, not of kind.
Why?
Jeremy says,
”Shift the burden of proof.”
Can’t prove your own beliefs, can you. Your complaint is not just weak, it is a dodge.
”Erect straw man. Knock down straw man. I think you left out the part about atheists having no basis for moral judgments though. Saving that zinger for the next corner you get stuck in eh?”
Calling out non-specific fallacies is merely pissing up a tree. If you have a specific complaint make it. Otherwise your comments are without merit.
”If I stopped claiming a god doesn't exist, are you going to stop claiming a deity does exist? No of course not. If the theistic stance was non-existent then so would be the atheistic stance. The inverse is NOT true. Atheism only exists as a response to theism. This is so obvious.”
And yet Atheists have no evidence to support their reaction, no empirical data, no logic, only pure rejectionism without any substance or support. They cannot defeat the proposition, so they make irrational demands for material evidence of a non-material existence, the obvious Category Error which they refuse to address, and cannot defeat. And that fact alone is sufficient evidence of the irrational nature of Atheism; it is without logic or evidence, yet claims to the sole possessor and arbiter of both.
”Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
~Sam Harris
Harris is finally right about something: Atheism is just noise. Again, empty of evidence and rational thought. Unable to comprehend any of the arguments being made, and so driven to Red Herrings and bleatings of “no responsibility for our own positions”.
”Whereas by my criteria, theists need only to provide the same amount of proof any neutral person would expect to accept any extraordinary claim. The same standards we apply to evolution, global warming and bigfoot.”
And here you illuminate the Category Error for all to see; Materialism is false, and it cannot prove its own philosophical basis using its own evidentiary requirements. Go ahead, prove that philosophical Materialism is true, using empirical techniques.
If I were to respond by using your own method of knowledge denial, I would merely say: prove it. Prove it. Prove it using the same methods required to prove that bigfoot exists. Do it. Prove it. Philosophical Materialism is a positive claim of material existence. An extraordinary claim; it requires extraordinary proof. We’ll wait.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”No such basis for belief exists. That is why "faith" is a virtue. That is why you shift the burden of proof and shift the goal posts all the way to demonstrating the non-existence of gods throughout every femtosecond! of past! present! and future!
Well of course. You would not want to overlook anything now would you? Extraordinary claims/ extraordinary evidence and all. It’s all part of intellectual rigor. Or perhaps you merely wish to use the inductive fallacy coupled with the Category Error. You could just look into a telescope and declare, “ain’t no God, or I’d a seen him”. The negative claim requires, always, a complete examination of the set which is being denied. If you don’t like that, well, that’s too bad, but I can’t sympathize.
”Everyone please, reread this preposterous stance until it sinks in. If we leave a single femtosecond unexplored (in past present or future!) we are unjustified in our atheism.”
If you have incomplete data, then you have incomplete knowledge. But more to the point, somewhere along the line you hopefully will realize that your quest is absurd due to the fallacious requirements of your own false logic. You cannot fulfill the exact requirements that you place on others. So you deny that they apply to yourself. That fallacy is Special Pleading, aka hypocrisy.
”That's logic is it? Can there possibly be a larger Red Herring. Is this not the ultimate in logical fallacies; Explain god? NO YOU EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THAT IS WAS AND EVER WILL BE!!! mmmwhaahahahaha ;)”
When you make a claim of knowledge of a material negative, you are open to challenge to prove it. If you don’t like the challenge, then you shouldn’t make the claim.
Red Herrings are deviations from the original conversation; this conversation involves what Atheists cannot prove, and is not in any form a deviation. Your charge of Red Herring is false.
”This is not the position of an open minded person interested in reasoned argumentation. This is the position of an ideologue. A colossal logical fail Stan.”
You refuse to defend your lack of evidence for your claim; you don’t address your Category Error, your Philosophical Materialism Error, your Special Pleading Fallacy, and your Straw Man (see below), you laugh at the requirement for you to produce Extraordinary Evidence for your Extraordinary Claim (a claim which is demonstrably false), you make false charges of fallacy against me, and you then claim logic fail on my part? Merely because you don’t want to prove your own position, a position which you take without either evidence or logic? I suggest that you study actual logic, and do it someplace academic and not on some Atheist website.
”Theists make the positive claim. The burden of proof is on the theists.”
Theists do not make a positive claim of a material deity, available for your examination upon your demand. So you have constructed your own straw man. Your interpretation is that of an uninformed understanding of Atheism and zero understanding of Theism. And your understanding of rational debate, scientific hypothesis, and deductive logic has not shown up here either.
I'm curious though. What is your definition of "open minded"? Would that be someone who accepts your myriad fallacies without challenging them? That would be more in line with Free Thought, but it is not what you will find here.
STAN, I need you to clarify. You said the following:
- QM does not take the position that particles do not exist except as equations, except prior to "equation collapse", as I have described several times. ... Of course particles exist, but only after equation collapse (or decoherence, or separation into separate universes). It is prior to equation collapse that the classical form of "existence" is not valid.
- Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.
- There is no contradiction. You admit to “not the physical universe”, but you cannot accept “non-physical” universe when it is stated as “non-physical entity”? This is absurd.
YOU are correct! What I find absurd is that you equate 'not classical-physical-universe' with 'non-physical universe'. That's a logical error.
AGAIN, you are basically saying: At some point in the past, the 'classical-physical-universe' we observe today, and describe using non-physical equations x,y,z, did not exist as the 'classical-physical-universe'. Therefore, it was a 'non-physical' universe described by the same x,y,z. That's a logical error.
MOROVER, make sure you consider the following: The same equations are used for both the current 'classical-physical-universe' and the back-in-time prior state of the universe. There are thus at least 2 possible scenarios:
1) The equations describe both a physical&observable universe and an unobservable universe.
2) The equations describe both a physical&observable universe and an unobservable&NON-MATERIAL universe.
Why do you insist that it has to be #2 ?
THERE would be a lot more to reply to, please don't think I ignore the rest of your comment, but I have been attempting to avoid some gish gallop for days now and it's really hard...
"Philosophical Materialism is a positive claim of material existence. An extraordinary claim; it requires extraordinary proof."
That material exists is an extraordinary claim?
NATS said:
"That material exists is an extraordinary claim?"
FUNNY, but I think his point is that the claim 'ONLY the material exists' is extraordinary.
I claim that I know one thing, and I know it with an extremely high degree of certainty: From observations, it appears to us that the universe was compacted into an extremely small size 14 billion years ago.
Has the person who posted that been lookign through telescopes and doing the calculations himself?
Or is he just taking other people's word for it?
”STAN, I need you to clarify. You said the following:
- QM does not take the position that particles do not exist except as equations, except prior to "equation collapse", as I have described several times. ... Of course particles exist, but only after equation collapse (or decoherence, or separation into separate universes). It is prior to equation collapse that the classical form of "existence" is not valid.
- Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.
- There is no contradiction. You admit to “not the physical universe”, but you cannot accept “non-physical” universe when it is stated as “non-physical entity”? This is absurd.
YOU are correct! What I find absurd is that you equate 'not classical-physical-universe' with 'non-physical universe'. That's a logical error.
”AGAIN, you are basically saying: At some point in the past, the 'classical-physical-universe' we observe today, and describe using non-physical equations x,y,z, did not exist as the 'classical-physical-universe'. Therefore, it was a 'non-physical' universe described by the same x,y,z. That's a logical error.”
Of course, you said that, not me. If you are saying (and it’s not clear) that because the equations are non-physical, that seems to prove that the classical universe is non-physical, that is not part of the position I take.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the equations describe a classical universe which is non-physical, that also is not a position which I take.
And if you are saying that the Schrödinger equation describes a physical universe, that is false: it does not.
I am unable to see another possible understanding of your sentences above.
The Schrödinger equation describes a non-physical, probabilistic existence only. That is the non-physical existence. The equation “collapses” (ceases to apply) when the particle becomes physical and measurable in at least one of its characteristics. There is no overlap, no conflict, no contradiction between those two separate existences. Again to be clear: the Schrödinger equation does not describe the physical universe. That is why many physicists are looking for yet another physics (String Theory is one approach, but it is non-falsifiable).
The position I take is nothing other than Quantum Mechanics. I do not elaborate on it, change it, or try to misuse it. So your beef is not with me, it is with science.
”MOROVER, make sure you consider the following: The same equations are used for both the current 'classical-physical-universe' and the back-in-time prior state of the universe.
That is not the case. The Schrödinger equation is not used for the “current classical-physical-universe”. So the following claim is not relevant.
”There are thus at least 2 possible scenarios:
1) The equations describe both a physical&observable universe and an unobservable universe.
2) The equations describe both a physical&observable universe and an unobservable&NON-MATERIAL universe.
Why do you insist that it has to be #2 ?”
I do not, and have not made that claim; this is your misunderstanding of QM and Schrödinger’s equation and how it relates only to the non-physical state.
”THERE would be a lot more to reply to, please don't think I ignore the rest of your comment, but I have been attempting to avoid some gish gallop for days now and it's really hard... “
Gish gallop is merely the listing of issues posed but not answered. It is not a bad thing, but those who don’t want to address the issues certainly don’t like it. I personally think that all the issues should be addressed in full. Otherwise only a partial understanding is ever achieved.
STAN, note from the end first:
“Gish gallop is merely the listing of issues posed but not answered. It is not a bad thing, but those who don’t want to address the issues certainly don’t like it. I personally think that all the issues should be addressed in full. Otherwise only a partial understanding is ever achieved.”
I agree, it’s not a bad thing and there are lots of issues to address regarding the topics involved. However, the problem I see now is that most, if not all, of the other topics cannot be discussed in an efficient fashion because of underlying divergence regarding what it means to exists and/or be material.
“...if you are saying that the Schrödinger equation describes a physical universe, that is false: it does not.
I am unable to see another possible understanding of your sentences above.”
OK, well that’s precisely where we disagree then. I do think that the Schrödinger equation describes a physical universe. Actually, I find it quite absurd that you say that they don’t.
THE equations were derived from observations of the physical universe and confirmed by observations. They are used to make predictions regarding the physical universe and are extremely reliable at doing so. Obviously, you cannot deny that last sentence, so the problem is something else as you explain next:
“The Schrödinger equation describes a non-physical, probabilistic existence only. That is the non-physical existence.”
THAT is how I see things too, but that probabilistic existence is inside the physical universe we observe. There is a probability that we will see the objects or not at a certain time and place. It's illogical to conclude that the object described by such equations existed outside of our physical universe, AS A NON-MATERIAL OBJET, before popping in our existence frame.
HERE's a parallel with a simpler real-life example. If I am standing at the top of a building and drop a ball to the ground, how can I describe the ball’s trajectory? I can use an equation to determine how long it will take the ball to reach the ground and predict its arrival time. It is then possible for me to say that in 5 seconds the ball will be at ground level.
THAT precise prediction is an example of a non-physical, probabilistic existence. The ball is not on the ground right now, I cannot observe it to be there, but the scenario ‘ball on ground at time X’ exists as a non-material description.
WHAT's the difference with the Schrödinger equation?
THE only difference I see is that because the classical physics equations don’t work on certain scales, we need to use a different set of equations. These equations are probabilistic and indicate some form of weirdness from our point of view, where objects in the physical world don’t behave according to some fixed constants. There is always a chance that they will suddenly move to another spot, act in a different way, change speed suddenly, interfere with themselves, remained linked at a distance, etc, etc, etc...
“The equation “collapses” (ceases to apply) when the particle becomes physical and measurable in at least one of its characteristics. There is no overlap, no conflict, no contradiction between those two separate existences.”
Exactly, there is no conflict between those two separate existences because the non-physical existence is the model, the concepts, the predictions, that we use to describe how the physical existence will behave.
“Again to be clear: the Schrödinger equation does not describe the physical universe.
That is why many physicists are looking for yet another physics (String Theory is one approach, but it is non-falsifiable).”
THE equations do describe the physical universe. The problem is that if you look back far enough in time, the parameters to insert in these equations make the equations reach infinitys, or zeros... And we are thus back to discussing what a singularity really is, what it means, what it implies and why it is invalid to conclude that the universe existed ONLY as a non-material entity at some point. It could have not existed at all, existed as a different kind of unexplainable material thing, or as an unexplainable non-material thing, or perhaps other scenarios I cannot even think of right now...
EVEN taking into consideration what you said previously regarding the popular idea that the universe did not act deterministically at the Big Bang, or before, is fine with the understanding I described. It works because it does not assume anything about the unknown state of the universe at the singularity, or prior to it. It could have been nothing at all, literally, or a non-deterministic physical multi-verse, or an intelligent being that decided to suddenly create a Big Bang and make it look like nothing else after matters to him/her... just to name a few examples.
Jim,
MARTIN, the conclusion you presented is:
"the universe has an explanation for its existence outside itself"
YES, that's the big '?' I put on my version.
MY question is why should I replace this '?' by something else.
If the universe has an explanation outside itself, then naturalism is false. And that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural. So that gets you part of the way to something goddish.
Note that my arguments are deductive: you want out, you need to show (not just tell) which premise is false. I note that you have not addressed any of my premises.
MARTIN,
"If the universe has an explanation outside itself, then naturalism is false."
Why?
"And that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural."
EVEN more... why?
Jim,
"If the universe has an explanation outside itself, then naturalism is false."
Why?
Because naturalism is the view that only the spacetime system exists: space, time, matter/energy, forces, and physical laws. If something besides them exists, then naturalism is false.
"And that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural."
EVEN more... why?
Because according to the argument there is an EXTERNAL explanation of the existence of [space, time, matter/energy, forces, and physical laws]. So that explanation, being external to those things, is not one of them.
"naturalism is the view that only the spacetime system exists: space, time, matter/energy, forces, and physical laws. If something besides them exists, then naturalism is false."
Ok, I believe naturalism is false then.
"If the universe has an explanation outside itself, [...] that explanation, being external to those things, is not one of them. [space, time, matter/energy, forces, and physical laws]"
This assumes that at some point there was something, not nothing, but that something was:
- not space
- not time
- not matter/energy
- not forces
- not physical laws
How do you know that?
Jim,
This assumes that at some point there was something, not nothing, but that something was,
It doesn't assume anything. It follows logically from the deductive argument. To deny the conclusion entails denying one of the premises.
Martin,
Your argument concludes "the universe has an explanation for its existence outside of itself" but you somehow then jump to "a being", seemingly without justification.
That explanation could equally be a principle, a being, another universe, or pretty much anything. The point being we do not and cannot know.
If you want to posit a "being", surely all you've done is shifted the requirement to needing to prove that this hypothetical being cannot be contingent itself, ad infinitum.
All this is pretty inconsequential though. If your argument can logically lead you to "praying is worthwhile" or "cows are sacred" then please show your work, otherwise we can talk about hypothetical possibilities (even rational ones) all we like, but there no reason for an atheist to alter their life, and every reason for a rational follower of organised religion to do so.
Mike
MARTIN, you replied:
"It doesn't assume anything. It follows logically from the deductive argument. To deny the conclusion entails denying one of the premises."
WHAT is the conclusion you want me to accept?
I already told you that I accept the premises and conclusion you put above:
"3. Therefore, the universe has an explanation for its existence outside itself."
THE problem I have is with what came next.
"... that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural...."
SO, I asked WHY. To which you replied:
"there is an EXTERNAL explanation of the existence of [space, time, matter/energy, forces, and physical laws]. So that explanation, being external to those things, is not one of them."
SO, AGAIN, I asked WHY and also added:
"This assumes that at some point there was something, not nothing, but that something was:
- not space
- not time
- not matter/energy
- not forces
- not physical laws
How do you know that?"
YOU replied:
"It doesn't assume anything. It follows logically from the deductive argument. To deny the conclusion entails denying one of the premises."
But you never gave premises that lead to the conclusion:
"... that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural...."
That part does not follow from any premises, you asserted it after you concluded that the universe has an explanation. In other words, perhaps I can re-phrase your implied argument like this. Tell me if that's correct:
1. If the universe has an explanation, this explanation that explanation would have to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural.
2. The universe has an explanation.
3. The explanation is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural.
SO, I am asking you: how do you know that the explanation for the existence of the universe around us HAS to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and supernatural. Therefore, I cannot accept premise 1.
PLEASE correct it if I misrepresented your version... if it's correct, please explain why I should accept premise 1.
P.S. YEAH! I can make italic text! (sorry my HTML skills are not very good...)
I realize that bringing up theological matters may be out of place here. Nevertheless......
Classical theism affirms that God is , indeed, a principle- the Supreme Principle. God is not "a" being among beings, but being itself- esse not ens.
Does that mean God is not personal. No, not exactly. Perhaps a better term would be transpersonal.
Sound and fury? Perhaps. Inconsequential, I think not.
Jim,
Take space, time, matter, energy, and natural laws, wrap them up and call them X.
1. If X has an explanation of its existence, that explanation would be something that is not X (since X is what we are trying to explain, and the explanation cannot contain the explanandum)
2. X has an explanation of its existence
3. Therefore, the explanation for X is something that is not X
And the conclusion entails that the explanation is not-space, not-time, not-matter, not-energy, and not-natural-laws.
Or, to put it into more colloquial language, something spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and supernatural.
mike3838,
you somehow then jump to "a being", seemingly without justification.
I never once said any such thing.
I'll think you find you did.
"You need to be aware of the theistic arguments before you understand why we postulate such a being"
Followed by what appears to be your theistic argument to explain why we postulate such a being.
Mike
MARTIN said:
Jim,
Take space, time, matter, energy, and natural laws, wrap them up and call them X.
1. If X has an explanation of its existence, that explanation would be something that is not X (since X is what we are trying to explain, and the explanation cannot contain the explanandum)
2. X has an explanation of its existence
3. Therefore, the explanation for X is something that is not X
And the conclusion entails that the explanation is not-space, not-time, not-matter, not-energy, and not-natural-laws.
Or, to put it into more colloquial language, something spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and supernatural.
THERE are a few problems with this....
FIRST, you changed your argument from 'The Universe has an explanation' to 'X has an explanation', but 'X' is not the universe anymore. You included natural laws, which are human concepts that describe what we observe. It's weird to sum them up all together in a group called 'X'.
SECOND, even if we don't include natural laws, your group 'X' is still very strange. What if space alone has a space-less explanation? What if energy alone as an energy-less explanation?
THIRD, taken individually, I agree there is probably an explanation for the existence of space, time, matter and energy as we know them, but labeling that unknown explanation as not-space, not-time, not-matter and not-energy still make the explanation unknown, and one could be the explanation of the other, or a combination, or some other things not mentioned here or not even known to us.
FOURTH, you included 'natural laws' in 'X' so that you can then label the explanation of 'X' as supernatural since its non-natural. I am not sure what you mean by that. Space, time, matter and energy are natural because we observe them in nature, with contrast to artificial things human create or non-material things we can think of in our minds. However, is there a way to know that all the things we label 'natural' are actually the only possible 'natural' things there are?
IN other words, I don't agree that 'X' = 'space,time,matter,energy' = 'set of all natural things'. I don't see any reason to assume that as a starting point.
STAN said:
I presented an hypothesis-deduction chain to try to help you understand how I arrived where I am; you may debunk it using legitimate arguments if you wish, and at first I thought you had a legitimate misunderstanding which I tried to help with. But then came the other stuff, the arguing against the actual science, etc.
YET, you agreed that what I was saying about QM was correct. I thought you had realized that I am not arguing against the actual science at all...
” ALSO, this is not the first time that you say that I 'cannot support [my] own belief system', but I never told you anything about what I believe and/or why...”
You said you were an Atheist. Or did I imagine that?
CORRECT, I told you that I am an Atheist because I never believe in any gods. I heard people tell me about theirs a couple of times but it all sounded like 'magic man in the sky' for me. That's why I asked you what your god was since you appeared to have logical reasons to believe in it. Actually, since it's only a "logical" god at first, I was even willing to start with the idea that a god created the universe to see what it implied, but you don't want to do that apparently...
That’s right, this is a continuation of that ongoing conversation. Perhaps this blog differs from other blogs in that aspect: a conversation thread can slop over onto more recent thread, and continue there at this blog.
I never comment on blogs anyway so I would not know...
Good suggestion. But it is still not my intent to do any more than demonstrate my own path, and deal with reasonable issues along that path. If you reject it, that’s your prerogative, and I will critique any reasons you give for that, or if you do so without reasons. See you back there if you wish, and go ahead and state your remaining issues. (I suggest that you watch the video in the latest post, it demonstrates what I was trying to tell you, but better than I did).
SOUNDS good, I will go watch it very soon and come back to finish this answer later today.
ACTUALLY, I can reply to the next sentence right now because I find it very useful actually:
And I suppose we could start with this: if the universe was physical inside the planck nugget, why don’t the laws of the physical universe apply?
For the exact same reason that even if the universe is physical over large distances, Newton's laws of laws of the physical universe don't apply. The 'laws' are not fixed 'laws' like 1+1 = 2. They are our current best approximation of what's going on.
This is important here because if you can’t accept the non-physical aspect of the universe at that point, then there will be nothing further to talk about, because if you can’t accept a scientific view of non-physical existence, you would certainly have no reason to accept any further discussion of it.
I agree, this is why I never went passed Part 1 of your argument! However, I already explained in detail what I agree and disagree with regarding to a non-material existence. I wonder if you missed that comment? See April 13, 3:00PM on the other thread.
Jim said:
From 4-13-12 at 3:00:
” THAT precise prediction is an example of a non-physical, probabilistic existence. The ball is not on the ground right now, I cannot observe it to be there, but the scenario ‘ball on ground at time X’ exists as a non-material description.
WHAT's the difference with the Schrödinger equation?”
And,
” THE equations do describe the physical universe. The problem is that if you look back far enough in time, the parameters to insert in these equations make the equations reach infinitys, or zeros... And we are thus back to discussing what a singularity really is, what it means, what it implies and why it is invalid to conclude that the universe existed ONLY as a non-material entity at some point. It could have not existed at all, existed as a different kind of unexplainable material thing, or as an unexplainable non-material thing, or perhaps other scenarios I cannot even think of right now...”
Ok, then, what you accept is only that thoughts are not physical, but basically nothing else can be accepted as non-physical. This is your own personal definition of physical. Your refusal to accept mass/energy and space/time as the limits of physical existence is only your own personal, peculiar, definitional issue; according to your open definition, anything can be physical, regardless of whether it is mass/energy – space/time. That means that there is no differentiation possible any longer because the definition is now all-inclusive. So you have halted due to a definition which cannot differentiate, and have conjured up other skeptical images which have no reason for their belief other than to augment skepticism. You are using a different language, one which suits your own needs.
Definition:
physical science; any of the sciences which deal with inanimate matter and energy, as physics, chemistry, geology, etc.
Webster’s Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary, Simon & Schuster, 1979.
Because you insist on a non-standard, non-differentiating definition (not even a definition) for non-physical, and also asserted skeptical non-belief theories, there is no further discussion possible.
What the Schrödinger equation describes is the non-mass/energy existence prior to resolving into a mass/energy existence. The standard use of “physical existence” is mass/energy existence within the arena of space/time.
Once again you are arguing with QM, not with me. If you don’t accept even science, then there is no purpose in going further. I have said this before to no effect.
I see no way to pursue this further with you.
STAN said:
Once again you are arguing with QM, not with me
I believe you are arguing with logic, not with me ;-)
YOU said:
...what you accept is only that thoughts are not physical
NO, I don't accept the claim: 'only thoughts are not physical'
...but basically nothing else can be accepted as non-physical
NO, I don't accept the claim: 'nothing else but thoughts can be accepted as non-physical'.
This is your own personal definition of physical.
NO. What I do accept is the claim: 'thoughts are not physical'
Your refusal to accept mass/energy and space/time as the limits of physical existence is only your own personal, peculiar, definitional issue; according to your open definition, anything can be physical, regardless of whether it is mass/energy – space/time
FIRST, I think you convinced me. I will show what happened:
1) There are things that are Physical, others that are not. (P or !P)
2) Everything that is 'Made of Mass/energy - space/time' (M) is considered physical.
3) The set M is a sub-set of P. The set !M intersects the set P (fully, in part, or not at all?)
4) According to Stan, to be a P is to be an M, and to be an M is to be a P.
5) Scratch #2,3. (Only what is 'Made of Mass/energy - space/time' is considered physical.)
6) M = P
Thank you Stan!
SECOND, an example of a claim related to 'limits of physical existence' that I would accept is: 'there is a limit to the physical existence we can observe'.
THE question here would then be: Why believe that the limit of the 'physical existence we can observe' is the same as the limit of 'physical existence'?
YOUR answer was partially given already with what came after:
What the Schrödinger equation describes is the non-mass/energy existence prior to resolving into a mass/energy existence.
AT first glance, what you wrote seems correct. However, I know that we don't interpret it the same way.
TO me, the logical implications of the sentence, the deduction process that is associated with it, starts with the end of the sentence first:
PARTICLES have a mass/energy existence in our universe. This existence can be detected by observing a particle. However, particles do not have exactly determined properties, and when they are measured, the result is randomly drawn from a probability distribution. The Schrödinger equation predicts what the probability distributions are, but fundamentally cannot predict the exact result of each measurement.
TO you, what does it mean?
NOW, hopefully it's clear why I disagree with:
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.
I see no way to pursue this further with you.
I see that you will argue this point forever, despite all evidence pointing to the opposite.
This is a waste of my time.
Have a good life.
Adios
OF course it's a waste of your time. Nobody likes to be shown that they are wrong! :-)
ANYWAY, thanks for your time. I am left with the same idea as before I come here... there are two kinds of people who believe in gods:
1) Some claim loud and clear that they have faith in a god. They cannot justify why they believe such a god exists but that makes them feel good, secure, hopeful, grateful to be watched by such being. They don't really care if it's absolutely true or not and go along with their life doing the best they can, just like other believers or non-believers who think differently.
2) The other category is where people like Stan fall. They pretend to have reasonable answers to the questions : Why should I believe your god is real? Why should I believe your god exists? Why should I believe that this god created the universe the way it is? etc... However, when asked to provide the details of such answers, we see holes and unreasonable assumptions; assumptions that makes the god be the only answer to everything while not answering anything at the same time. They do so even when there is a vast amount of information out there that contradict such god. That kind of believer usually fall into hostility, being convinced that they are right and others are wrong.
SOME of them even write a blog for years for the sole purpose of discrediting/attacking/mocking those who think differently...
I think that talking to them is not a waste of time because it teaches a lot about their psychology, ideas, views and where the blockage of knowledge is. Ultimately there is a very small chance that asking questions and pointing flaws in answers will change their mind, but that should never be the goal anyway.
ONLY the weak tries to convince others by imposing fixed ideas instead of finding common grounds. The strong knows that by being positive and sharing ideas they believe in, with enthusiasm and dedication, there is always a chance that others will become curious and want to know more.
THEN again, some of them prefer to write a blog for years for the sole purpose of discrediting/attacking/mocking those who think differently...
I look forward to see if Stan's disciple, Martin, will continue trying to support the view that...
Part 1. Given that the universe started from some existence which was prior to the existence of mass / energy, the universe itself started as a non-physical entity.
THIS is, after all, THE one and only starting point for belief in god I learned from this blog... but I won't hold my breathe.
Have a good life Stan! Really looking forward to see if you can let go ;-)
He sees your psychology, with its flaws and its weakness.
Jim is the strong one who knows this.
Everybody wants to be like God, everybody. And that is where the true weakness is.
Matthew,
Jim is the one who refuses to address issues. Now he is your martyr. Would you care to address his issues? Or is sufficient for you to make general statements such as you have, with no evidence, just general whines?
Matthew, that's an emotional statement.
"Everybody wants to be like God, everybody" You can't make a generalization with no evidence and then attempt to draw conclusions from it.
I was not on Jim's side. I was saying what he thinks, and the last sentence was a judgement that he was trying to be like God.
When I say that everybofy wants to be like God, I mean it as a part of our core fallible nature. I realize now how far it looks on the other side. He thinks he sees Stan's pschology, calls people like him weak, and people like himself strong. That was his nature I was looking at. It seemed so apparent in his post. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Thanks for the clarification, it's appreciated.
Matthew,
Apologies. I misunderstood what you said.
Post a Comment