Chris and Sieben's Creationist Thread

Miscellaneous General
221

Let me ask you this; if this wizard is real, what does he do for you?

Does he act upon this universe? If so, why does prayer to him only recreate these miracles with >.05% accuracy? It appears to be one big game to try to fell better than non-theists (“I win” “We are the most educated”)

It is a laughable harking back to the days of copernicus when the church leaders laughed at this silly little theory that would try to move the sun.

Forgive me for being a humanist and empiricist, but uh, my thoery has done more for the world in the last 500 years than yours did for 5000. Empiricism rocks!

222

Quantum mechanics does not furnish a proper objection to my argument. Events on the sub-atomic level are not uncaused. This Copehnahgen Interpretation of quantum physics is very unsatisfactory and very hotly disputed.

The quantum vaccuum is not ‘nothing’ and thus is not a true model for explaining what his 2003 theorem postulates.

I think this quote will be helpful:

“The violent microstructure of the vauum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations [sic] far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics in a highly misleading language, when they maintained ‘the creation of the universe out of nothing’…From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical strucutre to a materialized substratum of the vacuum. Admittedly this process is not deterministic, it includes that weak kind of causal dependence peculiar to every quantum mechanical process.” – Bernulf Kanitscheider, “Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning?” in Studies on Mario Bunge’s “Treatise,” ed. Weingartner and G.J.W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), 346-74

It’s a little slimy, because he’s made this new model to avoid his theorem – but this quantum model is unsatisfactory.

In other words, Vilenkin is trying by his own admission to avoid uncaused being from non-being by positing quantum events and physical laws which are not nothing.

Nothingness is not a radius with zero, but no radius at all. He tries to avoid it, but he can’t.

My philosophical argument which proves the universe began is still unrefuted. I can go about this an entirely different way if the science is not good enough for you. I have both – science and logic. I prefer logic, because it’s not subject to those human biases which surround these theorems.

It’s difficult to untangle Vilenkin’s mess, but he’s positing untenable models to avoid the inevitable conclusion of his original theory.

223

Epicurus,

If you want to find out what he does for me, I suggest you read the New Testament.

The problem of empiricism and miracles is a little funny when you think about it.

Scientists deal with the scientific method – things that are subject to natural law and events that are repeatable and observable.

How do you measure the actions of a free agent? The scientific method can’t possibly apply because God’s hand cannot be forced. It’s like trying to make someone freely do something; it’s a logical impossibility.

I don’t favor the Catholic Church because they were heavily influenced by Aristotle which caused them to lash out at Galileo. They were also wrong in their interpretation of scripture when they were claiming that the sun revolved around the earth.

It’s not just about who’s the most educated. It’s about who’s right and who has the truth. When trying to support empiricism, you remind me of many muslims who try and argue that Islam has done more for the world than anyone else – therefore it’s right.

It’s not about ‘who does more’ in what ever area. It’s about who is right. Relative truth is an ugly thing. I hope that’s not what you’re affirming.

224

If I do good things, and help to uplift the people around me, and even those I am not connected to. If I lack a belief in a personal creator, and your God cannot accept that I refuse to have faith in things I have no evidence of, I have come to accept whatever will happen to me.

Do good, be good, find your freedom there. I will go back to where I started in this thread… so what? If god is or isnt real, we cannot understand him. Miracles are obviously not caused by prayer to him (unless you consider >.05% acceptable). We will not know about this supposed afterlife until we die. So, what good does it do to even ponder?

225

The quantum vaccuum is not ‘nothing’ and thus is not a true model for explaining what his 2003 theorem postulates.

Again, you need to show this. You need to show that his theorem postulates Absolute quantum nothingness, as opposed to general relativity geometric nothingness. As far as I can tell, this claim is false. The existence of the singularity has zero impact on the existence of the quantum world since its all based on general relativity.

In other words, Vilenkin is trying by his own admission to avoid uncaused being from non-being by positing quantum events and physical laws which are not nothing.

And you are trying to avoid uncaused being from non-being by positing God. What of it?

My philosophical argument which proves the universe began is still unrefuted. I can go about this an entirely different way if the science is not good enough for you. I have both – science and logic. I prefer logic, because it’s not subject to those human biases which surround these theorems.

We’ll get to the logic part once you back off of your false empirical claims, or show they aren’t false. You thought they were important enough to bring up for argumentation purposes. You have used them as a spring board for some of your reasoning.

226

Citing any quantum ‘nothingness’ just pushes the problem back one because quantum’nothingness’ is not nothing at all but a vacuum with a sea of fluctuating energy subject to pre-existing physical laws. Like I said – if there isn’t geometric nothingness before the singularity, then it only pushes the problem back one.

Why?

Because any enegry can’t be energy unless time is there with it. If there is time, then my philosophical argument applies which shows the ‘stuff’ existing before this universe was also caused by ‘stuff’ existing before that universe and so and and so forth.

There can’t BE anything before this universe because of an infinite regression.

Because things do not pop into being uncaused out of nothing. That’s worse than magic. I’m not just 'positing God as one theory out of hundreds, I’m deducing out of a very limit amount of options, e.g, a), b), and c), not a) or b) therefore c).

Two options:

  1. Uncaused out of nothing.

  2. God

Take your pick.

There’s no wishy-washy ‘energy’ or ‘material’ or ‘stuff’ before the singularity otherwise it’s an infinite regression. No matter how far you push it back, there must always be a first uncaused cause.

227

Because things do not pop into being uncaused out of nothing. That’s worse than magic.

Why is that worse then magic? The buck has to stop somewhere. We have gravity. Well what causes gravity? Gravitons. What makes gravitons work the way they do? Strings (maybe). Well what makes strings vibrate the way they do? There’s two possible answers. Something smaller than strings, or the fact that they just do, uncaused. If it’s something smaller than strings, what’s smaller than that, and then that, and then that. You either run into the uncaused, or you run into an infinite causation chain. One of those has to be the case. The beginning (or lack there of) of the existence of time poses no new conundrums that we don’t already have to face anyway.

Have you ever read about the Zeno Paradoxes? That is precisely what the contingent infinite regression argument amounts to. And yet, I have been able to get to my destination. You are making philosophical arguments which though technically logical and coherent, don’t prove anything. I could literally make the same a priori argument you are making, only claim that it is impossible for you to travel any distance, since you would have to go through an infinite number of points in order to do so.

Unless you think you’ve never traveled anywhere ever in your life, perhaps you shouldn’t put so much explanatory weight on these arguments.

228

What reason do you have to think that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing? What reason do you have to undermine causality?

Infinite causation is impossible, so something must be uncaused. Matter cannot be uncaused. Ergo,…

I wouldn’t have listed my argument unless I had familiarized myself with Zeno’s paradoxes.

Zeno’s paradoxes are based on a potential infinite. An infinite eternal past is ‘actual’.

I’m starting school full time so my responses from here on in will be spotty.

229

What reason do you have to think that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing? What reason do you have to undermine causality?

Infinite causation is impossible, so something must be uncaused. Matter cannot be uncaused. Ergo,…

Causality isn’t a deduced principle, it’s inductive. Logically it must be violated at some point. I have every reason to think that causality can be undermined, not only logical, but empirical as well. I’ve posted this link before, but I think it at the very least, puts causality in a questionable light, if not outright destroys any notion that causality is an unbreakable principle.

If you’d like, here are some YTMNDs with some kick ass music to explain further.

http://quantumiscool1.ytmnd.com/
http://quantamiscool2.ytmnd.com/
http://yqpic3.ytmnd.com/
http://wqpic4.ytmnd.com/

I’ve shown that force at its very core must be uncaused or an infinite causal chain. You reject infinite causal chains, and are therefore left with uncaused things happening at every moment, not simply at the beginning of Matter. If movement is uncaused, why do you assert that matter cannot be uncaused?

The beginning of the universe is not what you should be using in order to try to prove God’s existence. You should be using the fact that matter even moves and interacts as you argument. But that would be suggesting that God is moving each and every particle in the exact way that it does in this universe. Somehow, I don’t think you like that idea, and have since secluded your argument to the beginning of the universe for this reason.

230

This is the concern I have with establishing God or creation on the basis of science or reason - in doing so it must be assumed that God is limited by the bounds of logic and reason.

Would God be limited by the bounds of logic and reason?

When man and science attempt to conceive God and creation do we have any tools beyond reason?

Is it rational to limit God by any human trait?

It seems to me that the most we can say is that science and reason can speculate to the best of our ability concerning how the universe came to be.

Any conclusion beyond this will always be a matter of faith. In seeking resolution by science or reason we must accept by faith that God is also limited by science and reason…or am I missing something?

231

Quantum mechanics, despite these videos, is still not ready to furnish a proper exception to premise 1.

Quantum mechanics still presupposes something which is definitely not the nothingness from which space/time was made.

Uncaused or infinite causal chain is a false dichotomy. I posit God not just because of the Kalam, but also because of the teleological argument which shows a unique and stunning intelligence behind the world. Even if something could spring into being out of nothing, the cosmic lottery example I gave is enough to dump a bucket of cold water on that idea.

From absolute nothingness, the universe springs into being. Causality is one of our most basic principles and I see no reason to think that the universe is an exception. Quantum mechanics would just land you back into the infinite causal chain.

G8R HED,

That, to me, is a non-sequitor. Being found by logic is not necessarily to be limited by it. We may not know everything about the nature of the first cause, but that doesn’t mean it has no explanatory merit. It is, in fact, the best explanation.

232

Well, you have repeatedly refused to concede a single point by anyone, even with presented with raw data. Everything that doesn’t fit into your worldview is “fringe” or “not important” or “not conclusive enough.”

So, now that you have established (in your own mind) that there is a personal creator God, what purpose does he serve you? You think you have to believe this or you will not get into heaven? Where is your evidence for heaven? That is another argument you will have to formulate, else this has been nothing but an exercise in seperating yourself from, and lifting yourself above non-theists.

233

Why should I concede points that are wrong? The defeater for Quantum Mechanics is the infinite causal chain. I suppose the infinite causal chain is on the ‘fringe’.

You, however, still cling to that old empirical epistemology which I’ve shown is just based on circularity.

I have no arguments for heaven. That goes beyond the scope of the debate; my job was simply to argue for the existence of God.

Belief in God, for me, serves as more of a map of reality. It affects epistemology, morality, aesthetics, and most importantly establishes the nature of man in relation to God. This has got to be one of the most basic questions in philosophy: Is there a God? If so, what does he require of me?

This argument has not been about separation and lifting myself ‘above’ other people, rather it’s about a foundational principle that’s important for everyone to consider. It’s not separation, it’s revelation

234

Quantum mechanics, despite these videos, is still not ready to furnish a proper exception to premise 1.

Quantum mechanics still presupposes something which is definitely not the nothingness from which space/time was made.

You are either being disingenuous or you misunderstood the video and paper I linked to.

They have shown that a condition which occurs after an event is able to determine a past event.

How did they do that? They entangled two particles, hence forth known as A and B.

If B runs into a crystal before it hits wall B, A will hit in a certain type of pattern on wall A.

If B does not run into the crystal before it hits wall B, A will hit in a different pattern on wall A.

By making the distance between B and the crystal much much greater than the distance between A and wall A, they are able to ensure that A hits wall A before B hits the crystal.

At the time A hits wall A, B has not hit the crystal.

However, depending on whether or not B hits the crystal in the future, A will have already hit in the corresponding pattern.

They have waited for A to hit the wall, and then removed the crystal from B’s path, and observed that A had hit in the pattern where B did not hit the crystal

They have also waited for A to hit the wall, and then placed the crystal in B’s path, and observed that A had hit in the pattern where B had hit the crystal.

The conclusion is inescapable. Causality was broken.

The defeater for Quantum Mechanics is the infinite causal chain. I suppose the infinite causal chain is on the ‘fringe’.

There is no infinite causal chain if things begin to exist without a cause. Again, for the 3rd time (You haven’t addressed this yet) logically, at their very base, interactions between objects happen simply uncaused, or because of an infinite causal chain. Either the explanation of an interaction is “that’s just the way they act” meaning, it acts that way for no reason, uncaused, OR it acts that way because of an infinite number of reasons, based on lower and lower explanations. You are left with 3 choices.

  1. Believe that things move without a cause, and thus other things can happen without cause, such as creation of matter.

  2. Believe that things move because of an infinite causal chain, therefore infinite causal chains are possible, and thus can be infinite in the past as well.

  3. Believe God is an uncaused timeless being (who is some how able to both be timeless and still do things), and did not only create matter, but is constantly the cause of all movement of all particles at all times.

There is no reason to think that causality is absolutely unbreakable because it is a inductive, not deductive. There is even empirical evidence (which is what we base the idea of causality on) to tell us that causality does not apply across the board.

Thus the only thing we have any evidence to suggest is option 1.

235

You’ve listed three options. I agree with them for the most part except for your analysis on causality.

You rightfully, I think, reject number 2. Now we’re left with two options:

  1. The universe was created out of nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.

  2. God as creator and sustainer.

You want to accept number one by trying to undermine causality. Notice that when you try and undermine causality you invoke Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, however, is not ‘nothing’. By your own definition we should reject quantum mechanics because it falls into option number 2.

When you affirm number 1, you have to absolutely affirm it. You have to accept complete nothingness–not energy, not a vacuum, and not necessary physical laws. Complete and utter nothingness. This is why Quantum mechanics cannot be the explanation. It presupposes certain existing things that if treated as an explanation would only land you in number 2.

Quantum mechanics does not fit into number one, number two is impossible, so your attempt to undermine causality can only lead to acceptance of number 3.

Ex nihilo nihilo fit. Why suppose that something comes uncaused by nothing, for nothing, and out of nothing?

236

Notice that when you try and undermine causality you invoke Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, however, is not ‘nothing’. By your own definition we should reject quantum mechanics because it falls into option number 2.

I am not invoking quantum mechanics. I’m invoking the logic that either anything at its base must move uncaused, or must be an infinite causal chain. I’m saying on some level even below the quantum vacuum, the causal explanations either stop, or continue on forever. That there is latent energy in the vacuum isn’t a final explanation. For one could ask, “Why does latent energy move things?” That is on a level below quantum mechanics. Things acting by their nature is to say that it causes itself. It’s saying that it happens for no reason, uncaused. It simply does.

I suppose that something comes from nothing because that is where the logic leads me. Stuff logically moves either for no reason, or out of an infinite causal chain. The evidence suggests the former. I did not categorically reject option 2. Speaking purely inductively, we have consistently found smaller and smaller and smaller particles when ever we thought that we found the base particle. That might go on ad infinitum, and I do not reject that scenario, but quantum mechanics does not fall under option 2 necessarily.

Ex nihilo esse fit. Because the evidence suggests out of nothing comes interaction, that logically leads me to believe that out of nothing could come existence.

237

Why suppose that something comes uncaused by nothing, for nothing, and out of nothing?

Why suppose anything, what purpose does it serve? Can you build houses with God? Can you make music with God? Can you build rockets and explore the stars with God? And I mean physically, not in the meta-physical sense that everything you do is with God.

We are never going to be able to use Her unless She wants us to. So why worry about It? Why not just do good things for goodness sake? Not because you fear God’s wrath or expect Her rewards.

You should hold open the possiblity that when you die, that’s the end.

238

Your argument is illogical. God does not exist in time and space, he is the creator, everything that exists within the Universe is creation and is automatically discarded as the originator.

Can you build houses utilizing dark matter? Can you build rockets and explore the stars with dark energy?

Do they exist?

239

If we can never use God without his allowing us to, and we will never know him physically until we die, it is useless to even talk about it… what is illogical about that?

Can you build houses utilizing dark matter? Can you build rockets and explore the stars with dark energy

Technically yes, and yes. If it is matter, and not some property of gravity (we still havnt figured that out) then yes, you can build houses with it. And dark energy, if we can find it, we will be able to recreate it. If we accomplish that, it will be probably the greatest starship fuel in existence.

Just do good things, and dont worry about God.

Obviously, you guys won’t hear or accept ths position, it is clear from the last 6 pages that you are firmly rooted in your beliefs. And no amount of contradictory evidence will move you. No, it will be brushed off, overlooked, dismissed, as has every other piece of contradictory evidence in this thread. Im done arguing your baseless little theory, you accept nothing but what you have already accepted to be true.

This is the reason why militant atheists get so mad at you guys. You just wont give up, nor shut up. Even if noone cares, or proves you wrong, you’re still on your soapbox screaming about false or misleading positions that effect noone’s real material existence.

Science extended our life expectancy to over 70 years, it saved my mother from cancer. It allows me to talk instantly with people half way across the world. It took us to the moon, it will take us to the stars. It has created an enormous fountain of knowledge I can drink from every day for the rest of my life.

What has your wizard done for you?