# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/221 "2010-09-01T14:59:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yes, they literally appear from nothing. > > So then, at the time when the causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies, and warts were beyond man’s knowledge, you would classify them as being “causeless”, as well? No, but virtual particles are uncaused. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/222 "2010-09-01T15:01:53Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > The current understanding of quantum physics is that these particle events are _really_ uncaused. The idea that there are some as-yet unknown hidden causes has been disproved, and until that proof is shown to be incorrect I think DtC is correct in saying they are causeless. Please respond to my previous post. Also, can you point to the opinion that states that QM events are, in fact, causeless? A random appearance, in my mind, does not lead you there. Certainly not _necessarily_. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/223 "2010-09-01T15:04:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > So then, at the time when the causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies, and warts were beyond man’s knowledge, you would classify them as being “causeless”, as well? > > No, but virtual particles are uncaused. Oh, I see now. It’s because you say so. You’re talking about DioWorld; I was talking about the actual universe. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew we must be talking past one another. Have a nice day. May gravity be present with every step you take. I know it’s not much to worry about, but, hey, you never know, right? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/224 "2010-09-01T15:15:11Z")
It’s not me that says so, it’s the physicists who understand this stuff a lot better than I do. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/225 "2010-09-01T15:41:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not correct. There might not be _proof_, but there is _evidence_. And that evidence is that every single thing we are aware of has a cause—EVERYTHING. I don’t think this is a reasonable extrapolation. What _we_ see evidence of is that every already existing thing that changes it’s physical properties has a cause. We have _NO_ experience with ‘nothing’. So to say that because we experience pre-existing matter/energy changing in time/space because of an agent is NOT the same thing as saying that everything has a cause therefore the universe has a cause. I’m not sure that you would argue this point (it seems related, but not _directly_ related to what you are arguing). > [@magellan01](#): > > This is a foundational tenet of science, discovery and learning. We have bazillion beyond bazillion events we look at and see that they ALL have causes. None of which are applicable to the universe. > [@magellan01](#): > > We asked to be shown the other side of the ledger, those events that are causeless, the one example than is offered up is Quantum Mechanics, and presented incorrectly. QM is silent on cause. It simply observes that the particles can appear and disappear in and from different locations it what we perceive as random. There are two possibilities, neither having anything to do with a god of any sort: > > 1. We simply do not understand what the causes are, but we will. The same way we came to see that there are actual causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies and warts. And they were not just the will of Og. > > 2. They are, in fact, causeless. > > So, in weighing those two possibilities, we look for evidence as to which is more likely to be true. And since the thing we are looking at is QM, we look elsewhere and find ZERO instances of things existing without a cause. That makes Option 1 a much, much, much, much more likely scenario, does it not. I’m not sure it does - with regard to the universe. Then again, I don’t hold that there was ever a point when the universe didn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/226 "2010-09-01T15:42:57Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Also, can you point to the opinion that states that QM events are, in fact, causeless? A random appearance, in my mind, does not lead you there. Certainly not _necessarily_. Here you go… > **[Bell's theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem)** > > Bell's theorem is a term encompassing a number of closely related results in physics, all of which determine that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden-variable theories, given some basic assumptions about the nature of measurement. The first such result was introduced by John Stewart Bell in 1964, building upon the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox, which had called attention to the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. > In the context of Bell's theorem, "local" refers to the principle... ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/227 "2010-09-01T16:31:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It’s not me that says so, it’s the physicists who understand this stuff a lot better than I do. Oh, so you take it on faith. Okay, I guess we all do that to a degree. So, please share with me from what you’ve read that leads you to believe that QM effects are causeless. You know a leading physicist stating fairy clearly that QM particles are causeless. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/228 "2010-09-01T16:33:47Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Also, can you point to the opinion that states that QM events are, in fact, causeless? A random appearance, in my mind, does not lead you there. Certainly not _necessarily_. > > Here you go… > [Bell's theorem - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem) While much of that is admittedly over my head, I really didn’t see where the findings led to the conclusion that the events are causeless. And the degree to which that can even be read into it, it’s certainly not _necessarily_ causeless. Is that your takeaway, as well? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/229 "2010-09-01T16:34:10Z")
See post #225. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/230 "2010-09-01T16:41:09Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > It’s not me that says so, it’s the physicists who understand this stuff a lot better than I do. > > Oh, so you take it on faith. That’s trust in the experts to know what they are doing in the area of their expertise, not faith. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/231 "2010-09-01T17:15:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > See post #225. Okay. So, you do not have what was requested of you. So, you’re taking it on faith. That’s what I thought. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/232 "2010-09-01T17:19:32Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Oh, so you take it on faith. > > That’s trust in the experts to know what they are doing in the area of their expertise, not faith. The problem is then to understand exactly what they are saying. And I don’t see them actually saying that they know that Quantum events are causeless. So, you can’t point to clear statements that go _directly_ to what we’re discussing (as opposed to what their testing), you are taking it on faith that they agree with you. With a heaping dose of Confirmation Bias thrown in for good measure. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/233 "2010-09-01T17:33:56Z")
When they say, “No physical theory which assumes a deterministic variable inside the particle that determines the outcome, can account for the experimental results,” that’s physicists talk for “uncaused.” “No deterministic variable” means “no cause.” ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/234 "2010-09-01T17:34:26Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > > I’m interrupting here, because there is NO evidence that leads us to assume that there in fact IS a cause for whatever we currently call the “universe”. > > This is not correct. There might not be _proof_, but there is _evidence_. And that evidence is that every single thing we are aware of has a cause—EVERYTHING. This is a foundational tenet of science, discovery and learning. We have bazillion beyond bazillion events we look at and see that they ALL have causes. We asked to be shown the other side of the ledger, those events that are causeless, the one example than is offered up is Quantum Mechanics, and presented incorrectly. QM is silent on cause. It simply observes that the particles can appear and disappear in and from different locations it what we perceive as random. Well, **Meatros** already addressed this partially, but the thing is, if we say that you can’t get “something from nothing”, then you also have to address that when we try to “make” nothing, we instead do end up with virtual particles that don’t [seem to] have any cause. I’m leaving the reasoning behind that for the physicists, but it certainly _looks_ like there’s no intelligent intent that creates virtual particles, which in turn makes it at least somewhat plausible that a universe could “pop up” without intent too. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/235 "2010-09-01T17:40:32Z")
And as often pointed out in these arguments, pushing the origin question back to “God” just changes the question to “where did God come from”. And if you answer that he came from nowhere or has been around eternally, that answer can be applied to universes just as easily without a character from primitive myths being involved. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/236 "2010-09-01T18:18:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is not correct. There might not be _proof_, but there is _evidence_. And that evidence is that every single thing we are aware of has a cause—EVERYTHING. I see it exactly the opposite. We know of two things that come into existence: the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, and sub-atomic particles. We don’t know what caused the universe, but we know that sub-atomic particles are uncaused. The simplest explanation for the universe would be one where it was uncaused. Don’t have the data to prove that’s the correct one, but it’s consistent with everything else we know and doesn’t depend on magic. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/237 "2010-09-01T18:24:10Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I see it exactly the opposite. We know of two things that come into existence: the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, and sub-atomic particles. We don’t know what caused the universe, but we know that sub-atomic particles are uncaused. Actually, I’d quibble with the first of your two things. I don’t think that the Big Bang _does_ show that the universe came into existence. I think that if we assume it does, then we are begging the question with regard to the A theory of time. I think the B theory of time is more parsimonious. It seems to make sense of relativity theory (It’s hard to see how the A theory does) and the concept of simultaneous presents. It also does away with the whole necessity to postulate a state of ‘nothingness’. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/238 "2010-09-01T21:21:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Objective moral laws exist. No they don’t. Sorry. If you disagree, then point to an “objective moral law” and prove that it can exist outside of human thought. [/QUOTE] I have…an abhorrence towards child abuse > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is not an “objective moral law.” This is a widely shared (though not universal) subjective, human emotional response based in an evolutionary impulse to protect offspring. Nonsense. The evolutionary response to protect offspring is a fiction…look at animals who kill their young. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/239 "2010-09-01T21:29:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Objective moral laws exist. > > No they don’t. Sorry. If you disagree, then point to an “objective moral law” and prove that it can exist outside of human thought. > > This is not an “objective moral law.” This is a widely shared (though not universal) subjective, human emotional response based in an evolutionary impulse to protect offspring. > > It’s not necessary to interview them to know they have not produced any scientific reasoning to support their religious beliefs. I have read some of them, like Behe and Dembski. They are charlatans. > > This is complete horsehit. You’re a big Lee Strobel fan, aren’t you? The “skeptical atheist persuaded by hard evidence canard.” I love that one. > > > [@](#): > > > > 3\> What is a question on peer reveiws other than an apeal to authority? > > Peer review is the method of empirically reviewing evidence. It’s not just “authorities” giving opinions. Add that to the long list of terms, phrases and concepts you don’t seem to comprehend very well. Behe, Dembski, Strobel? Here’s some homework for you. Fred Hoyle, George Ellis, Paul davies, Alan Sandage, John O’Keefe, George Greenstein, Arthur Eddington, Arno Penzias, Roger Penriose, Tony Rothman…the list is long. Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/240 "2010-09-01T21:30:56Z")
> [@Don123](#): > > Not to make things overly complicated; I would be interested if a person could give a definition of a god that would not be in contradiction with itself. > > God is all powerful and made everything. Ok then God gave man laws, man breaks the laws, God is not all powerful. > > I do not see how any can say a God exist unless they can give a definition of a God that holds water. > > If any are interested in a “not so” all powerful God, I don’t know what to tell you, other than live a good life and don’t hurt any one, as stories abound to no end, and do we ever love our stories. > > I always thought to disprove an all powerful god would body shaking, mind redeploying, with great emotional travail in pain, but not so. Two sentences does it and easily understood. > > So look on the bright side, if you count yourself a sinner don’t worry about an all powerful god as one does not exist. You might forgive yourself and do better next time. > > Welcome to the human race, it is not so bad. > > Don You will need to explain why a God who allows man to break His laws is not all powerful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=13)