"I don't believe in God" versus "I beleive God doesn't exist"

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
My understanding of your argument (correct me if I’m lost) :

  1. All things (definition: entities of matter/energy) have causes.
  2. God is not an entity of matter/energy.
  3. So God doesn’t need to have a cause, because of point 2.

A little more than a nitpick: ideas don’t have energy or matter, but they are an aspect of our universe. I’m not trying to be annoying and frankly this point confuses me as well. But as my earlier link noted, pondering the nature of ideas themselves seems to awkwardly lead one into theology.
[/QUOTE]

Ideas have no physical manifestation, but at the very least, whatever they are, they appear to be the product of energy. I’d go as far as to say that for an idea to exist as an idea it takes energy. If I am thinking of a beach in Hawaii, it takes energy for my brain to paint a picture of that beach for me to enjoy. I think, anyway. You’re absolutely correct in that this is brain bending stuff.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Now, I don’t necessarily buy the “All things except God have causes” argument. For one thing, it’s odd to have an entity that has effects but not causes.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree. And I’d say that based on our experience here, a God is certainly an odd thing. I just personally consider it less odd than any alternative I’ve heard.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Hm. If math is invented then a human sets the mandelbrot set in motion. But we know that nobody invented the Mandelbrot set, because it’s too big and complicated for any single person to understand. So (leap to conclusion!) it must have been discovered. And if it was discovered, there’s not necessarily any initiator. …Hm again: do humans initiate math, rather than invent it? Is that even sensical? :confused:
[/QUOTE]

This sits much more comfortably in my mind. Math, at it’s simplest form at least, is just set theory and relationships—the stuff of logic. I agree that we don’t invent it, but rather discover it. The brainer among us embrace it and are then able to unfurl it further. But we did not invent math in any way. In my mind, anyway.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
It is odd that the Mandelbrot set argues against both First Cause and strong atheism, though I’m not claiming that it disproves either. For better or worse, this part bothers me more. When we discuss pre-Big Bang events, we’re outside of science.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. But I just want to clarify this point—and I think begbert2 has voiced this, as well—but we are not outside of logic. All the relationships that make sense here will make sense there.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
But here things are a lot less sticky. We can have evolution guided by God’s hand, or evolution without Him. But when we don’t need a Supreme Being to explain a given phenomenon, I think it best to set Him aside, following Occam’s Razor.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
This seems to me to be good epistemology: stay focussed on the matter at hand. (Ok, the point is of course topical in this thread. But it seems to me that a lot of hard-won scientific methodology was shunted aside in that quote, which deserved comment.)
[/QUOTE]

I’m confused by this. I think that if someone looks into the subject—a big-brained math guy—and determines that we have enough time for the eyeball to become an eyeball solely through the processes of evolution, than that should be the default. I think we agree on that. But there is a big assumption made. That we can accurately understand the intricacies of eyeballs and flagella and seek to apply the right math. Now let’s assume we strive greatly to do just that and we feel that the numbers easily allow for this to happen, that doesn’t mean that’s what DID happen. It merely means that (using Occam) we shold probably assume that pure evolution was all that was necessary.

The problem I have personally is that I’m not comfortable with the math myself, so I depend on MIT/PhD types to do it for me. I see that both sides claim that the math is in their favor. I also know that they both are trying to prove that their side is right. So, it may be true, it may not. So I reserve judgement. Given the numbers on each side, I lean toward those who say the eyeball did not need intervention. But, I do not take that as fact. I think some do. I think MrDibble, for instance does. But I’m sure he’ll let me know if I’m wrong about that.

But the discussion we’re having is not about eyeballs, which might very well be possible without “help”. It is about what might have preceded the BB. Some want to just throw up their hands and say “You can’t say ANYTHING about before the BB, because there was no before the BB.” I understand that point, but I do not see why it is not possible—and I’d say, probable—that our universe, BB and all exists in a larger framework. And in that framework, something caused the BB.

162

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
My understanding of your argument (correct me if I’m lost) :

  1. All things (definition: entities of matter/energy) have causes.
  2. God is not an entity of matter/energy.
  3. So God doesn’t need to have a cause, because of point 2.

A little more than a nitpick: ideas don’t have energy or matter, but they are an aspect of our universe. I’m not trying to be annoying and frankly this point confuses me as well. But as my earlier link noted, pondering the nature of ideas themselves seems to awkwardly lead one into theology.
[/quote]

Ideas have no physical manifestation, but at the very least, whatever they are, they appear to be the product of energy. I’d go as far as to say that for an idea to exist as an idea it takes energy. If I am thinking of a beach in Hawaii, it takes energy for my brain to paint a picture of that beach for me to enjoy. I think, anyway. You’re absolutely correct in that this is brain bending stuff.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Now, I don’t necessarily buy the “All things except God have causes” argument. For one thing, it’s odd to have an entity that has effects but not causes.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree. And I’d say that based on our experience here, a God is certainly an odd thing. I just personally consider it less odd than any alternative I’ve heard.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Hm. If math is invented then a human sets the mandelbrot set in motion. But we know that nobody invented the Mandelbrot set, because it’s too big and complicated for any single person to understand. So (leap to conclusion!) it must have been discovered. And if it was discovered, there’s not necessarily any initiator. …Hm again: do humans initiate math, rather than invent it? Is that even sensical? :confused:
[/quote]

This sits much more comfortably in my mind. Math, at it’s simplest form at least, is just set theory and relationships—the stuff of logic. I agree that we don’t invent it, but rather discover it. The brainer among us embrace it and are then able to unfurl it further. But we did not invent math in any way. In my mind, anyway.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
It is odd that the Mandelbrot set argues against both First Cause and strong atheism, though I’m not claiming that it disproves either. For better or worse, this part bothers me more. When we discuss pre-Big Bang events, we’re outside of science.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. But I just want to clarify this point—and I think begbert2 has voiced this, as well—but we are not outside of logic. All the relationships that make sense here will make sense there.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
But here things are a lot less sticky. We can have evolution guided by God’s hand, or evolution without Him. But when we don’t need a Supreme Being to explain a given phenomenon, I think it best to set Him aside, following Occam’s Razor.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
This seems to me to be good epistemology: stay focussed on the matter at hand. (Ok, the point is of course topical in this thread. But it seems to me that a lot of hard-won scientific methodology was shunted aside in that quote, which deserved comment.)
[/QUOTE]

I’m confused by this. I think that if someone looks into the subject—a big-brained math guy—and determines that we have enough time for the eyeball to become an eyeball solely through the processes of evolution, than that should be the default. I think we agree on that. But there is a big assumption made. That we can accurately understand the intricacies of eyeballs and flagella and seek to apply the right math. Now let’s assume we strive greatly to do just that and we feel that the numbers easily allow for this to happen, that doesn’t mean that’s what DID happen. It merely means that (using Occam) we shold probably assume that pure evolution was all that was necessary.

The problem I have personally is that I’m not comfortable with the math myself, so I depend on MIT/PhD types to do it for me. I see that both sides claim that the math is in their favor. I also know that they both are trying to prove that their side is right. So, it may be true, it may not. So I reserve judgement. Given the numbers on each side, I lean toward those who say the eyeball did not need intervention. But, I do not take that as fact. I think some do. I think MrDibble, for instance does. But I’m sure he’ll let me know if I’m wrong about that.

But the discussion we’re having is not about eyeballs, which might very well be possible without “help”. It is about what might have preceded the BB. Some want to just throw up their hands and say “You can’t say ANYTHING about before the BB, because there was no before the BB.” I understand that point, but I do not see why it is not possible—and I’d say, probable—that our universe, BB and all exists in a larger framework. And in that framework, something caused the BB.

163

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
My understanding of your argument (correct me if I’m lost) :

  1. All things (definition: entities of matter/energy) have causes.
  2. God is not an entity of matter/energy.
  3. So God doesn’t need to have a cause, because of point 2.

A little more than a nitpick: ideas don’t have energy or matter, but they are an aspect of our universe. I’m not trying to be annoying and frankly this point confuses me as well. But as my earlier link noted, pondering the nature of ideas themselves seems to awkwardly lead one into theology.
[/quote]

Ideas have no physical manifestation, but at the very least, whatever they are, they appear to be the product of energy. I’d go as far as to say that for an idea to exist as an idea it takes energy. If I am thinking of a beach in Hawaii, it takes energy for my brain to paint a picture of that beach for me to enjoy. I think, anyway. You’re absolutely correct in that this is brain bending stuff.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Now, I don’t necessarily buy the “All things except God have causes” argument. For one thing, it’s odd to have an entity that has effects but not causes.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I agree. And I’d say that based on our experience here, a God is certainly an odd thing. I just personally consider it less odd than any alternative I’ve heard.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Hm. If math is invented then a human sets the mandelbrot set in motion. But we know that nobody invented the Mandelbrot set, because it’s too big and complicated for any single person to understand. So (leap to conclusion!) it must have been discovered. And if it was discovered, there’s not necessarily any initiator. …Hm again: do humans initiate math, rather than invent it? Is that even sensical? :confused:

This sits much more comfortably in my mind. Math, at it’s simplest form at least, is just set theory and relationships—the stuff of logic. I agree that we don’t invent it, but rather discover it. The brainer among us embrace it and are then able to unfurl it further. But we did not invent math in any way. In my mind, anyway.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
It is odd that the Mandelbrot set argues against both First Cause and strong atheism, though I’m not claiming that it disproves either. For better or worse, this part bothers me more. When we discuss pre-Big Bang events, we’re outside of science.
[/QUOTE]

Yes. But I just want to clarify this point—and I think begbert2 has voiced this, as well—but we are not outside of logic. All the relationships that make sense here will make sense there.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
But here things are a lot less sticky. We can have evolution guided by God’s hand, or evolution without Him. But when we don’t need a Supreme Being to explain a given phenomenon, I think it best to set Him aside, following Occam’s Razor.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
This seems to me to be good epistemology: stay focussed on the matter at hand. (Ok, the point is of course topical in this thread. But it seems to me that a lot of hard-won scientific methodology was shunted aside in that quote, which deserved comment.)
[/QUOTE]

I’m confused by this. I think that if someone looks into the subject—a big-brained math guy—and determines that we have enough time for the eyeball to become an eyeball solely through the processes of evolution, than that should be the default. I think we agree on that. But there is a big assumption made. That we can accurately understand the intricacies of eyeballs and flagella and seek to apply the right math. Now let’s assume we strive greatly to do just that and we feel that the numbers easily allow for this to happen, that doesn’t mean that’s what DID happen. It merely means that (using Occam) we shold probably assume that pure evolution was all that was necessary.

The problem I have personally is that I’m not comfortable with the math myself, so I depend on MIT/PhD types to do it for me. I see that both sides claim that the math is in their favor. I also know that they both are trying to prove that their side is right. So, it may be true, it may not. So I reserve judgement. Given the numbers on each side, I lean toward those who say the eyeball did not need intervention. But, I do not take that as fact. I think some do. I think MrDibble, for instance does. But I’m sure he’ll let me know if I’m wrong about that.

But the discussion we’re having is not about eyeballs, which might very well be possible without “help”. It is about what might have preceded the BB. Some want to just throw up their hands and say “You can’t say ANYTHING about before the BB, because there was no before the BB.” I understand that point, but I do not see why it is not possible—and I’d say, probable—that our universe, BB and all exists in a larger framework. And in that framework, something caused the BB.

164

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I see your point, but I don’t equate the lack od physicality as being a void. It could be full of energy. Much like the universe right after the big bang.
[/QUOTE]

Energy IS physical. You can’t equate energy and non-physicality.

165

<responding to the OP>

The difference between the two statements is that the first asserts nothing about the external world while the second does.

While it’s true that the first statement could be considered “weak”, it’s also true that the second statement is vulnerable to the charge that since it is a belief in something that cannot be proven, it is “just like” belief in God.

The thing is, it’s no more possible to declare one statement that sums up atheists’ views any more than you can sum up all Christians’ views (without giving a very vague summary).

Consider my own view:
I don’t claim to know whether there is a God. I see no reason to suspect that there is a God.
But if we’re talking specifically about the omniscient, yet personal Gods of the world’s major religions, then I do think there are reasons for supposing that they do not exist (the many philosophical paradoxes, for a start).

But I prefer not to even call myself “agnostic” or “atheist”, because when I do I’m inevitably tagged with views that I don’t hold.

166

So, any chance we’re going to get to hear how the Wikipedia article helps your case, magellan01? And do please also read the talkorigins one, it’s quite good.

167

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I think I follow you. I also think I agree with a lot of it. If one of the things you’re saying toward the end is that the entity that caused our universe might not have been the PM, I would agree. My only point has been our universe must have been caused. Whether THAT PM is THE PM is another discussion. We get into the nature of God/Gods/God World. But I do agree with the the point. As far as existence, I agree, too, that he would have both existence and intent. But that existence need not be physical. Unless I misunderstood you.
[/quote]
Nope, I think we’re on the same page. The other thing i’d like to say is that it’s tempting to ascribe universal power to a being that created a universe, just as we ascribe mechanical power to a being that creates a watch. But the watchmaker (in these days, anyway) doesn’t himself fashion some or maybe even all of the pieces himself; he doesn’t go out, dig up some ore, smelt it, process it, cut it etc. until he has exactly the piece he needs. He works with what other people have provided. Likewise I don’t think it would be fair to say that a being that created the universe - PM or not - must have nigh-omnipotent powers. We don’t know what he/she/it had to start off with. A watchmaker does need skill themselves, but for me at least I can’t look at the universe and see design and intent in the same way that I would do a watch. It might have needed it, or it might not.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. I would argue that a non-physical God makes less sense, in that we’re multiplying planes of existence needlessly. But I really don’t like Occam’s Razor as an argument in pretty much any debate.

I would say energy is physical, in that it is, as far as we can tell, situated in and interacts with the physical universe. Having no matter to interact with doesn’t make it not part of the physical universe in my book, because if there was matter then they’d interact. Unless you’re talking spiritual energy, in which case that’s certainly possible.

I would say there are two kinds of logical arguments that we need to differentiate between. The type against the religion, and the type against the truth of the religion. Obviously if someone came up with a working logical argument saying that in general religion was better or worse for mankind, then that would have no effect on the truth of that religion’s god. But if it was a logical argument against that religion’s beliefs - all of which stem from, and rely on, a god (or gods, or no gods) - then again there are two options. Either that god is constrained by logic, in which case certainly a correct logical argument would help prove or disprove it. Or that god is outside or above logic, in which case we may nothing about it at all, and it could be both PM and not, both omnipotent and not, both good and evil.

As for religious trappings - it depends whether or not they’re right. :wink: Seriously, stripping trappings to get to the truth depends on those trappings truly being man-made. It could be that the One True Faith is Catholicism, for example, and that which is declared by the Papal body as of this moment is entirely correct. Stripping ritual and the like would mean they were further from God, not closer. So really it depends on whether or not a god if it exists truly wants those trappings or not, and while i’d say that there are arguments against them in specific, I don’t really see why we can say a religion with many trappings is less likely to be true than one with few.

168

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Pebbles can be quite ordered . You’re just saying “cherrypicked” in less compromising words here.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, they can. But you repeatedly miss the point. I do not claim that order is proof of intention. Only that more order more strongly suggest intention. You can offer many examples where that is not the case, but that does not undermine my point. And you use “cherrypicked” as if I should choose examples that do not illustrate my point. Again, you demonstrate that you think I am saying that order = intention. I am not. Please try to digest that one fact.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Yes, the wheel suggests intention. But not by any abstract measure of order. And they’re still cherry-picked examples.e.g. What has more order, a pinecone or an axe-handle? A log or a toothpick? Crazy paving or a sorted conglomerate?One displays intentionality, but not for the reason you think - you yourself pointed out the reason - the shape itself. But this difference in shape isn’t inherent to the intentionally fashioned object, as my examples show.
[/QUOTE]

Would you please read this over. You say it’s not for the reason I think, then point out that I pointed out the actual reason, which is different from the one you impute to me earlier in the sentence. Can you at least TRY to understand what I’m saying BEFORE you start typing in a huff?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
If the link is not a necessary one, how can it then make the PM necessary? All it does is make him probable.
[/QUOTE]

Fine. And I’m willing to entertain other explanations. I just ask that they comport to logic. Have any?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

  • yes, the statement as made does not indicate a necessary relationship between order and intentionality,
    [/QUOTE]

Good. Thank you.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
…but I haven’t just disproved that the link is necessary. I’ve disproved that it’s even likely, or significantly probable.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see where you’ve done that. Please point it out. and which is it: disproved its necessity or shown it to be less likely?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’ve shown that for EVERY cherry-picked example you give, I can give two or more counter-examples. Your thesis is disproved.
[/QUOTE]

NO. NO. NO. And we were doing so well. You can craft all the counter-examples you want, it doesn’t matter. When you look at the cleanest example—two pieces of wood, one an ordinary weathered stick and the other a wagon wheel—the wagon wheel more strongly suggests intention. That doesn’t prove it is the product of intention any more than what appears to be a stick, but if I offered you $100 to pick the object that was intentionally designed, which would you pick? How can you deny the general proposition that the more ordered, or complex something is, the more strongly it suggests intention? Anyone? Please, if I’m missing something in that I’d really love to understand it!

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, it shows there’s NO predictable link. Non-intentional, natural physical processes can, and do, lead to high magnitudes of order just as easily and frequently as intentional ones. If the link isn’t persistent, or even predictable, you can’t use it at all to indicate intentionality.
[/QUOTE]

No. It shows there’s no absolute link, that one does not guarantee the other. But there is a correlation: the MORE ordered a thing is, the MORE strongly it suggest intention. If that is not true, you’re saying that a greater degree of order does NOT more strongly suggest intent; that order plays no—zero—in deciphering likelihood of intent. That means a dried up leaf is as likely to be the product of intent as a calculator or baseball or a skyscraper. I’d love to walk around with you for a day and we each offer the other $100 bills for every object we can correctly point to that is the product of intent. I’ll choose things like wagon wheels and calculators an locomotives and you can choose things like random sticks and pebbles and whatnot. Just bring a lot of money.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
But OK, here we go - the statement WITH THE “MORES” is wrong. I have shown how.
[/QUOTE]

Nope.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, evolution is a scientific fact…The central theory of evolution needs no Intelligent Interferer.
[/QUOTE]

We agree on the first part, as it is defined in the second part. We agree on the second part, as well.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The theory of evolution hasn’t changed at all since Darwin first formulated it. It’s just that good.
[/QUOTE]

Not true:

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
At the end of 1859 Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species explained natural selection in detail and presented evidence leading to increasingly wide acceptance of the occurrence of evolution.

Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundation for genetics.
Debate about the mechanisms of evolution continued, and Darwin could not explain the source of the heritable variations which would be acted on by natural selection. Like Lamarck, he thought that parents passed on adaptations acquired during their lifetimes,[175] a theory which was subsequently dubbed Lamarckism.[176] In the 1880s August Weismann’s experiments indicated that changes from use and disuse were not heritable, and Lamarckism gradually fell from favour.[177][178] More significantly, Darwin could not account for how traits were passed down from generation to generation. In 1865 Gregor Mendel found that traits were inherited in a predictable manner.[179] When Mendel’s work was rediscovered in 1900, disagreements over the rate of evolution predicted by early geneticists and biometricians led to a rift between the Mendelian and Darwinian models of evolution.
This contradiction was reconciled in the 1930s by biologists such as Ronald Fisher. The end result was a combination of evolution by natural selection and Mendelian inheritance, the modern evolutionary synthesis.[180] In the 1940s, the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues and the subsequent publication of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, demonstrated the physical basis for inheritance. Since then, genetics and molecular biology have become core parts of evolutionary biology and have revolutionized the field of phylogenetics.[12]
[/QUOTE]

At the very least, it has expanded. It continually expands. As it does, more of it cannot be accepted as fact. But that doesn’t mean that all of it is equally unassailable. How can you not possibly grant that? Just look at what I posted from the Wiki article. knowledge increases and more holes are filled in. Do you not think that scientists are searching for more information still? Do you think the “perfect” theory Darwin put forth has not only NOT been improved on, but that it CAN’T be improved on? The newer parts to the theory are, almost by definition, more assailable than those that have already been put to the test. Also, some of it has been verified through direct observation. Surely you would hold that empirical test data holds some weight? That there is a greater level of confidence if test data is supportive certain aspects of a theory? If not, then why the hell bother with testing and scientific research? If you accept all this, then it follows that the theory, as it accounts for the eyeball and the flagella, is MORE suspect than things that have already been tested and observed. Sure, it may make sense according to the larger theory, but do you think that all theories are always 100% correct? That sometimes as time goes on theories have to be abandoned, or rejiggered? Come on, man, this is not only common sense but common science sense.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The fossils say it’s been proved. The biochemistry says the same.
[/QUOTE]

It depends what specifically you are referring to. I’ve said that parts of it are beyond reproach. Please show where anything I’ve said indicates I do not agree with these two statements.

And since you brought it up, it might be helpful for you to define what you mean by evolution. Just a bulleted list will do.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, it says it DID. We have all the possible intermediate stages. Eyeball evolution is no mystery.You have no idea how scientific proof works, if you think that “could have”, coupled with hard evidence, isn’t sufficient proofIt shows no point at which outside intervention is needed, or can be said to have occurred. But it does have all the steps, so there;s nothing that the evolutionary explanation doesn’t explain. That’s as solid a scientific proof as you can have.
[/QUOTE]

No, science is much better then that. They have simply said that it COULD have happened that way, which would make any intervention unnecessary. Those who definitively say “this is what happened” go an extra step. That the beak of a bird can change shape over generations due to environment is a fact. That the eyeball came into being that way evolutions claim is not. Do you not see the difference?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I don’t. All the theory has to show is all the steps, as well as no gaps that need explaining. If you think there’s any place in the evolution of the eye where an explanation is needed, please point it out to me.
[/QUOTE]

You miss the point. Read what I just wrote.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
OK, let’s be more clear -what, exactly, did I say, that was not an adequate explanation for a point you made. Specific post cites would be most helpful. General objections are kind of imprecise to refute, you know.
[/QUOTE]

You seem to think you’ve “proved” that there is no PM. Honestly, I’m confused to many of the things you think you proved and called facts. And I just can’t muster the energy to go hunting through your hundred of individual posts.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
That’s all it needs to do, since the Prime Mover is an entity that is only brought into the debate because of it’s supposed necessity. If it’s not needed, we don’t bring it in, since there’s nothing it needs to explain.
[/QUOTE]

I think you are correct, as far as how evolution applies to man. But you want it to apply to the BB, as well. I keep pointing out that evolution is SILENT on what might have caused the BB, or if anything caused it. It offers no opinion. You attempt to equating a conventional god of the gaps argument as it applies to evolution and apply it to the cause of the universe. You’re conflating two different things. As far as man the theory of evolution is relevant. As far as the origins of the universe, it is not.

So, you want me to abandon my position as far as the universe being caused. Okay, then TELL me what caused the big bang. Or PROVE to me that there was no cause. And tell me why in a way that comports with logic. Then PROVE to me that the our universe could not exist within a larger framework. And PROVE to me that time could not have been part of the framework. Until you can do ALL those things, I have no reason to abandon my position. NONE.

My position is based on logic. Show me where it is wrong. Here it is.

In our experience, all things have a cause.
(In fact, that very premise is what allows science to be done.)
The universe is a thing, therefore it, too, has a cause.

So, show me some things that we KNOW do not have a cause. Or show me how the universe is not a thing. The one qualifier in there “in our experience” leaves room for another explanation. But I maintain that the universe having a cause is the more logical position and should be the default. Show me I’m wrong.

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Not our dimensions, no. That’s kind of the point of Space being confined to the Universe along with Time
[/QUOTE]

Quit with the cute semantic games. Leave “our” out of it. How do you KNOW that outside our universe there is no concept of time, or of length width or depth while we’re at it?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
NO, I quite specifically said PART 1 of #6. I already acknowledged that the bits about the MP and deductive logic fell aside. But the bit about causality is not related to the other two, it stands or falls on its own. I already stated this, so you’re attacking a strawman here.
[/QUOTE]

Bullshit. I responded to this:

[QUOTE=MrDibble]

Why not attack the actual, point-by-point deductive logic argument I made, starting with point 3)?
[/QUOTE]

You then brought Point 1 up, for some reason. Why—I have NO idea, because I never said I had a problem with it by itself. So, why do you bring it up now? Logic is helpful. ONly when you attempted to apply it did you run into trouble. So, I take it that your satisfied with my “point-by-point” refutation of #3 thru #6, as you requested? Since, you didn’t comment on it. Is that right?

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Hey, if you’re willing to concede that a Prime Mover is not necessary, I’d say you’re right and this debate is over. That’s all I need to prove.
[/QUOTE]

There simply aren’t enough :rolleyes: s. My position states that a PM is necessary. THAT is the position. Since the my very first post in this thread I’ve allowed that I, like anyone else, could very well be wrong about things as theoretical as this. If you think you’ve PROVED anything, you are very sadly mistaken. But if you do, why don’t you share exactly what you think you’ve proven/ I’d LOVE to see both what you think you’ve proven and how you’ve proven it. But if you’d rather simply declare VICTORY!!! and prance off, pleeeaaase, by all means. Don’t let me stand in your way.

169

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Evolution is a concept with applications that just get broader the more people look at it.
[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. You’re just attempting to equate the word “evolution” with what we understand it to mean as the title of its namesake theory. Semantic gamesmanship.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
And at any rate, it doesn’t matter; since whether or not evolution applies to the formation of universes that says nothing on the need for some Prime Mover
[/QUOTE]

Excellent. You agree. (Wait, now I’m concerned.)

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
( which is one of the more seriously desperate attempts to defend God, I might add )
[/QUOTE]

Whether it is or is not is not germaine to the discussion. But you knew that.

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Quantum mechanics can explain where the first uncaused cause came from easily enough - in fact, it pretty much eliminates the whole idea that effects need causes, now or at the Big Bang, at the quantum scale.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, really? Well, I’ll have to ask you to share that explanation with us. I’ll wait. And don’t just provide a link for us to wade through. Explain it to us.

170

About to go off for my May Day weekend, Commie that I am, so I’ll be very brief:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Yes, they can. But you repeatedly miss the point. I do not claim that order is proof of intention. Only that more order more strongly suggest intention. You can offer many examples where that is not the case, but that does not undermine my point.
[/quote]
YES, it does. That you don’t get this is just incomprehensible to me. If the correlation is so thoroughly undermined, how can you continue to use it?
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Fine. And I’m willing to entertain other explanations. I just ask that they comport to logic. Have any?

[/quote]
I’ve used nothing but logic up to now.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

I don’t see where you’ve done that. Please point it out. and which is it: disproved its necessity or shown it to be less likely?

[/quote]
“Shown it to be less likely” does the job of proving no necessity. Do you know what “logically necessary” means? It allows for no doubt at all.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

NO. NO. NO. And we were doing so well. You can craft all the counter-examples you want, it doesn’t matter.
[/quote]
YES, it does.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
When you look at the cleanest example—two pieces of wood, one an ordinary weathered stick and the other a wagon wheel—the wagon wheel more strongly suggests intention.
[/quote]
Cherry Picking. A wagon wheel is not one piece of wood, and I deny it’s the cleanest example.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

How can you deny the general proposition that the more ordered, or complex something is, the more strongly it suggests intention?
[/quote]
Because I know, as a scientist, that natural processes give rise to very high degrees of order without any sign of intention, and even in those that are the product of intention, higher order doesn’t correlate with higher intention.
Get back to me when directed human intention can produce ONE thing as ordered and complex as a snowflake, a quartz crystal or a radiolarian skeleton. Just ONE thing. Then we’ll talk. Wagon wheels aren’t in it as far as order. Nature puts us to shame without even trying.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

you’re saying that a greater degree of order does NOT more strongly suggest intent; that order plays no—zero—in deciphering likelihood of intent.
[/QUOTE]
The first thing is not the same as the second. Observation of order plays some role in deciphering intent, yes, but more ordered does not mean more likely to be intentional, no. We just recognise (through experience - you have so far failed to provide any useful MEASURE of order) certain types of ordered arrangement as man-made. That is all, and is not the same as what you’re postulating.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

At the very least, it has expanded.
[/QUOTE]
True. I did revise this later, you’ll note, when I mentioned the new synthesis with genetics. But what I meant by the statement is that natural selection has not been overturned in favour of any other mechanism, that’s all.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

And since you brought it up, it might be helpful for you to define what you mean by evolution. Just a bulleted list will do.

[/QUOTE]
Evolution is change in allele frequency over time. The Theory of Evolution at its simplest says this happens by the mechanism of Natural Selection. The rest is commentary.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

That the beak of a bird can change shape over generations due to environment is a fact. That the eyeball came into being that way evolutions claim is not. Do you not see the difference?

[/QUOTE]
There is no difference, unless the beaks were observed 24/7. A designer COULD have slipped in there just as easily as with the eyeball, no? If not, why allow for the one and not the other being a fact? Are you saying observation of fossils is not as scientific or factual as live/dead animals? Because that’s absurd.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

You seem to think you’ve “proved” that there is no PM.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’ve only proved one is not necessary. That’s enough.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

As far as man the theory of evolution is relevant. As far as the origins of the universe, it is not.
[/QUOTE]
It became relevant as soon as you used definable characteristics like intentionality to delineate the necessity of the Mover. Those are things that evolution can shed light on - that you don’t need intentionality to develop intelligence.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

So, you want me to abandon my position as far as the universe being caused. Okay, then TELL me what caused the big bang.
[/QUOTE]
Nothing caused it. I’ve said this already.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Or PROVE to me that there was no cause.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t educate you in elementary Quantum Mechanics. Go to a university. Be prepared to spend a few years at it. Attending a cosmology lecture or two isn’t going to cut it.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Then PROVE to me that the our universe could not exist within a larger framework.
[/QUOTE]
It very well could - that’s one current theory.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And PROVE to me that time could not have been part of the framework.
[/QUOTE]
It isn’t, by the definition of Universe. QED.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

My position is based on logic. Show me where it is wrong. Here it is.

In our experience, all things have a cause.

[/QUOTE]
In YOUR experience, not in mine. Particles pop out of the nothing all the time. That’s what the science says. e.g. Virtual particles produce some observable effects, and hopefully soon GLAST will add Hawking radiation to that list.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
(In fact, that very premise is what allows science to be done.)
[/QUOTE]
Science is done even if some (definable) things have no cause. Some things not having a cause is not the same as causality not existing.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

The universe is a thing, therefore it, too, has a cause.

[/QUOTE]
Since the first premise is false, this argument is not true.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

So, show me some things that we KNOW do not have a cause.
[/QUOTE]
Done.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Or show me how the universe is not a thing. The one qualifier in there “in our experience” leaves room for another explanation. But I maintain that the universe having a cause is the more logical position and should be the default. Show me I’m wrong.

[/QUOTE]
Done.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

Leave “our” out of it. How do you KNOW that outside our universe there is no concept of time, or of length width or depth while we’re at it?

[/QUOTE]
I will NOT leave “our” out of it, until you can show me another conception of these dimensions besides the ones that we know, definitionally, are bound in our Universe.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

You then brought Point 1 up, for some reason.
[/QUOTE]
No, part 1 of point 6
[QUOTE=magellan01]
So, I take it that your satisfied with my “point-by-point” refutation of #3 thru #6, as you requested?
[/QUOTE]
Nope
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Since, you didn’t comment on it. Is that right?
[/QUOTE]
Have you read all my posts? I very much did comment on it.
[QUOTE=magellan01]

There simply aren’t enough :rolleyes: s. My position states that a PM is necessary. THAT is the position.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you have made some statements since you started, like , "If you accept the theory [of evolution of intelligence] it only goes to “disproving” the necessity of intervention and, indirectly, a PM. " You also stated that you have no problem with the central theory of evolution. Those two read together…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
If you think you’ve PROVED anything, you are very sadly mistaken. But if you do, why don’t you share exactly what you think you’ve proven/ I’d LOVE to see both what you think you’ve proven and how you’ve proven it.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve proved that a PM is not a necessary entity, both by showing that some entities are uncaused, and by showing that any link between intentionality and order is illusionary. That you disagree is your prerogative, but my logic holds and I have the science and facts on my side. I notice you’ve not cited anything to back up any of your claims, only ones about defining the theory of evolution, which isn’t even the central part of my counterargument. Nothing to refute uncaused particles, nothing to counter the order evident in Nature…
[QUOTE=magellan01]
But if you’d rather simply declare VICTORY!!! and prance off, pleeeaaase, by all means. Don’t let me stand in your way.
[/QUOTE]

I’m willing to keep debating as long as you want. I’ll never run out of counterexamples for every example of Watchmakerism you propose (Nature is literally full of them), and physics & logical rebuttals to all the special pleading you can muster.

I note you haven’t advanced any comment on the articles on the factual nature of the Theory of Evolution you (Well, me, actually) & I posted, nor have you defended your erroneous statement about Energy being nonphysical.

171

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Nonsense. You’re just attempting to equate the word “evolution” with what we understand it to mean as the title of its namesake theory. Semantic gamesmanship.
[/quote]
No, I’m simply pointing out what you apparently don’t know, that the concept and application of evolution has spread well beyond it’s original application as a theory about the development of earth life.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Whether it is or is not is not germaine to the discussion. But you knew that.
[/quote]
It’s germaine in the sense that you are trying so hard, and against all available evidence for it, and for so little gain. A prime mover “God” is a minor and meaningless god indeed. I find it odd that you seem to care so much about it.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, really? Well, I’ll have to ask you to share that explanation with us. I’ll wait. And don’t just provide a link for us to wade through. Explain it to us.
[/QUOTE]
MrDibble already did so. On the quantum level, virtual particles appear and disappear all the time. In fact, when you get to a small enough scale, randomness, quantum uncertainty is everywhere. On that level, things “just happen” randomly all the time, no cause needed. And the effects of those random, uncaused events eventually work themselves up to the macro level. So, not only is a cause unnecessary for an effect; but going by numbers, most effects don’t have causes.

172

I’m back. Just to summarise my position about a Prime Mover argument for God, in case anyone feels it gets lost in the point-by-point…
I do not believe a Prime Mover is a necessary entity, since modern physics shows us that, counterintuitively, events do not need causes. This is already a proven fact, unless one believes one is up to the task of disproving all of Quantum Mechanics and still explaining the several scientific observations that show that particles can arise from nothing.
I also do not believe in the necessity of an Intelligent Designer. I believe evolutionary theory is a complete and sufficient explanation for intelligence, and I believe that the Watchmaker argument lacks any scientific rigour or logical validity.

I believe magellan01 has failed to back up his arguments with any facts, such as provide any empirical measure of “order” that serves to distinguish the natural from the manmade, or any counterargument for the lack of need for a First Cause, as shown by QM.

173

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Quantum mechanics can explain where the first uncaused cause came from easily enough - in fact, it pretty much eliminates the whole idea that effects need causes, now or at the Big Bang, at the quantum scale.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble’s latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I’m aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam’s razor-type argument: don’t speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science – if we can’t know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can’t see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive. But my knowledge of this subject is pretty flimsy.

magellan: 1) If you believe that math is discovered and not invented (and not a blend of the two - no, I don’t know whether a blend is nonsensical), then it exists in some sense outside of the human brain. And in that is case, there’s no energy (or matter) involved with ideas. At the very least, ideas have a definitive nonmaterial aspect.

I’m just saying that discussion of this larger framework is probably unhelpful if one is actually studying astronomy on a professional or serious level. (Though that of course is not the topic in this thread.)

Narrowly speaking: no. We don’t have a model or decent intellectual framework for consciousness [1], never mind intelligence. So we can’t have a complete explanation for it.

Less central, but…

That was a pretty neat comment. But wouldn’t automobles, PCs or cell phones qualify as objects that are made with intention and are more ordered than snowflakes, et al?

And what does “Greater intention” mean? I understand “Greater effort”, but intention seems to me to possess an either/or quality.
[1] … though Searle has at least proposed a definition of consciousness. Yay!

174

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble’s latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I’m aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam’s razor-type argument: don’t speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science – if we can’t know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can’t see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive.
[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, Bell’s Theorem appears to rule that out. You are postulating the hidden variables view, which says that the position and velocity are determined but unknown; theory and data seem to rule that out.

In other words, the randomness appears to be real, which in turn does mean that there are uncaused effects all the time, due to fundamental randomness at the quantum level.

175

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Cite?

You may very well be correct. But I have not studied Quantum Mechanics so others could probably google this topic better than I. Following Mr Dibble’s latest post, this seems central to the PM argument.

I’m aware that the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics involves irreducible uncertainty. But that turns on an Occam’s razor-type argument: don’t speculate on matters on which we cannot know. That is sound science – if we can’t know the speed and direction of a particle simultaneously, it is convenient to label the randomness as intrinsic to the problem-- but I can’t see anything there that says that an underlying deterministic structure is even unlikely, never mind unintuitive. But my knowledge of this subject is pretty flimsy.

[/quote]

Ockham’s Razor is a heuristic. The Uncertainty Principle is far more fundamental to nature than that. The reason that electron clouds, for example, are probabilistic is not convenience - they are fundamentally not in one place. I don’t know the math, but I have read extensively in this, and everything I’ve ever read says that there is no underlying determinism. There is no solar system model of the atom. And you can just forget about intuition. It won’t help you here.

Why is this important? Because if the universe has no net energy, which is seeming more likely, then there is no law broken by it just appearing.

176

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I’m back. Just to summarise my position about a Prime Mover argument for God, in case anyone feels it gets lost in the point-by-point…
I do not believe a Prime Mover is a necessary entity, since modern physics shows us that, counterintuitively, events do not need causes. This is already a proven fact, unless one believes one is up to the task of disproving all of Quantum Mechanics and still explaining the several scientific observations that show that particles can arise from nothing.
I also do not believe in the necessity of an Intelligent Designer. I believe evolutionary theory is a complete and sufficient explanation for intelligence, and I believe that the Watchmaker argument lacks any scientific rigour or logical validity.

I believe magellan01 has failed to back up his arguments with any facts, such as provide any empirical measure of “order” that serves to distinguish the natural from the manmade, or any counterargument for the lack of need for a First Cause, as shown by QM.
[/QUOTE]

This is a good way to conclude this for me. And I have to this time because I am slammed with work and have only a few days to do it before I go out of town.

So, I maintain that there is a PM. My reasoning is due to logic. Given all we KNOW about the world, everything has a cause. Period. Some throw out QM as proof of an exception that would erode that logic, but this seems to be either a somewhat hubristic stance to take or one that is incredibly naive. Heck, maybe both. The argument basically comes down to that on a very, very small scale there is stuff happening that we don’t understand. Hmmm, the thought of a “plum pudding model” comes to mind. Just because we can’t see what’s happening yet doesn’t mean that we won’t be able to see what’s causing these particles to pop in and out 10, 20, 50 years from now. The irony is that in this instance I’m taking the position of a scientist, meaning that based on every thing we thought we didn’t know about the world at one point, we have an incredibly high success rate of eventually figuring it out. And even if we haven’t and won’t, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t understandable, just that it might not be understandable by us—for now any way. Conversely, those who claim to be more scientifically minded take the position that the ignorance we have now regarding certain aspects of QM will reign for eternity. Either that, or that we will be able to prove randomness. And THAT seems very, very unlikely. I can’t imagine how that could ever be proven. Anyway, I find it a little funny that the positions we have on the PM almost get flipped when we look into QM.

Not that it has anything to do with the discussion, but my view on evolution is that it may very well be able to account for all progress for the earliest cell to us. But just because the theory makes that a possibility, thereby undoing the necessity of an interventionist being, that doesn’t mean it actually happened that way. So, you can call me guilty of allowing for the possibility of “help” along the way.

But just to be clear, that has nothing to do with my position of there needing to be a PM—of the non-interventionist variety.

So, given that, I apologize to those, like **RT, **that I have not been able to get back to with direct answers to their questions. I thank you all for your time. And perhaps before we meet again, God will have intervened on your behalf and enable you to see the greater wisdom of holding the more logical position regarding his role as the PM. :wink:

177

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
Narrowly speaking: no. We don’t have a model or decent intellectual framework for consciousness [1], never mind intelligence. So we can’t have a complete explanation for it.
[/QUOTE]
“We” may not, but *I *am perfectly happy with Dennett’s model for consciousness as outlined in Consciousness Explained, and based around the Multiple Drafts Model.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]

But wouldn’t automobles, PCs or cell phones qualify as objects that are made with intention and are more ordered than snowflakes, et al?
[/QUOTE]
By what measure of order? Symmetry? Nope, snowflakes are much more symmetrical. Number of parts? Sure, but that’s not a measure of “order”.

Once again, I think the word that’s being used wrongly here is “order”, and I think the word that’s being meant is “complexity” - and yes, I’d agree a PC is more complex than a snowflake. But : A snowflake is *one *H[sub]2[/sub]O crystal, you can’t realistically compare it to an assemblage like a PC. What’s more complex, then? A PC or a snow blizzard? What distinguishes a kid’s poorly-made snowman from a snowdrift?

I’m not arguing that we can’t usually distinguish natural from man-made objects, Dead Gods forbid! We can, we do it all the time. But I am arguing that there is no scientific measure by which we do it - it’s an intuitive process built on our instinctual facilities for pattern recognition and memory, with a large amount of learned responses added. Both order and complexity are factored in, yes, as well as more specific considerations like “type of material” and “type of geometric shape” and “markings like writing”. But there’s no real empirical method being employed, as far as I can see. Certainly, none has been pointed out yet.

[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]

And what does “Greater intention” mean? I understand “Greater effort”, but intention seems to me to possess an either/or quality.
[/QUOTE]

It was magellan01 that brought in the “more intentionality”, but on this I actually could go either way, I’d say there was more intention to a human chipping a flint handaxe than a Nautilus building its beautifully geometric shell, but that the Nautilus displayed more intention than a stream piling pebbles that would later form a sorted conglomerate. But I could also go with a binary mode, in which case, I’d say the Nautilus had no more intention than the stream. I’m easy, I just went with the continuum model to debate magellan01 on his own terms.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
Given all we KNOW about the world, everything has a cause. Period.
[/QUOTE]
This is factually incorrect.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Some throw out QM as proof of an exception that would erode that logic, but this seems to be either a somewhat hubristic stance to take or one that is incredibly naive. Heck, maybe both. The argument basically comes down to that on a very, very small scale there is stuff happening that we don’t understand.
[/QUOTE]

This amounts to the logical fallacy of an argument from incredulity . This is also factually incorrect. You seem to be under the misapprehension that QM says we don’t know where virtual particles come from. This is just not the case. QM says virtual particles come from nothing, and has the physics and maths to back it up. This is **not the same **as saying we don’t know where they come from. And QM has all the hard scientific evidence on its side. If you want to argue with it, then you have to prove QM wrong. It’s as simple as that. Good luck with that.

And may Nyarlathotep, the Crawler in Chaos, bring you to a greater understanding of non-Euclidean angles, and Azathoth, that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity, help you understand the lack of a need for First Causes. All in the hope that Dread Cthulhu eats you first, of course.

178

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
. All in the hope that Dread Cthulhu eats you first, of course.
[/QUOTE]

As this is GD, I think your wishing me harm—death—is a violation of board rules.
:wink:

179

What, you want to be eaten last? That’s … perverse.

180

[QUOTE=MrDibble]
What, you want to be eaten last? That’s … perverse.
[/QUOTE]
Getting eaten at ALL by Cthulhu is perverse. Although I hear that nobody’s better at oral ( probably all those tentacles and slime ), so it’s an understandable temptation.
. . . What ?