Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@ Nyar
Now that is fascinating...and understandable.
Thank you.
True enough. This is Newtonian. But remember, you can’t use Newton’s laws or his framework when dealing with the smallest particles. Quantum mechanics is what governs the very small. So really the most your case is saying is that we cannot know for certain what will happen. Not that we know for certain that there does not exist a cause.
Newtonian mechanics is the mechanics of cause and effect. That is exactly my point. We do not live in a Newtonian universe. We do however live in a pretty good approximation to a Newtonian world. We live in a world where cause and effect makes sense in most macroscopic situations. But this world is underpinned by non-Newtonian physics that contains pure randomness. And to be clear, this isn't my argument; this is the standard model in the field.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is worse than that. If you grant the postulates of QM: we know that no one can ever know what will happen, because nature itself does not know.
You’re actually forcing a Newtonian view on QM in order to make your point. Which still doesn’t counter what I said.
Using your neutron example, would we say that the fact that the neutron has a 50% chance of decaying has no cause at all?
I did no such thing.
Remember we had 2 neutrons which are identical. Which means you need a cause that when acting on the 1st neutron resulted in a decay, but when asking on the 2nd neutron didn't result in a decay. But since the neutrons are identical, anything that caused the 1st one to decay must also cause the 2nd neutron to decay since it can't tell them apart. If it could tell them apart, then they aren't identical. This leaves only randomness as a cause, but you said randomness isn't a cause; which leaves no cause.
"All scientific study we have is actually based on the assumption that everything that exists has to be caused "
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and the Kalam (edit spelling) cosmological argument.
1. Every single example science has of cause and effect is material.
2. Every single example science has of cause and effect is evidence within the temporal state of the physical universe.
3. Science does not and cannot evidence supernatural causation, by definition.
4. Prior to the origin of the universe time did not exist, so to claim the universe had a beginning shows a fundamental ignorance of the concepts of the science cosmology and theoretical physics as it applies to the big bang theory.
5. It's fascinating to me that theist who deny every example if every human life to claim (without evidence) thing like virgin births and resurrection, insist cause and effect can be used an absolute?
6. Science does not support the conclusions you are assuming. Turn on any news channel if you don't believe me.
What you're offering is a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Why do you keep ignoring this???
No argument can be asserted as rationally valid if it contains a logical fallacy.
Lastly, and again I have to say it's dishonest of you to ignore this, an argument is not objective evidence...by definition.
You're being dishonest.
Which is why I keep on asking what does this objective evidence you’re looking for. You earlier referenced an invisible unicorn.
The difference between your invisible unicorn and God is that the unicorn should exist in space in time by its very definition. This goes the same with the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a wise old man. God, as deduced thru the arguments for God would necessarily be eternal (for him to create Time) and immaterial (for him to create space).
Anything else that we know truly exists without being in space and time? Numbers and the rules of math. Except God is a mind (also immaterial). Btw, mind and brain are not the same thing.
"The difference between your invisible unicorn and God is that the unicorn should exist in space in time by its very definition."
Nah, it's transcendent see, but it is so powerful, as it created everything, it can interfere in the physical universe. I told you it is undetectable in any empirical way. all hail the invisible unicorn, amen.
But this is moot as all I was doing was showing you that unfalsifiable makes a claim useless. In science the phrase is "not even wrong" for something so useless it can't even be falsified, and so can teach us nothing as it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, like your god claim really.
"God would necessarily be eternal (for him to create Time) "
As would the invisible unicorn. Now do you see where this is going? I substitute the invisible unicorn every time you reference god, and so either we have proved invisible unicorn is real or your argument's are nonsense? Unless of course you can demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity?
"Anything ****else**** that we ****know**** truly exists without being in space and time? "
I'm so tired of pointing out you're using logical fallacies now I'm just going to go ahead and put the salient claim in asterisks so you can work it out for yourself. Since I'm rolling this out for the first time I'll give you a break and explain this one for you, by saying know, and anything else, you have used the fallacy of begging the question, in other words you have assumed the point your trying to argue in your argument, namely that a transcendent god is known to exist. I've just checked every major news network and they seem to have missed this??
"Numbers and the rules of math. "
I need more sorry? What about it?
"Except God is a mind (also immaterial). "
Sigh, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.
"Btw, mind and brain are not the same thing."
Another so what moment. The mind is the product of the brain, unless you can objectively evidence a mind that exists without a brain? Rather than just assert it for your deity as you keep doing.
Page 7 and not one post even pretending to be objective evidence. At least no one has mentioned faith.
@ Sheldon
Ok Ok already, I will install a 100,000 'Likes' button. Brilliant post and solid reasoning.
Last two points.
Your invisible unicorn again does not work. You and I can think of what an invisible unicorn would look like or sound like or feel like and how long it would probably live. God is not a being that can be perceived this way.
Let’s look at something you and I would agree absolutely exists. Numbers and math. Unless you also disagree with me on this. But numbers and math exist even without the objective evidence you’re asking for. The point I’m making here is that you’re definition of “objective evidence” invalidates the existence of numbers and mathematics.
"Your invisible unicorn again does not work."
Sigh, it's not meant to, it's an analogous comparison using an unfalisifiable claim to show you what the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ingorantiam is, and how it applies to arguments that assert a claim has validity because it cannot be disproved, or is unfalisifiable.
-----------------------------------
" You and I can think of what an invisible unicorn would look like"
Read that back to yourself, seriously. Dear oh dear....
"or sound like or feel like and how long it would probably live."
Which part of undetectable in any empirical way have you not understood? I made that clear right at the start. I told you in my last post to substitute invisible unicorn for deity in any and all of your arguments and explain why any of them become less valid? Define the invisible unicorn exactly as you are defining your deity, and you will have defined invisible unicorns into existence, because the arguments are nonsensical, they are irrational as they contain logical fallacies. Why don't you address those btw?
I've read that last paragraph 3 times, it still makes no sense. The only thing I can infer from it with any degree of confidence is it contains no objective evidence for a deity.
Which part of undetectable in any empirical way have you not understood?
Part and parcel of a "unicorn" is the idea that it would have a single horn on its head. If it doesn't have a single horn, then it's not a unicorn. Plain and simple. What you're proposing as an "invisible unicorn" is in fact NOT a unicorn.
"I've read that last paragraph 3 times, it still makes no sense. The only thing I can infer from it with any degree of confidence is it contains no objective evidence for a deity."
- My last paragraph was to show you that this objective evidence as you have defined would naturally leave out anything which does not exist in space and time. That would include God and math and numbers. Are you in fact saying that numbers do not exist? That the rules of math do not exist? To be clear, it will not follow that God exists from this reasoning. The only thing I'm driving at is that it's possible for some things to exist apart from the "objective evidence" you've defined.
You could write a book on missing the point. Entitle "Evasion & Deflection" A Simple Guide To religious Apologetics.
The horn's invisible obviously.
The point (pun is simply fortuitous) you're missing is that a claim is not lent any validity because it's unfalsifiable. As per your spurious claim that no one could "disprove" the existence of God, in response to no one being able to demonstrate any objective evidence a deity exists.
Who can say what the evidence looks like for the non-existence of something. It sounds absurd to me. Another attempt to deflect from having no real evidence you can demonstrate.
"My last paragraph was to show you that this objective evidence as you have defined would naturally leave out anything which does not exist in space and time"
Quite possibly as I see little point in asking for evidence no one has or can examine. I'm at least giving theists a chance to offer something tangible. It's hardly my fault they can demonstrate naught but vapid flimflam.
"That would include God "
No it wouldn't-Hitchens's razor applied.
Maths is a human concept created to help us explain and understand the physical universe.
"To be clear, it will not follow that God exists from this reasoning."
What reasoning? You're just making bald assertions about a concept created by humans existing independently of them in a non temporal state that you can't test or even examine. Do behave...
"The only thing I'm driving at is that it's possible for some things to exist apart from the "objective evidence" you've defined."
You'd need to demonstrate objective evidence for that or in the bin it goes with Hitchens''s razor applied. Or are you really trying to claim we have no objectivecevidence that maths exists?
This cloak and dagger apologetics is the least compelling variety. Are you really basing your entire life on something you can offer nothing remotely tangible for?
Non temporal guesses based on asinine analogies and wild conjecture that could just easily prove Zeus existed as it could Jesus.
@ Sheldon
Hands up, who wants to marry Sheldon? Dang we need that 10,000 like button ..this para I am so stealing : "What reasoning? You're just making bald assertions about a concept created by humans existing independently of them in a non temporal state that you can't test or even examine. Do behave..."
Getting the Aloe Vera....
The only sincere way to play the game of shooting down arguments is to in turn propose new ones or improvements upon old ones, and you have not done this here.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but we want to find the soundness of the proposition, 'God exists', rather than the validity of an argument that concludes something about that proposition. It is possible that the set of all propositions determined as sound under the right application of the scientific method excludes propositions that are nevertheless true. If the scientific method produces only consistent arguments in the sense that it produces no contradictions, then it necessarily follows that the set of all propositions determined as sound under the right application of the scientific method excludes propositions that are nevertheless true. This is a fork: if the scientific method is formal in the sense that it has axioms, or can be described perfectly by a set of axioms, then it is either consistent or complete, and not both; and if the scientific method is not formal, then it is also not rigorous.
@ JoC
"God is not a being that can be perceived this way."
And the evidence for this claim is?
"And the evidence for this claim is?"
Entirely subjective, and entirely unevidenced.
What do I win?
@ Sheldon
The ineffable, invisible,outside of time and forums 10,000 Likes button...or in another version 40.000 Likes!
If you cant see them its because your faith is not strong enough.
"I have said repeatedly said that I apply the same criteria for all claims, and without bias, which is the definition of open minded."
I'm literally cracking up right now while reading this comment, and even had to register for an account on this site to debunk THIS claim.
Honey, being "open minded" doesn't mean you're fair within predetermined parameters.
It means you're open to ANYTHING being possible.
Including OUTSIDE of the scientific method.
Being truly open minded means you do not get to set the rules of what can and cannot be.
The definition of "open minded" literally means "willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced."
That means you can't define open-mindedness as accepting ONLY ideas that can be tested with the scientific method.
Got it?
And how does it feel to be wrong?
Just wondering...
JoC,
Consider the Yeshua (Jesus) character. There are two possibilities.
1. He's imaginary
2. He is real but no one in history has ever believed in him.
Since you profess to believe in him you can show right now that he's real by simply walking outside and commanding a tree to uproot itself and to jump into the nearest body of water. If the tree obeys you without any outside help then you have a strong case for saying that Yeshua is real. But if nothing happens then he is imaginary or you, like everyone in history, don't believe in him.
So is he imaginary or do you just lack faith in him like everyone else does?
Luke 17:6 (TLB) = “If your faith were only the size of a mustard seed,” Jesus answered, “it would be large enough to uproot that mulberry tree over there and send it hurtling into the sea! Your command would bring immediate results!"
Now remember, not one person standing before Jesus when he said those words had enough faith to be able to do what he said they could do.
I'll go with that. Say that actually happens. Say I go outside and command a tree to uproot itself and jump into the nearest body of water. Would you believe then?
"Say I go outside and command a tree to uproot itself and jump into the nearest body of water. Would you believe then?"
Believe what? That a deity is real? No , of course not. It is an objective fact that humans are able to deceive the senses of other humans even when we are expecting it, and this is a fairly common occurrence. At it's heart your question is argumentum ad ignorantiam, you're implying that not having an explanation for an event justifies an assumption it has a supernatural cause, bad enough on its own, but you're also adding a second assumption to the scenario that the cause is a deity.
Nothing in that amounts to objective evidence that any deity is real. The absolute most you could objectively assert is something happened I couldn't explain. Religious conmen have been using such tricks since there have been religions. Do you believe Voodoo is real? They can put on a striking show, or how about tv "magicians" are they really doing magic? I assume you can't (always) explain how they do what they do, so why do you reject the idea they are really doing magic?
Okay. I'm happy you're consistent then.
It's great you're happy, but more gratifying would be you developing the ability to reason critically for yourself. You also didn't answer my questions, that might be a good start. Do you accept that human senses can be deceived, even when we're expecting it to happen?
Assuming you accept this fact, why would you think a magic trick, no matter how impressive, is objective evidence for something supernatural? You also need to understand that you're adding an extra assumption on to that claim by assuming that what you fallaciously accept as miraculous is caused by a deity, your version of a specific deity as well.
objective
adjective
1. (of a person or their judgement) ***not influenced by personal feelings or opinions*** in considering and representing facts.
JoC,
What you wrote is: "Say I go outside and command a tree to uproot itself and jump into the nearest body of water. Would you believe then?"
Notice that you didn't say that the tree would actually obey you and jump into the water.
You just said that you went outside and told the tree to uproot itself and to jump into the water. That's no reason to believe in your deity. The tree must obey your command.
So by Yeshua's own standard no one has ever had faith in him to do what he said a person could do if that person had faith. The other option is that he is imaginary.
GLENDOWER:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?
– Henry IV, Act 3 Scene 1
It is interesting that hypothetically speaking, in order to apply a deity into reality sensibly, you have to essentially suspend all known laws within that reality.
Well I would say that since you want objective evidence for a deity and a God I would list here Objective Moral Values. There are just things outside of us and subjective reasoning that apply here. There is in the case of objective moral values. Commands what we call Imperative verbs in the Koine Greek , The Greek from which the new testament was written state do not Kill or steal Etc. Etc. This comes from outside of us. It is not subjective because say I Don`t agree with you Sheldon And think I should kill you because of your beliefs, what then is there to stop me other then objective morality that claims I shouldn`t. There is nothing to prevent me then from carrying that out since it is my opinion against yours. No this is wrong, what subjectivity gets us is in one big web of misunderstandings .Since my opinion holds as much weight as yours we are left with a relativistic dilemma here. And that`s where objective moral values enter here. It comes from God or call it a deity if you will. Objectivity makes it abundantly clear to refrain oneself from taking the law into ones hands. This is supported by the Penal code of law enforcement and the justice of the land. So it is relevant and applies not only to you and me but to everyone in the society.
@Faith in God: The Greek from which the new testament was written state do not Kill or steal Etc. Etc.
The 10 Commandments in the Old Testament in the Book of Exodus.
In what sense is "Thou shalt no kill" an objective rule? People in the Bible do lots of killing. It was wrong for Cain to kill Abel, but it was ok for Samson to go around smashing people's heads in with the jawbone of an ass. Why? What about David and Goliath? Was that killing acceptable to god? An objective rule would mean the same thing under any circumstances.
And why doesn't "thou shalt not kill" apply to god? He's a mass murderer and a serial killer. He killed Lot's wife for looking back when the nukes went off, and he killed poor old Onan for wanking. "Do what I say, not what I do" seems to be god's rule.
Edited to change Aaron to Onan.
God made humanity we are his children so God could do whatever he wants to do. David came in the name of the Lord the bible says that he was man after Gods own heart. Goliath was a prejudicial individual a philistine, He hated all Jews Here is a perfect example of God`s justice. As for why thou shalt not kill you say should also apply to God him being the Soverign over the land and the people he is all justice whatever he does is right. We shouldn`t call him out or question him here. He is the creator we are his creatures .What he says goes and how he carries out justice is correct. It`s like world war 2 with the Germans led by Adolph Hitler who was a fanatic a Jew hater, TO THE point that he killed over 6 million of these people. He thought that the Arian race was superior to the Judaism. Tell me do you think that Hitler should be terminated or not? Innocent people were killed .So I have no qualms about God taking out an evil person who had no regard for humanity. And that goes for anyone else, any other despot.
Pages