Religion?

[Godmil]

Double post I know, but I want to make it easier for someone to reply to this post about logic without having to wade through the science post above.

zmikecuber, Surely you realise that you're trying to 'have your cake and eat it'. You're saying that logic works independantly of physical events... however the purpose of your argument is to propose that your conclusion (god) is actually real. If you claim a real world conclusion you must have real world premises.

Further, one of the main logical fallacy you're employing is called 'special pleading'. With your causal argument you're saying causality is absolutely true in all cases (except for one case that you're defining). Also your conclusion is solely based on your proposed premise being true - which is probably also begging the question.

So, there are two main flaws, 1. cherry picking what is and isn't related to reality in your arguments, 2. Your arguments including logical fallacies.

 

[zmikecuber]

Double post I know, but I want to make it easier for someone to reply to this post about logic without having to wade through the science post above.

zmikecuber, Surely you realise that you're trying to 'have your cake and eat it'. You're saying that logic works independantly of physical events... however the purpose of your argument is to propose that your conclusion (god) is actually real. If you claim a real world conclusion you must have real world premises.

Further, one of the main logical fallacy you're employing is called 'special pleading'. With your causal argument you're saying causality is absolutely true in all cases (except for one case that you're defining). Also your conclusion is solely based on your proposed premise being true - which is probably also begging the question.

So, there are two main flaws, 1. cherry picking what is and isn't related to reality in your arguments, 2. Your arguments including logical fallacies.

Arent you trying to have your cake and eat it too? sorry just couldnt resist

So youre saying in order to have my real world conclusion that I must have real world premises. Isn't logic a real world premise? What do you mean by "real world"? Meaning scientific physical proof? If you want real world proof... just look around. there's my "real world proof" for God.

Causality is true in all cases. When I say uncaused cause I mean "not caused by another". Please try and understand that the concept of God which I am proposing does not need a cause because it IS the cause. It's very nature is the cause. Is that special pleading...?

And yes, I read your science post, and it was interesting though unfortunately I didnt understand all of it...

Ok, so are you saying these particles come into existence because of perfect mathematics? Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?

I find it interesting... that I believe that everything has a cause. And you guys would too if it were not for these virtual particles. Yet once these virtual particles are discovered me being the theist is reinforced that something unseen must be the cause or perhaps the perfect mathematics are the cause. Yet an atheist instead questions causality.

So... in order for my arguments of an uncaused cause, which very nature is cause, to be false, I must first deny that there is causality for everything which's nature is not cause, and thus I must contradict my own logic. Somehow atheism is seeming much more illogical to me now... because in order for me to become an atheist and to admit that you guys are right and there is no God, I must deny causality to things which require a cause to exist. How can you expect anybody to do this?

Another interesting point... according to theists who believe in an afterlife, we will one day find out there is a God. According to atheists who do not believe in an after life, we will never find out that there is not a God.

Actually, about a year ago... I came to the conclusion through my understanding of God and logic, that the passage of time is an illusion. That really, there is no "past present and future" since God is outside of time and all time must just be to Him. (I think Thomas Aquinas goes into this somewhat...) Just lately I heard that Einstein had somehow proved this, and I laughed and said "Wait they just figured that out now?". (Im not bragging here, just sayin'... )

And lastly, its not a special pleading. Its just the fact that an actual infinite is impossible. Infinity is not an actual, its the potential to go on to infinity.

Sorry, I have to go for now... I had lots more to say... I'll post later.

 

[Escher]

Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?

Is reading the cause for a book?

 

[zmikecuber]

Is reading the cause for a book?

so you are saying is the ability to read the direct cause of a physical object, a book?

Uhm, no. I never said that. How on earth did you get that...?

Well what publishing company made the book? Who made the book? what's the book made of?

I know what you guys are going to say... the perfect mathematics, or quantum physics do not directly cause the particles into existence, yet they allow the possibility that they may come into existence.

take away this "allowation" and what do we get? doesnt this say something about the perfect mathematics? without them, these particles wouldnt be coming into existence.

or maybe there is no cause for these particles to come into existence. maybe they're the uncaused cause that I've been trying to prove. but then these particles have a quite different nature than I would think... since these particles can defy our logic.... mindblowing. if these particles are uncaused then they must have a nature other than simply the nature of a particle.

 

[Escher]

My argument is that mathematics is no different to reading - it is not a 'thing' that can be caused or uncaused. It 'exists' simply because we decide that certain axioms exist.

I know what all these terms mean but I don't pretend to understand them, so I can't comment on the uncaused existence of particles.

It seems to me like the majority of your arguments start with the conclusion that everything has a cause apart from the uncaused cause, and then arbitrarily assign lots of things causes without proof.

Maybe I'm just picking on a bad analogy.

 

[zmikecuber]

ok yeah, it wasnt the best analogy, but I get your point.

so if we hadnt discovered quantum mechanics they never would have existed? is that what youre saying...? reading would exist whether or not we discovered it. the quantum mechanics would exist whether or not we discovered them. and quantum mechanics definitely dont exist only in a conceptual level, since we can see the effects of quantum mechanics. the effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence. thus can we not assume that quantum mechanics is not at least part of the cause of the existence of these particles?

Well yes, everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause itself. because that IS the cause. does cause have a cause? if you say "cause has a cause", arent you contradicting yourself?

 

[Igora]

I'm going to reply to this too, not to say this wasn't aimed at Godmil

So youre saying in order to have my real world conclusion that I must have real world premises.

yes

Isn't logic a real world premise?

No, logic is a methodology, not a supreme truth giver. The validity of a conclusions depends on the validity of the premises, as well as how the conclusion was arrived at.

What do you mean by "real world"? Meaning scientific physical proof? If you want real world proof... just look around. there's my "real world proof" for God.

That is in no way proof for your god, it is not proof for anything but the universe exists.

Causality is true in all cases.

A counter-example was provided that invalidates this statement.

When I say uncaused cause I mean "not caused by another". Please try and understand that the concept of God which I am proposing does not need a cause

But if causlity, as you posit, is true in all cases, isn't god a case? Even so, it doesn't matter, because the foundation of the proof, the first premise, was that everything that begins to exist has a cause, this was discredited, so it follows that the universe may not had to have had a cause.

because it IS the cause. It's very nature is the cause. Is that special pleading...?

Yet there is no evidence to support the claim that your god is any cause or the nature of cause, so it is sort of a special pleading in that there is a double standard for your god.

Ok, so are you saying these particles come into existence because of perfect mathematics? Well then arent these perfect mathematics the cause for the particles...?

No, the mathematics is a perfect description of the events of the particles, not that the particles come into existance because the mathematics told them to.

I find it interesting... that I believe that everything has a cause. And you guys would too if it were not for these virtual particles.

That's the way science works

Yet once these virtual particles are discovered me being the theist is reinforced that something unseen must be the cause or perhaps the perfect mathematics are the cause. Yet an atheist instead questions causality.

Something unseen may be the cause for some things, yes. But, there is no evidence at the moment to make that premise credible. And, one should re-evaluate one's beliefs in the arrival of new evidence and facts, otherwise one is closed-minded, not to say you are.

So... in order for my arguments of an uncaused cause, which very nature is cause, to be false, I must first deny that there is causality for everything which's nature is not cause, and thus I must contradict my own logic.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a nature of cause. What is said is that for the argument of an uncaused cause to be invalid, then there needs to be a problem with the premise that all things require a cause, which was demonstrated.

Somehow atheism is seeming much more illogical to me now... because in order for me to become an atheist and to admit that you guys are right and there is no God, I must deny causality to things which require a cause to exist. How can you expect anybody to do this?

No one is saying that there is no god, and if they are they have no proof, only that there is no evidence linking the physical world to a creator, and thus no reason to believe. And, nothing truely needs a cause to exist, all existance that we know of comes from our big bang. And, we simply don't know what caused the big bang to happen, or if it even needed a cause at all. It is up to the individual to question, and evaluate the claims of dieties and other claims to reason whether a belief in god is reasonable.

Another interesting point... according to theists who believe in an afterlife, we will one day find out there is a God. According to atheists who do not believe in an after life, we will never find out that there is not a God.

Cool story, bro

Actually, about a year ago... I came to the conclusion through my understanding of God and logic, that the passage of time is an illusion. That really, there is no "past present and future" since God is outside of time and all time must just be to Him. (I think Thomas Aquinas goes into this somewhat...) Just lately I heard that Einstein had somehow proved this, and I laughed and said "Wait they just figured that out now?". (Im not bragging here, just sayin'... )

Einstein essentially said that the passage of time varies depending of a few things, not that time is an illusion.

And lastly, its not a special pleading. Its just the fact that an actual infinite is impossible. Infinity is not an actual, its the potential to go on to infinity.

I have yet to have seen this demonstrated, actual infinities exist in mathematics, the nature of time, etc. Aristotle's view of infinity was flawed in that his says basically that nothing can be infinite, because nothing can be bigger than the heavens. As for potential infinities, especially in time, if time is not infinite, then there is a finite number of time in both the set of past and the set of future, and because there is no reason to belief there is a finite number in the future, there is no reason to think there is a finite number in the past.
In essence, total time = past + future (present is a point with no value for amount of time), if future is a potential infinity, there are an infinite number of specific points in time in the future, then total time = past + infinity, past in this case is not negative infinity, because I am not using past relative to the current time, if I was, then the total time would be total time = future - past. Anyway, so the total time = positive number + infinity which is infinity. I don't see why an actual infinity can't exist, they are used all the time in physics when dealing with calculus. For example, dt, where t=time.

 

[Escher]

ok yeah, it wasnt the best analogy, but I get your point.

so if we hadnt discovered quantum mechanics they never would have existed? is that what youre saying...? reading would exist whether or not we discovered it. the quantum mechanics would exist whether or not we discovered them. and quantum mechanics definitely dont exist only in a conceptual level, since we can see the effects of quantum mechanics. the effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence. thus can we not assume that quantum mechanics is not at least part of the cause of the existence of these particles?

Well yes, everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause itself. because that IS the cause. does cause have a cause? if you say "cause has a cause", arent you contradicting yourself?

There is a counter-example, like Igora just said, to "everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause". What you should really say is "everything has a cause except for the ultimate cause and also these particles".

Quantum mechanics, as in mathematics, is just a set of descriptors created by humans. The actual 'things' still occur, of course, just like there must be an equal number of particles and anti-particles and how 1 + 1 = 2. It doesn't possess an existence apart from a conceptual one. "The effects of quantum mechanics are the particles coming into existence" - unfortunately this is not the case, quantum mechanics provides not the effect but a prediction of it. Things 'just happen' and we create concepts to understand them - the concepts only 'exist' in neural connections.

I'm arguing that when we create concepts such as mathematics, or quantum mechanics, or special relativity - we're just reading the book of the Universe - not creating causes.

 

[zmikecuber]

Ok, I dont have time for a full reply now...

but ok...

so these particles are virtual but not real? what the heck does that mean? am I understanding this right? at least thats what I got from the wikipedia article.

so these particles exist for a short amount of time? how can these particles have caused the big bang if before the big bang there was no time?

can these particles come into existence ex nihilo? like not the scientifical nothing, the metaphysical nothing. NOTHING nothing.

so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from?

oh, and there is a difference between metaphysical cause and physical cause I believe... I'll look into it.

it seems to me that since we can find no cause for particles coming into existence presently, that we are jumping to the conclusion that there is no cause.... can somebody explain how these things can come into existence without a cause?

so these particles come into existence because they can... they have the ability to... even though they dont exist, space/time allows particles to come into existence. so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from? does it come from space-time? where does space-time come from?

how did these particles cause the big bang, thus causing the universe? can somebody paint the complete picture here...?

*big yawn* yeah I have to go for now...

 

[Godmil]

so these particles are virtual but not real? what the heck does that mean?

No, they're real, they just exist for such a small period of time that they get the label 'virtual'.

so these particles exist for a short amount of time? how can these particles have caused the big bang if before the big bang there was no time?

Oh no, I suggested that the big bang could have been similar to the way that these zero net energy particles appear. I suggested that if the universe has Zero net energy it could have popped up in a larger universe in the same way that these particles exist in our universe... but that's really just an idea, there is no way of knowing.

can these particles come into existence ex nihilo? like not the scientifical nothing, the metaphysical nothing. NOTHING nothing.

Metaphysical nothing? No probably not. From what I understand their existance is a property of the universe. But I'm not going to let you get away with a god in a metaphysical nothing either. Metaphysical concepts aren't that relevant in reality.

so where does the ability for these particles to come into existence come from?

If Heisenberg was right, there existence comes from a fundamental aspect of the universe - that being a discrete level of uncertainty - and related probability.

and there is a difference between metaphysical cause and physical cause I believe... I'll look into it.

The only things I can find about metaphysical causes are on pseudo-scientific spiritual healing sites. Though I think it's fare to say that metaphysical causes are just conceptual.

it seems to me that since we can find no cause for particles coming into existence presently, that we are jumping to the conclusion that there is no cause.... can somebody explain how these things can come into existence without a cause?

Actually it could be more along the lines of the fact that since you don't like the idea of them having no cause, you're jumping to the conclusion that there must be an unknown cause. However there is no actual logical reason for that assumption other than that it affects your world view. This fallacy is the 'argument from personal incredulity'. The way the evidence and reason goes at the moment, is that their existance is just a fundamental aspect of the universe. What I find interesting is that in the wiki article it seems to suggest these particles are the carriers of the electromagnetic force... so "F****** Magnets, how do they work?" Answer could be "Virtual Particles"

where does space-time come from?

Well that's the big question that we started with. Answer is we don't know. You're suggesting god created it, but I'm suggesting that we don't need to look much further than natural forces for an examble of how things can come into existance. But ultimately, we don't know (unless however you're spot on and we find out after we die).

how did these particles cause the big bang, thus causing the universe? can somebody paint the complete picture here...?

Yeah that's the big question of Cosmology, virtual particles didn't create the big bang... but you could suggest that a process like theirs (but with many many particle pairs rather than just one) could show us the same framework. But it's just a hypothesis.
The idea goes in it's simplest form *if* there was a bigger universe outside our one, and similar properties existed in it (like uncertainty) then sporadic creation of particle pairs could happen. If in one of these creations there was a huge number of particles and equal number of antiparticles, but before they could annihalate each other, some of them (one in 10 billion) underwent charge-parity violation and swapped from being anti-particles to normal particles, then after all the others cancelled out you'd have an uneven number of positive particles that would carry on existing, and then could go on to create all the stars and such like. But it's really all speculation at this point (and maybe always will be).

It would be remise of me to point out the obvious issue.. if there is a 'bigger universe' where did it come from?
You could insert a god here, but the way I predict that argument going is we could end up with a regression of universes, which I can't see a reason for not displaying an Actual Infinity.

I've been listening to a lot of Matt Dillahunty lately (thanks whoever posted that link before, he's a really interesting guy). And he suggested that there is nobody in the world that believes in a god because of arguments like causality and TAG. Rather these arguments are just attempts to intellectualise an existing belief. In which case nobody will really be swayed by them one way or the other. Seems like a reasonable opinion to me.

 

[IanTheCuber]

I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
\ /

 

[Specs112]

I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

It really should be.

It's so terrible and yet so awesome.

It's like a train wreck.

I don't want to stare but I can't look away.

 

[mdolszak]

I am a Christian.

 

[Godmil]

If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
\ /

"Last edited by IanTheCuber; 9 Hours Ago at 01:43 AM. " ? I don't get it?

Hehehe, na, just kidding. I need to bow out of this thread anyway.. it takes a lot of time to do these replies and I've got a ton of work to do

 

[Kirjava]

I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

Yes how dare people state they have different beliefs to us.

 

[Edward]

I'm a Christian. I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.

If you want a little more proof, then look at the little sentence down there |
\ /

Haven't read through it in a bit, but this still seems to be a decent religious discussion with not too much true anger. It's a good religion thread IMO

 

[zmikecuber]

Ok, I have to step out of this thread, due to school... just wanted to make one point.

It seems to me that people are saying Im being "inconsistent" and that Im saying "everything needs a cause except for God". thus I am presenting a "special pleading"

Causality has only proved (Im pretty sure here) that if there is an EFFECT there must be a cause. I have not once claimed in this whole thread that God is an effect, which requires a cause for existence. rather I have claimed that He is the Cause.

Soo... the virtual particles are more of a special pleading. Im not saying "every effect needs a cause except for the God effect". Although the virtual particles seem to be implying "every effect needs a cause except the virtual particles" why is ther this special pleading?

Does cause need cause?

In a way... there is an effect... a bowling ball rolling down a hill. the cause? I pushed it. yet this effect can in fact cause other effects. the bowling ball could hit another bowling ball. yet if we continue on backwards with effect after effect causing effect after effect, there is ultimately no ultimate cause. And if there is no ultimate cause, how could there be any effects? How can a bowling ball start rolling down a hill if there is no cause for it? yet only simply an infinite amount of bowling balls which each have been set in motion by the one before it?

If an infinite amount of things back in time must happen BEFORE I can exist... how can I exist even now? it is necessary for there to be a beginning to the universe, otherwise there would be no middle.

I just wanted to point out that its effects which need cause. not cause which needs cause. to say "cause must have a cause" is a self contradiction. so yeah, I havent been presenting a "special pleading"

ok yeah, I cant really argue anymore on here due to school... but I personally think this debate hasnt been a "train wreck". Ive learned alot, and I havent had such an intellectual argument with atheists for a long time... most atheists Ive discussed with have simply had some slogans that they threw at me, then got mad and stormed away swearing...... hehehe that was fun. ;P

 

[Muesli]

Ok, I have to step out of this thread, due to school... just wanted to make one point.

It seems to me that people are saying Im being "inconsistent" and that Im saying "everything needs a cause except for God". thus I am presenting a "special pleading"

Causality has only proved (Im pretty sure here) that if there is an EFFECT there must be a cause. I have not once claimed in this whole thread that God is an effect, which requires a cause for existence. rather I have claimed that He is the Cause.

Soo... the virtual particles are more of a special pleading. Im not saying "every effect needs a cause except for the God effect". Although the virtual particles seem to be implying "every effect needs a cause except the virtual particles" why is ther this special pleading?

Does cause need cause?

In a way... there is an effect... a bowling ball rolling down a hill. the cause? I pushed it. yet this effect can in fact cause other effects. the bowling ball could hit another bowling ball. yet if we continue on backwards with effect after effect causing effect after effect, there is ultimately no ultimate cause. And if there is no ultimate cause, how could there be any effects? How can a bowling ball start rolling down a hill if there is no cause for it? yet only simply an infinite amount of bowling balls which each have been set in motion by the one before it?

If an infinite amount of things back in time must happen BEFORE I can exist... how can I exist even now? it is necessary for there to be a beginning to the universe, otherwise there would be no middle.

I just wanted to point out that its effects which need cause. not cause which needs cause. to say "cause must have a cause" is a self contradiction. so yeah, I havent been presenting a "special pleading"

ok yeah, I cant really argue anymore on here due to school... but I personally think this debate hasnt been a "train wreck". Ive learned alot, and I havent had such an intellectual argument with atheists for a long time... most atheists Ive discussed with have simply had some slogans that they threw at me, then got mad and stormed away swearing...... hehehe that was fun. ;P

Of course it is special pleading. You say everything needs a cause, yet your God doesn't need a cause. You've not shown a good reason to why your God should be an exception. That's pretty much the definition of special pleading.
You're saying that we should believe your thing and not telling us a good reason why, and that's why I don't believe you. I'm happy enough to just say I don't know instead of pretending.

 

[Godmil]

So you're defining an Effect as an event that has another event preceeding it, and a cause is an event that has another event following from it? So all effects that arn't at the very end of the chain are also causes... and all causes that aren't at the very beginning of the chain are also effects? It's the exact same argument except you've reclassified 'first cause' as a 'cause that isn't also an effect'. Same argument, same list of fallacies.
Just to clear it up, your saying every cause is also an effect, except lets define one cause that isn't an effect... so not every cause is an effect. it's special pleading.

 

[RyanO]

Your claim that the universe could not be created without god is unfounded. We don't know how the universe began. We know it must of involved a phenomenon that is quite a bit different than what we normally observe, but we don't know that it was supernatural. If you want to call this phenomenon god, that's fine but it's a rather meaningless statement. There's no reason to believe that the phenomenon that allowed for the existence of the universe is necessary now that the universe does exist. The "god" you're arguing for may have been an event, not a being.

I think a belief in god is fairly harmless as long as you don't try to personify god in any way. Problems occur when your god shares your values and hates the same things and people that you do. We can't know for certain if there is a god. If god does exist he hasn't given us any reasonable indication of what his plan is. Even if god exists, it's sensible to live your life as though he doesn't.