Atheistic Double Standard?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wrote a long response, but my computer deleted it for some reason. You get the simple version. My point was not whether the ontological argument was good or bad. It was that many things (arguments, conclusions, etc..) seem bad because we can't understand them.

I understand it. I also understand the flaws in its reasoning.

Dozens of times I have considered arguments stupid for years, only to have them crystalize in a moment, which left me ashamed of my former ignorance. Try reading Plantinga's ontological argument, I still don't get it, but it is more robust that Anselm's.

I have.

 

[ArtieE]

For those who have gotten completely confused about the relationship between time and the universe here's an excellent short video.

 

[Polymath257]

You keep making arguments that are only true if time is tens less. We do not live in an integer line, we live in a world sequentially progressing through units of time. So turn your integers into seconds, no matter which second you consider this second your universe would have had to pass through an infinite prior number of seconds to get to the one you picked. Infinites only exist as abstract concepts. That is why you talk about lines and integers, and I talk about seconds, distance, density, temperature, etc.... as soon as you turn an infinite into any actual natural entity it no longer can exist.

The negative integers form a good mathematical model of how time could be infinite into the past.

Once again, you *assume* there is a start. If there is no start, then nothing has to go through an infinite number of seconds.

You claim infinities only exist as abstract concepts. Prove this.

I am ambivalent about the shape of space. I just choose the bubble shape because that is the model I find when I look up BBT. Flat space is a fringe theory but even if the universe was flat it would still be finite and still need a certain type of creator.

No, flat space is the current best theory, not a fringe theory. And a flat space would be infinite.

I have no idea, scholars far smarter than I bring up Hilbert's hotel to show that finites can only exist as ideas. The same thing with the ontological argument for God. I do not get it at all but well credentialed scholars I have grown to trust say it is the strongest argument for God. I thought that since you had so much math you might understand Hilbert's hotel even if I can't. It took me ten years of thinking to prove pure determinism was untrue. I tried and failed for ten years, and then over one afternoon I thought of trillions of exceptions to pure determinism. Maybe one day I will get Hilbert's hotel and Planting's ontological argument.

Hilbert's hotel is a good way to see how infinities are different than finite things. But there is no internal contradiction. That so many people seem to think there is, is a real problem. But ther eis no contradiction to having infinite time, for example.

No, that was an exact description showing that when the idea of infinity is imposed on actual things it gives garbage results.

But it doesn't. You were attempting to subtract infinities. That is an operation that is not well-defined. So? Addition *is* well-defined. And neither is required for infinities to be possible in the real world.

Yes, there are counter-intuitive aspects of infinity. But they are *only* counter-intuitive, not contradictory.

No, I am not. I am assuming there is an infinite series of natural states which occur sequentially. There is no way to start at this event and span the past series of events, so if you simply reverse that it can be seen that we could not have reached this event.

Exactly. There is no start. it is *always* going. And that is the point.

I didn't assume that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin did. Either you keep ignoring the BGVT or I keep failing to link it.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Which was true at the time Vilenkin wrote. Now we have ways to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics (which was a HUGE problem for a long time). Those theories allow, but do not require, a universe with no beginning.

Their model was specifically designed to be so robust that it was independent of whatever the latest fad concerning the singularity might be.

The link I gave is a representative sample of their conclusions, if you read the parent article you will find their denials concerning cracked egg, oscillating, and most other theoretical explanation for our universe.

Vilenkin worked from a purely general relativistic viewpoint. And it is true that general relativity inevitably shows singularities of the sort that you describe. But, when quantum effects are brought in, those singularities are 'smoothed out' and it is possible for there to have NOT been a beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

What you keep referring to sounds a lot like the alternative theory of time called "tens less time". Since you swim in the deep end (I am talking the Mariana's trench deep) of the theoretical science pool I thought you probably held that point of view. Your still dealing only with abstract ideas. Infinity can exist as an idea, but not an actual. Lets say there was a watch designed so perfectly that it would last forever. How do you get the second hand which has been ticking forever to reach now? It would necessarily have to travel an infinite distance and that is impossible. Saying an infinite regression of natural states produced the current state of affairs is logically incoherent and can only live in models and theories.

I have no idea what 'tens less time' is supposed to be. Probably some sort of philosophical nonsense.

If that second hand has always been ticking, it has no problem getting to now. It isn't traveling an infinite distance in a finite amount of time, so there is no problem. No matter when you look at the clock, it is ticking. It has *always* had an infinite past. I know many people have trouble with the details of how infinity works, but this really isn't an issue. There simply is no logical problem here. It is a bit counter-intuitive (but not really even that).

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The double standard is that atheists want Christians to PROVE that God exists but they do not want to PROVE that God does not exist. They just say they don't see any evidence for God's existence but that does not PROVE there is no God.

 

[1robin]

I wish that story about the Navy engineer made me feel more comfortable. But it doesn't. PDEs are really not that hard. The early classes especially. You just separate into ODEs and solve.

The college I went to made certain classes hard. I went to the college Von Braun worked out of. The worst class I ever had should have been one of the easiest, statics. He gave us an advanced calculus test on the first day, advanced calculus isn't even required for an engineering degree. Then I told him I had to leave for two weeks for reserve duty and he said if I did he would fail me. I thought "screw you" and did the best proofs you have ever seen for our first test. Every step was shown and every answer was right. I got a 50. He said it was because I didn't put boxes around my answers, he said he would fire me if I worked for him. I dropped the class with about 80% of the rest of the class. He no longer works there.

Objective yes (if morality is objective--I'm not convinced). but why not just ordinary evolution to learn what is helpful for people?

Most people perceive at least some things as objectively right or wrong. Why not trust that at least one of those things that one of those people believes is true?

You can get ethics from evolution, but you wouldn't want them. That is why not one culture in human history had laws based on evolution. The closest we ever came was Hitler's Germany, he was taught social Darwinism by Ernst Haeckel, and it would be hard to say he missed the mark by much.

I will give just one example, racial equality only exists if God exists. Evolution has never made two equal things. To equate the races you must look outside of nature to a transcendent foundation for racial equality. The same is true for a thousand other cherished moral norms. Let me let a few atheist's explain it:

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

[Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

And:

There’s a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want. Some philosophers, like Jean-Paul Sartre, have assumed that Ivan is right; without God there is no moral law that tells us what we ought to do.
Saint Anselm Philosophy Blog » If God does not exist, is everything permitted?

Your in my wheelhouse now, so I will be longer winded. I must break these posts up. Continued below.

 

[ArtieE]

I have no idea what 'tens less time' is supposed to be. Probably some sort of philosophical nonsense.

The B-theory of time says that time is tenseless. It's supported by the special theory of relativity. See the video I linked to in post 402.

 

[1robin]

Garbage. it was NOT described by bronze-age men. That is your misinterpretation of what they wrote.


Sorry, your position is called negative theology. I'm not ing it to be a negative thing.

I used to predict logical states over time given an initial state. However at the very least it proves that intelligence exists because there is no non-intelligent source of information.

This was pure bluff. The bible is 750,000 words long, it contains unimaginably accurate historical accounts, and throws in 2500 prophecies to boot. Which were disproven?

Its history has already been gone into, and even atheists had to admit their faith was their primary drive. It wasn't really seen else where. For example advances in technology occurred in China but not abstract science.

I agree on Judaism but at one point Islam dominated everyone in science and especially medical science.

It isn't falling back at all. It grows by the equivalent population of Nevada every year. Islam is growing faster but they consider a baby a Muslim and make getting out a capitol crime in many places.

If this mythic contradiction between science and God existed Newton should have been the most rabid atheist in history.
Not in his culture and not at the level of science at the time.



I was using quantum mechanics to show that causality isn't a requirement. Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics is based on a probabilistic description rather than a deterministic one.



Yes, I know. It is one of the difficulties of trying to explain an expanding universe to the public. The *actual* equations can describe either a universe with finite space, but curved OR an infinite universe. In the latter case, it is still possible for the universe to be curved, but negatively instead of positively (think a saddle rather than a sphere).

Those that use the surface of a sphere are closest to being accurate, but they still leave a lot to be desired. Again, there are difficulties in describing a curved four dimensional spacetime to people who have problems understanding three dimensions accura



Except that is NOT the description that matches the best information we have. Currently, it looks like space is flat and infinite. Whether time is finite or infinite into the past depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct.


Not required.


No, I am NOT describing he oscillating universe. Such a universe would be finite spatially and highly curved in a way that current evidence points away from. I am saying that some models have a *single* contracting phase before the current expansion phase.



Well, I would *never* say that mathematics put it there. So that was a straw man.

I *would* ask what sort of processes we know for the production of information (and we know many), the formation of balls like that (and size *does* matter here because gravitational effects depend on mass), and what materials were available to form such balls. I certainly would NOT default to an intelligence without looking at alternatives. And this is the same process for deciding whether a broken stone was fashioned to be a tool or was a natural process.


Again, you assume a start. That is the problem. What if there *is* no start? What if there is no cause for the universe as a whole? What if dollars have always been passed without a first person asking?


Let me put it this way. You *assume* that God is eternal. That he has always existed. Why not the universe, which we *know* exists as opposed to a deity which we do not?



NP.

I think you formatted this incorrectly, you have my statements mixed in with your own in several places. Can you please re-format this?

 

[ArtieE]

There’s a famous passage from “The Grand Inquisitor” section of Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov in which Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want. Some philosophers, like Jean-Paul Sartre, have assumed that Ivan is right; without God there is no moral law that tells us what we ought to do.
Saint Anselm Philosophy Blog » If God does not exist, is everything permitted?

Are you saying that all people who believe in your God are sociopaths and psychopaths capable of anything and the only thing that's holding them back is their belief in God and his moral laws? Gee, did you think we didn't know that? Some priests who have turned atheists even continue as priests to keep you in check as a service to society.

 

[1robin]

What "game"?

It was a euphemism for life span.

There's a tactic in sales of trying to create a sense of urgency in your customer: he might like to think about his decision more... do some research, check out your competitors, maybe decide whether he even needs your product at all. All of this could potentially cause you to lose the sale, so you tell him something to make him stop any further careful reflection and buy right now: "I have someone else coming in to check this car out after lunch" or "if you don't decide before you die, you might end up in Hell... and you never know when you might die."

That would only be disingenuous if we in fact do not die, since we do, I simply stated a fact.

But here's the thing: I don't like being manipulated. I have a real problem with sales tactics that try to undermine my critical thinking. I'm going to ignore your claim that life is a "game" with a time limit for some action unless I see good reason to accept it.

I bet you have purchased insurance for things far less certain than death. It is not manipulation to state universal truths.

Evangelists really need to realize that their sales process needs to have two phases: before they can sell someone their "cure", they have to sell them the disease.

I do not have, nor need to have sell you your death, to point out that it will occur. BTW the only disingenuous statement made so far was your first response above. You asked "What game?" then wrote several paragraphs assuming you knew exactly what I meant by game. The silly salesman analogy doesn't work either, I do not charge anything for supplying truth, nor does God demand payment for our salvation. It is a gift, not merchandise. I hope your next post is better than this one.

 

[1robin]

I understand it. I also understand the flaws in its reasoning.


I have.

Ok, describe what is meant by all possible worlds, without looking it up.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, describe what is meant by all possible worlds, without looking it up.

Something that exists in all possible worlds exists necessarily.

Now are you satisfied that I know what I'm talking about?

 

[1robin]

The negative integers form a good mathematical model of how time could be infinite into the past.

That is what I have been saying, infinity only exist in the mind like a model. Try actually building what is infinite in your head.

Once again, you *assume* there is a start. If there is no start, then nothing has to go through an infinite number of seconds.

No, I look in the past at your number line only I see actual seconds, or events, causal loops, or states of things and conclude that if the universe used to be at a state infinitely far back it could ever reach the current one.

You claim infinities only exist as abstract concepts. Prove this.

You don't prove universal negatives. I simply see no evidence for the possible existence of an actual infinite. This is why I did not ask you to prove that God does not exist.

No, flat space is the current best theory, not a fringe theory. And a flat space would be infinite.

Go to Google images and type in big bang model, every image I have ever seen has been 3 dimensional. Rejecting God and accepting a two dimensional universe is like swallowing a camel but choking on a gnat.

Hilbert's hotel is a good way to see how infinities are different than finite things. But there is no internal contradiction. That so many people seem to think there is, is a real problem. But ther eis no contradiction to having infinite time, for example.

A pure mathematics professor at (either Princeton or Oxford) and a board sitting philosopher at Biola, among dozens of scholars I have grown to trust use it to show that infinites only exist as abstracts. You have yet to show me an actual infinite but you pluralized them
anyway. Wishful thinking perhaps.

But it doesn't. You were attempting to subtract infinities. That is an operation that is not well-defined. So? Addition *is* well-defined. And neither is required for infinities to be possible in the real world.

I didn't use the concept of subtraction or addition to prove that infinity doesn't exist, I used them to show that infinity produces incoherent results when applied to actual things.

Yes, there are counter-intuitive aspects of infinity. But they are *only* counter-intuitive, not contradictory.

I could grant you this. Since infinity isn't anything it might not be contradictory. The lack of a thing is not a contradiction, it just doesn't exist.

Exactly. There is no start. it is *always* going. And that is the point.

You are not currently posting what I am responding to. It isn't going, it has went.

Which was true at the time Vilenkin wrote. Now we have ways to merge general relativity and quantum mechanics (which was a HUGE problem for a long time). Those theories allow, but do not require, a universe with no beginning.

Holy cow, they announced it in 2003. I have shoes older than that.

Vilenkin worked from a purely general relativistic viewpoint. And it is true that general relativity inevitably shows singularities of the sort that you describe. But, when quantum effects are brought in, those singularities are 'smoothed out' and it is possible for there to have NOT been a beginning.

I have little confidence in theories that are younger than my car. I have not heard of BGVT being retracted by anyone or the BBT for that matter.

 

[1robin]

Are you saying that all people who believe in your God are sociopaths and psychopaths capable of anything and the only thing that's holding them back is their belief in God and his moral laws? Gee, did you think we didn't know that? Some priests who have turned atheists even continue as priests to keep you in check as a service to society.

No, your responding to a claim about moral ontology with a response concerning moral epistemology. I use to warn non-theists not to make this mistake until I saw they did it anyway. Without God there are no goods to do and no evils to avoid, all that is left is preference. I did not say that atheist were immoral, I said they have no foundation for objective moral values and duties to begin with.

Priests do not ground objective moral values and duties either.

 

[1robin]

Something that exists in all possible worlds exists necessarily.

Now are you satisfied that I know what I'm talking about?

No, because that isn't correct. I also didn't ask you about a thing that exists in all possible worlds. I asked you to define what is meant by all possible worlds, without looking it up. It appears you were at least honest enough not to look it up. Trust me, it is not an easy question. I will have to look up your answer to be sure your right if you get close.

 

[ArtieE]

No, your responding to a claim about moral ontology with a response concerning moral epistemology. I use to warn non-theists not to make this mistake until I saw they did it anyway. Without God there are no goods to do and no evils to avoid, all that is left is preference. I did not say that atheist were immoral, I said they have no foundation for objective moral values and duties to begin with.

Priests do not ground objective moral values and duties either.

Here is a good article on the subject. Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1. God - Has inexhaustable evidence based positive arguments for his existence.

There is no evidence for any god since there is no evidence for anything except physical reality, and we've been explaining physical reality just fine for centuries now without invoking gods. Where do gods get a foot in the door?

Incidentally, if by "God" you mean Jehovah, you've got some issues with mutually exclusive traits and logical impossibility to contend with there.

2. Another universe - It's only merit is that no one can prove they are impossible.

Did you mean the multiverse? The multiverse has no less physical evidence for it than a god, but it has the merit of accounting for the fine tuning problem more parsimoniously than a god hypothesis. A multiverse need not be conscious, omnipotent, omniscient, or have a moral code. All it need do to fit the role as the source of our special appearing universe is to be able to generate nascent universes.

Cause and effect do not apply to God's existence.

Special pleading. It also fired God as the cause of the universe.

An uncaused first cause does not stand in need of a cause.

Great. Then what do we need a god for?

1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. (God did not begin to exist and so is not in the set of things that require a cause).
2. The cause must be sufficient to produce the effect. (God did not begin to exist so he has no need for a sufficient cause).
3. Everything that exists has an explanation either internal to it's self (God) or external to it's self (everything in the universe or all universes).

The cosmological argument for a god has been refuted multiple times. Please refer to Google if that is a matter of any importance to you.

Ok, your just doing what the other guy did (which was what I specifically predicted to begin with) so I will give you one more chance to add something meaningful but then I have to move on. You guys doing exactly what I predict makes my participation unnecessary at this point.

It seems that whatever anybody does, you predicted it. It's likely that nobody knows what that is but you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you posit other universes but a single finite universe (the only one we know exist) is just a bridge too far for you. I now pronounce my prediction about double standards confirmed.

For the third time. Hooray, you! You're the Dionne Warwick of our times.

Can I say "great job" even if I'm the only one but you praising your prowess?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because that isn't correct. I also didn't ask you about a thing that exists in all possible worlds. I asked you to define what is meant by all possible worlds, without looking it up. It appears you were at least honest enough not to look it up. Trust me, it is not an easy question. I will have to look up your answer to be sure your right if you get close.

Whatever. You were pushing the limits of my patience in the first place. I'm not really worried about the opinion of someone who can't even get "your" vs. "you're" correct about whether my knowledge of modal logic is up to his standard.

Edit: let me know when you want to talk about the actual substance of the argument.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The double standard is that atheists want Christians to PROVE that God exists but they do not want to PROVE that God does not exist. They just say they don't see any evidence for God's existence but that does not PROVE there is no God.

We have no need to prove that gods don't exist, and aren't waiting for others to prove that they do. Skeptics reject god claims not because they aren't proven, but because they are supported at all, and we have no need of that hypothesis.

At what point do you suggest that science turn the program of explaining how the world works back over to the church's supernaturalists, who accomplished absolutely nothing in that department after the dozens of centuries it had the chance to do so?