Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[Subduction Zone]

I believe it is a waste of his time if all he does is repeat the same inanities over and over. That is not real debate.

The problem is that too few believers are willing to learn from their mistakes. So in that sense you may be right. But it is a false claim to charge him with repeating inanities. That is what I have seen you do, you might be projecting your flaws upon others. It is a common problem with some believers.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe people on here have shown me some bones. I was not impressed. It is always possible that there might be evidence I could agree with but no one has revealed it on RF.

Have you looked for evidence anywhere else?

 

[1robin]

Holy wall of text Batman!

Sometimes I get going and am too lazy to stop. I have been away for a bit and am short on time so I will try and be brief.

So basically your argument boils down to things need to come from somewhere, therefore, god?

1. Every piece of evidence that exists suggests that all things have both a cause and an explanation, no evidence exists otherwise. Therefor the universe has a cause but not necessarily God.
2. It is the specific nature of the universe that demonstrates that the description of its cause is identical to God. By the principle of sufficient causation therefor God.

Why is a natural unintelligent cause so difficult for you to fathom that you dismiss it out of hand?

How can nature preexist nature so as to create nature? That is insensible and logically incoherent. The term universe includes nature. You keep going backward you run out of nature yet still require a cause therefor that cause by definition can't be natural.

I've never seen a god

What does that mean? God is a spirit.

let alone seen a god do anything, such as create a universe. If a god exists, where did it come from?

God by definition is eternal. He doesn't come from a thing, things come from him.

Saying gods can just exist without a first cause but everything else needs a first cause is an unfounded presumption.

I hate to point it out but this particular idea has been called the worst argument against God in the history of western thought. Causation mandates that whatever the first cause is it must be uncaused. Only God meets that description.

No one has provided credible evidence that the universe hasn't always existed in one form or another for all time.

Oh really? The most accepted cosmological theorem from the brilliant nontheist physicist states...... Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin's verdict: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."

If you want to discuss causation and the nature of the universe I suggest you read this short article from this acclaimed paper.

The honest inference for the beginnings/nature of the universe is "I don't know". I'm not trying to be difficult but there was not one argument in that whole wall of text you provided that was convincing or compelling.

You still don't get it. I am not arguing to a certainty but to the best possible inference to a conclusion. My claims are justified by every single piece of evidence in existence without a single known exception.

 

[exchemist]

Oh really? The most accepted cosmological theorem from the brilliant nontheist physicist states...... Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin's verdict: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning."

If you want to discuss causation and the nature of the universe I suggest you read this short article from this acclaimed paper.



You still don't get it. I am not arguing to a certainty but to the best possible inference to a conclusion. My claims are justified by every single piece of evidence in existence without a single known exception.

Bear in mind that the scientist does not make "inferences" that cannot be tested by means of observations of nature, let alone try to force a "conclusion" in the absence of such testing. Trying to force the making of an inference or conclusion, when there is no possibility of testing it, is an exercise in metaphysics, not science.

You are free to engage in metaphysics if you like: many people do. Just don't confuse it with science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Every piece of evidence that exists suggests that all things have both a cause and an explanation, no evidence exists otherwise.

So God has both a cause and an explanation, then?

 

[exchemist]

1. Every piece of evidence that exists suggests that all things have both a cause and an explanation, no evidence exists otherwise.

This is not so. We have another thread running about it, under the heading "Quantum Mechanics", that you might take a look at.

The simplest and best-known example of a process with no cause is radioactive decay. But there are a few others too.

 

[1robin]

Bear in mind that the scientist does not make "inferences" that cannot be tested by means of observations of nature, let alone try to force a "conclusion" in the absence of such testing. Trying to force the making of an inference or conclusion, when there is no possibility of testing it, is an exercise in metaphysics, not science.

I am not sure how to apply what you stated to my claims. Are you trying to dismiss the cosmological conclusions of one of the greatest cosmologists who ever lived?

You are free to engage in metaphysics if you like: many people do. Just don't confuse it with science.

Unless you have greater qualifications I will take Vilenkin's word as to what branch of science his claims are made within. If you are attempting to dismiss Vilenkin's conclusions you would have to consign the vast majority of cosmology to the waste bin. That is a very arrogant conclusion for a layman to suggest.

Can you show that any of the conclusions Velinkin reached are wrong?

 

[1robin]

So God has both a cause and an explanation, then?

That is kind of a grey area. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, God did not begin to exist and so does not require a cause. However everything that exists does have an explanation either within its self or external to itself. Natural things have external explanations but God has an internal explanation.

This is true even if God is not an issue. The natural universe must have an external cause and explanation and no matter what that ultimate explanation and cause is it must be an uncaused first cause. Only God fits those demands.

 

[1robin]

This is not so. We have another thread running about it, under the heading "Quantum Mechanics", that you might take a look at.

Even in the weird world of Quantum Mechanics everything still has a cause and an explanation. Since the field is still young this cause and explanation is usually referred to as generalized fluctuations within quantum fields.

The simplest and best-known example of a process with no cause is radioactive decay. But there are a few others too.

Radioactive decay has a cause and an explanation.

Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei – that is, ones that don't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together due to an excess of either protons or neutrons. It comes in three main types – named alpha, beta and gamma for the first three letters of the Greek alphabet.
Radioactivity - Institute of Physics
www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/radioactivity/

People use the concept of the Quantum to hide many faith based beliefs because it is still so little understood.

There is not a single known exception to the concept of sufficient causation.

 

[exchemist]

Even in the weird world of Quantum Mechanics everything still has a cause and an explanation. Since the field is still young this cause and explanation is usually referred to as generalized fluctuations within quantum fields.

Radioactive decay has a cause and an explanation.

Radioactive decay occurs in unstable atomic nuclei – that is, ones that don't have enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together due to an excess of either protons or neutrons. It comes in three main types – named alpha, beta and gamma for the first three letters of the Greek alphabet.
Radioactivity - Institute of Physics
www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/radioactivity/

People use the concept of the Quantum to hide many faith based beliefs because it is still so little understood.

There is not a single known exception to the concept of sufficient causation.

Have you read the Quantum Mechanics thread? It does not sound like it.

Regarding radioactivity, the point we seem to have reached in that discussion is that, while the mechanisms may be modelled by QM, either by a tunnelling process in the case of alpha emission or gamma emission triggered by quantum fluctuations, the individual decay events are random, i.e. uncaused or caused by something that is itself uncaused.

(By the way, there is no need to smell the rat of people hiding faith-based beliefs: this is a purely scientific discussion, as you will see if you read the thread.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is kind of a grey area. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, God did not begin to exist and so does not require a cause.

That wasn’t what you said before. You said “all things,” not “everything that begins to exist.”

However everything that exists does have an explanation either within its self or external to itself. Natural things have external explanations but God has an internal explanation.

If God can have an “internal explanation,” why can’t anything else?

This is true even if God is not an issue. The natural universe must have an external cause and explanation and no matter what that ultimate explanation and cause is it must be an uncaused first cause. Only God fits those demands.

You’ve made quite a few leaps to get to that conclusion.

 

[exchemist]

I am not sure how to apply what you stated to my claims. Are you trying to dismiss the cosmological conclusions of one of the greatest cosmologists who ever lived?

Unless you have greater qualifications I will take Vilenkin's word as to what branch of science his claims are made within. If you are attempting to dismiss Vilenkin's conclusions you would have to consign the vast majority of cosmology to the waste bin. That is a very arrogant conclusion for a layman to suggest.

Can you show that any of the conclusions Velinkin reached are wrong?

OK, but what does Velinkin claim?

Only that the universe had a beginning (he lends his name to a theorem to that effect) and that that beginning could have been uncaused, in the same way that radioactive decay is uncaused. See this (very readable) paper by the man himself: http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

I quote the most relevant passage, in the section subtitled "God's Proof":
"What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. It is unclear how, or whether, it can be tested observationally. It is nonetheless the first attempt to formulate the problem of cosmic origin and to address it in a quantitative way."

That all seems very sensible to me and in line with what I have been trying to say up to this point.

 

[1robin]

Have you read the Quantum Mechanics thread? It does not sound like it.

No, are you claiming that the only way to know anything about QM is to read that thread? In over 13000 debates I have discussed QM quite a bit. However I don't find the subject interesting. There are at least 10 possible mathematical models for the quantum and 5 of them completely contradict the other 5. I have a degree in math but I do not like science or mathematics for it's own sake. I only care about the aspects of each which specifically apply to the philosophy of religion. QM is also way too recent a science for me to have much confidence in.

Regarding radioactivity, the point we seem to have reached in that discussion is that, while the mechanisms may be modelled by QM, either by a tunnelling process in the case of alpha emission or gamma emission triggered by quantum fluctuations, the individual decay events are random, i.e. uncaused or caused by something that is itself uncaused.

There is no such thing as randomness. God does not play dice. Even random generators are biased. Radioactive decay is so predictable it is used to determine age age.

(By the way, there is no need to smell the rat of people hiding faith-based beliefs: this is a purely scientific discussion, as you will see if you read the thread.)

I do not mind faith based conclusions at all. All beliefs about external reality are faith based. What I object to is faith based conclusion masquerading as certainty. Let me give you a few things to keep in mind.

1. My primary interest is theology and philosophy. I am fairly well informed about most things but theology, philosophy, and military history is where I concentrate.
2. You can bring up anything you want from any subject as long as it applies to the above.
3. I regard QM as in it's infancy. I think there are only a tiny group of people that are even remotely well versed in the field. I have little confidence in the claims made by laymen concerning it.
4. However I have seen it used quite often in professional debates by competent scholars and the claims made be them as they apply to the subject above are consistent with my views from the same.
5. I also find it extremely suspicious when all the claims against theological faith come only from the deepest end of the theoretical science pool.

Keeping that in mind have at it.

 

[1robin]

That wasn’t what you said before. You said “all things,” not “everything that begins to exist.”

That is probably because the person I was talking to knew so little about the philosophy of cause and effect that level of detail was irrelevant. This happens when comments are used in even slightly different contexts.

Officially: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If God can have an “internal explanation,” why can’t anything else?

The best way to demonstrate this is for you to try to think of one that does. I don't care how you subdivide the natural world you will never find that slice's cause within that set of data. Good luck, I don't even your task.

You’ve made quite a few leaps to get to that conclusion.

Of course the ultimate explanation of everything requires a few steps to get to. Conclusions that lack premise are invalid not those that do. However this argument is pretty simplistic.

 

[exchemist]

No, are you claiming that the only way to know anything about QM is to read that thread? In over 13000 debates I have discussed QM quite a bit. However I don't find the subject interesting. There are at least 10 possible mathematical models for the quantum and 5 of them completely contradict the other 5. I have a degree in math but I do not like science or mathematics for it's own sake. I only care about the aspects of each which specifically apply to the philosophy of religion. QM is also way too recent a science for me to have much confidence in.

There is no such thing as randomness. God does not play dice. Even random generators are biased. Radioactive decay is so predictable it is used to determine age age.

I do not mind faith based conclusions at all. All beliefs about external reality are faith based. What I object to is faith based conclusion masquerading as certainty. Let me give you a few things to keep in mind.

1. My primary interest is theology and philosophy. I am fairly well informed about most things but theology, philosophy, and military history is where I concentrate.
2. You can bring up anything you want from any subject as long as it applies to the above.
3. I regard QM as in it's infancy. I think there are only a tiny group of people that are even remotely well versed in the field. I have little confidence in the claims made by laymen concerning it.
4. However I have seen it used quite often in professional debates by competent scholars and the claims made be them as they apply to the subject above are consistent with my views from the same.
5. I also find it extremely suspicious when all the claims against theological faith come only from the deepest end of the theoretical science pool.

Keeping that in mind have at it.

What an extraordinarily evasive post.

Of course I'm not claiming the "only way to know anything about QM" is to read that thread. But that thread specifically addresses your claim, which I am challenging, that everything has a cause. So it is highly relevant.

So, you refuse, arbitrarily, to read the thread that explains the point I am making.

You repeat Einstein's remark that God does not play dice, even though all of modern physics now accepts that God, if He exists, most certainly does play dice. As the thread that you refuse to read explains.

There are not 10 models for "the quantum" (or if you think there are, kindly list them). In fact there is no such thing as "the" quantum.

You claim QM is too recent to have faith in. Do you realise QM is almost a century old?

There is not "a tiny group" well versed in QM. It has been standard in undergraduate physics and chemistry for half a century and no modern physicist or chemist can operate, at all, without a good grasp of it.

Finally, I find it hard to believe you can have a degree in maths. If you did, you would know perfectly well that it is the random nature of radioactive decay that leads to the rate of decay being proportional to the mass of substance.

 

[1robin]

OK, but what does Velinkin claim?

Only that the universe had a beginning (he lends his name to a theorem to that effect) and that that beginning could have been uncaused, in the same way that radioactive decay is uncaused. See this (very readable) paper by the man himself: http://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

1. My claim was that the universe had a beginning and that is what I supported by quoting Vilenkin. Note the spelling.
2. You mentioned a cause but I did not use Vilenkin to show cause. When discussing the cause of the natural world you have moved from science to philosophy. So when I make claims about cause I would use philosophers to back them. Primarily I would use the concept of sufficient causation to identify the likely cause of the universe.

So I use scientists for science and philosophers for philosophy. When your dealing with the cause of nature Vilenkin is no longer relevant.

I quote the most relevant passage, in the section subtitled "God's Proof":
"What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed. If you have a radioactive atom, it will decay, and quantum mechanics gives the decay probability in a given interval of time, say, a minute. There is no reason why the atom decayed at this particular moment and not another. The process is completely random. No cause is needed for the quantum creation of the universe.

This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one. Vilenkin is no longer relevant at this point. Vilenkin was trained to examine the natural world not the cause of the natural world.

People do not have enough respect for the concept of ex nihilo. Nothing can't cause anything. As the axiom states "out of nothing, nothing comes". You quoted statements about nothing which used analogy's about things to demonstrate. You should see that Vilenkin is out of his depth. The greatest example of this is Hawking's statement: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

They need to get back in the lab because they are atrocious philosophers. He basically says that nothing produced everything because something existed. He even made scientific mistakes. He presupposes gravity to explain mass when gravity depends on mass. He ascribes causal powers to natural laws but natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive and can't cause anything. 2 + 2 never created 4 of anything.

The theory of quantum creation is no more than a speculative hypothesis. It is unclear how, or whether, it can be tested observationally. It is nonetheless the first attempt to formulate the problem of cosmic origin and to address it in a quantitative way."

I appreciate the honesty. Every claim about the quantum I have heard presupposed the existence of energy fields and so isn't an explanation of those fields themselves. This is a type of the chicken and egg problem.

That all seems very sensible to me and in line with what I have been trying to say up to this point.

You seem like a refreshingly reasonable and intelligent person. Would you like to concentrate on the causal argument for the universe alone so we can sufficiently evaluate it?

 

[exchemist]

1. My claim was that the universe had a beginning and that is what I supported by quoting Vilenkin. Note the spelling.
2. You mentioned a cause but I did not use Vilenkin to show cause. When discussing the cause of the natural world you have moved from science to philosophy. So when I make claims about cause I would use philosophers to back them. Primarily I would use the concept of sufficient causation to identify the likely cause of the universe.

So I use scientists for science and philosophers for philosophy. When your dealing with the cause of nature Vilenkin is no longer relevant.

This is a philosophical issue not a scientific one. Vilenkin is no longer relevant at this point. Vilenkin was trained to examine the natural world not the cause of the natural world.

People do not have enough respect for the concept of ex nihilo. Nothing can't cause anything. As the axiom states "out of nothing, nothing comes". You quoted statements about nothing which used analogy's about things to demonstrate. You should see that Vilenkin is out of his depth. The greatest example of this is Hawking's statement: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator

They need to get back in the lab because they are atrocious philosophers. He basically says that nothing produced everything because something existed. He even made scientific mistakes. He presupposes gravity to explain mass when gravity depends on mass. He ascribes causal powers to natural laws but natural laws are descriptive not prescriptive and can't cause anything. 2 + 2 never created 4 of anything.



I appreciate the honesty. Every claim about the quantum I have heard presupposed the existence of energy fields and so isn't an explanation of those fields themselves. This is a type of the chicken and egg problem.

You seem like a refreshingly reasonable and intelligent person. Would you like to concentrate on the causal argument for the universe alone so we can sufficiently evaluate it?

I continue to be focused one claim of yours which appears, according to current science, to be wrong. This is the claim you make that everything has a cause.

As you can see, Vilenkin supports what I have been telling you on this score, i.e. that everything does not have a cause. He mentions both radioactivity (as I did) and his speculative hypothesis of cosmogeny.

If you can acknowledge the point that, whatever your personal beliefs, modern science does not require everything to have a cause, then I shall be happy to discuss other issues.

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you have a proof of a god, I’d love to hear it.

I have internally logical proof of god to a theist but sadly I feel unmotivated to express it to atheist. I feel as if I am pulling a George Lucas on the public and constantly revising my argument because I have the time and power to do so. I still think I am running circles though.

I guess I am making a Lucas Ad Argumentum.