Atheism

[RoadWarrior]

That's my point.

 

[createdtoworship]

Agents can start processes, but no agent we have ever seen or known of can start a process of something that it manifested from a literal nothing.

well it needed to happen only once.

 

[Davian]

the illustration falls apart if everything always existed.

The universe may have always existed, just in a different form.

But not really because what was caused has always existed and the only thing that can cause without itself being caused is an agent. Which is a personality, a living thing.

Life, as I understand it, is a process, or collection of processes. How and where did this 'personality' or 'living thing' live prior to the existence of the cosmos? You are not making sense.

How do we know. Here is a quote from STR website on it:

"We know that agents can start things from nothing. How do we know that? Because we do it all the time. We initiate action. We are not just a domino in a string of dominoes, doing what the domino before us forced us to do. We have freedom. This is why we condemn criminals and punish them, and reward people who do good. In both cases they deserve it because they are morally free creatures. To be free means you can start actions.

Agents start things. Things don’t start things. They just react to things before them. But agents can start things. If the whole physical universe was started, it seems reasonable that some non-physical agent did so, who himself was not started by something else. I’m not trying to persuade you that it happened. I’m trying to show you that it’s a reasonable explanation. It’s imminently reasonable."

Free will? Good luck with that one.

How is it reasonable that this 'agent' is a deity? Your deity?

It might be, if something was required to initiate the current instantiation of our cosmos, that it was a mechanism no more sophisticated that a toaster oven.

And, you have not established that a cause was required. At the quantum level, cause and effect break down.

 

[createdtoworship]

The universe may have always existed, just in a different form.

May have? Well we can't know for a fact. More likely it was caused. Because we see this causation everyday.

And, you have not established that a cause was required. At the quantum level, cause and effect break down.

also on a quantum level we can show that there is cold dark matter which may prove to be a spirit realm. But that is neither here nor there. Besides can you even explain how cause and effect break down?

 

[Non sequitur]

well it needed to happen only once.

1) There's no reason to assume it did or that it/anything needed to.

2) And what was its agent? How far do we go back? Just one, who didn't itself do it (think CEO), but created agent to create the universe? Or maybe that one did. Turtles all the way down.

 

[Eudaimonist]

More likely it was caused. Because we see this causation everyday.

What causation do you mean?

What we see everyday with our own eyes is entities changing over time, not popping into existence out of nothing. The way in which such entities change and influence change in other entities is what is meant by causation.

It's true that in physics there are virtual particles that appear and disappear very rapidly, but this is said to be uncaused, and such particles appear within the context of spacetime, not in some volume of pure nothingness, if it even makes sense to view such a "volume" as possible.

So, based on what we do know about physics, it isn't "likely" that the universe was caused. It is reasonable to conclude that the universe (in the sense of spacetime) has never not existed, and any particles that exist come into existence within the context of spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

What causation do you mean?

What we see everyday with our own eyes is entities changing over time, not popping into existence out of nothing. The way in which such entities change and influence change in other entities is what is meant by causation.

It's true that in physics there are virtual particles that appear and disappear very rapidly, but this is said to be uncaused, and such particles appear within the context of spacetime, not in some volume of pure nothingness, if it even makes sense to view such a "volume" as possible.

So, based on what we do know about physics, it isn't "likely" that the universe was caused. It is reasonable to conclude that the universe (in the sense of spacetime) has never not existed, and any particles that exist come into existence within the context of spacetime.


eudaimonia,

Mark

not to good at astro physics (normal physics decent)

but I assume you mean nutrinos? Again they would come from a destination and go to a destination. They are not changing dimensions, they are just very small almost undetectable. But we detected them. They are still caused. and we see causation every day, cause and effect. If you throw a pen in the air, it hits you in the head (sort of thing). We also see agents causing things from nothing. When you threw the pen in the air there was nothing prompting you to do it. Rather than the domino affect that standard causation brings - agents can start the cycle. The force in the universe must be an agent, which implies personality (God not a force...because all the agents we see are living not blind forces in the universe with no personality).

 

[createdtoworship]

1) There's no reason to assume it did or that it/anything needed to.

2) And what was its agent? How far do we go back? Just one, who didn't itself do it (think CEO), but created agent to create the universe? Or maybe that one did. Turtles all the way down.

funny thing is if all the agents we see have a mind of their own....should not the cause of the universe have a mind, just bigger?

 

[Eudaimonist]

we see causation every day, cause and effect. If you throw a pen in the air, it hits you in the head (sort of thing).

Yes.

We also see agents causing things from nothing. When you threw the pen in the air there was nothing prompting you to do it.

Huh?

If I were to do such a thing, the cause would have been myself, not "nothing". Just because I'm not reacting to something external to myself, that doesn't mean that my actions are causeless.

Rather than the domino affect that standard causation brings - agents can start the cycle.

Standard causation may start with entity-causation, even if it turns into a domino-like effect.

The force in the universe must be an agent

No.

There is nothing that requires that an entity that initiates causation is a conscious being. It may be a conscious being, but the reason that a conscious being can initiate causation is that any entity may do so.

The problem with your argument is that you are trying to mix two completely different models of causation together, and treat them as both existing simultaneously. Pick one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes.



Huh?

If I were to do such a thing, the cause would have been myself, not "nothing". Just because I'm not reacting to something external to myself, that doesn't mean that my actions are causeless.



Standard causation may start with entity-causation, even if it turns into a domino-like effect.



No.

There is nothing that requires that an entity that initiates causation is a conscious being. It may be a conscious being, but the reason that a conscious being can initiate causation is that any entity may do so.

The problem with your argument is that you are trying to mix two completely different models of causation together, and treat them as both existing simultaneously. Pick one.


eudaimonia,

Mark

okay then give one example of a agent that is not a being or intelligent organism.

secondly, I think your confusing causation. You can have an uncaused cause. That can cause things from nothing, having no cause other than itself. It's still an uncaused cause because the cause was internal not external.

 

[Eudaimonist]

okay then give one example of a agent that is not a being or intelligent organism.

Wrong question. I'm not claiming that agents can be unconscious or unintelligent. I'm saying that it is wrong to assume that only conscious or intelligent organisms (i.e. agents) can be a source of causes.

Entities are the source of causes, although they may themselves be influenced by causes from other entities. An entity does not need to be an agent in order to start a chain of causation.

You'll note that an electron isn't caused to act like an electron. It acts like an electron because it is an electron. Therefore, if its existence as an electron causes some other entity to act in a particular way, it is the cause of some chain of causation.

You are taking an argument for free will and expanding it to a context in which it doesn't really apply. Free will (assuming that it exists) takes place within the context of the universe. You can't say with any assurance that free will must be the cause of the existence of anything.

secondly, I think your confusing causation. You can have an uncaused cause. That can cause things from nothing, having no cause other than itself. It's still an uncaused cause because the cause was internal not external.

We may have miscommunicated. I agree with this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Non sequitur]

funny thing is if all the agents we see have a mind of their own....should not the cause of the universe have a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

And its cause a mind, just bigger?

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong question. I'm not claiming that agents can be unconscious or unintelligent. I'm saying that it is wrong to assume that only conscious or intelligent organisms (i.e. agents) can be a source of causes.

Entities are the source of causes, although they may themselves be influenced by causes from other entities. An entity does not need to be an agent in order to start a chain of causation.

You'll note that an electron isn't caused to act like an electron. It acts like an electron because it is an electron. Therefore, if its existence as an electron causes some other entity to act in a particular way, it is the cause of some chain of causation.

You are taking an argument for free will and expanding it to a context in which it doesn't really apply. Free will (assuming that it exists) takes place within the context of the universe. You can't say with any assurance that free will must be the cause of the existence of anything.

Mark

whatever charges the electron is the cause. Like turning on a light, those electrons make new paths. So the electron is caused by a generator or something. Because before than generator is no electricity. Thus the generator was caused by an agent, therefore electrons are caused indireclty by agents as well. I am unclear on the entity thing I suppose.

 

[Davian]

May have? Well we can't know for a fact.

Same goes for your claim of a cause being required for the universe. And that such a cause would have to be a deity.

More likely it was caused.

More likely? You have no way of calculating the odds.

Because we see this causation everyday.

Are you observing things at the quantum level every day?

also on a quantum level we can show that there is cold dark matter which may prove to be a spirit realm.

You lost me here. Can you provide a citation for this?

But that is neither here nor there. Besides can you even explain how cause and effect break down?

No, but the point is that this is *observed* - your cause and effect argument does not necessarily apply to events happening at the quantum level.

 

[createdtoworship]

Same goes for your claim of a cause being required for the universe. And that such a cause would have to be a deity.

More likely? You have no way of calculating the odds.

Are you observing things at the quantum level every day?

most likely means the odds are very much in my favor, because we see causation on a daily basis. You however are saying the universe is uncaused and have not one example of an uncaused thing causing other things.

No, but the point is that this is *observed* - your cause and effect argument does not necessarily apply to events happening at the quantum level.

Like I have said before, things at a quantum level are not necessarily that easy to prove at all, let alone in this forum.

You lost me here. Can you provide a citation for this?

well we know that the computer that you are on is not solid, by one part in 100,000. And that is the mass of a neucleus. (one part in 100,000). So therefore we are mostly empty space by a figure of like I said 1 part in 100,000. So this would be a perfect place to host the spirit world that we hear so much about in scriptures. cold dark matter is another interesting story but I don't think it has to do with this particular illustration. Yet anyways. The other illustration is a little different and with a different focus. That we use cell phones everyday and transmit codes of information through the air. These codes are massless, no friction to worry about (reception yes) but no wind velocity etc to worry about. Because this information is massless. Another way to look at it is that you have hundreds of dollars in microsoft softare on your computer (maybe thousands). This all fits on a CD weighing nearly an ounce. The blank cd wieghs the same. How is this. Same with old school floppy's they weight 7/10's of an ounce with or without software. Because information/software is massless. All this to prove that if information is massless then our souls are eternal. Because of einsteins relativity laws prove that with no mass is no time. So this goes to say that possibly the empty space in our universe is eternal as well, along with our souls. I think thats how it goes, probably messed it up but thats the gist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

whatever charges the electron is the cause.

Charges the electron? Electrons aren't "charged" by anything.

So the electron is caused by a generator or something.

No, electrons aren't caused by generators. I think you should study some physics.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nabobalis]

Charges the electron? Electrons aren't "charged" by anything.

No, electrons aren't caused by generators. I think you should study some physics.

eudaimonia,

Mark

You charge electrons with batteries, one electron at a time

 

[Davian]

most likely means the odds are very much in my favor, because we see causation on a daily basis.

Show your math.

You however are saying the universe is uncaused and have not one example of an uncaused thing causing other things.

I did not say that. The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.

Like I have said before, things at a quantum level are not necessarily that easy to prove at all, let alone in this forum.

That is not the question at hand.

well we know that the computer that you are on is not solid, by one part in 100,000. And that is the mass of a neucleus. (one part in 100,000). So therefore we are mostly empty space by a figure of like I said 1 part in 100,000. So this would be a perfect place to host the spirit world that we hear so much about in scriptures. cold dark matter is another interesting story but I don't think it has to do with this particular illustration. Yet anyways. The other illustration is a little different and with a different focus. That we use cell phones everyday and transmit codes of information through the air. These codes are massless, no friction to worry about (reception yes) but no wind velocity etc to worry about. Because this information is massless. Another way to look at it is that you have hundreds of dollars in microsoft softare on your computer (maybe thousands). This all fits on a CD weighing nearly an ounce. The blank cd wieghs the same. How is this. Same with old school floppy's they weight 7/10's of an ounce with or without software. Because information/software is massless. All this to prove that if information is massless then our souls are eternal. Because of einsteins relativity laws prove that with no mass is no time. So this goes to say that possibly the empty space in our universe is eternal as well, along with our souls. I think thats how it goes, probably messed it up but thats the gist.

That is not a citation - an external reference to a authoritative source for substantiation. You would also need to provide a definition for 'soul', and 'spirit world'.

 

[createdtoworship]

Show your math.

I did not say that. The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.

That is not the question at hand.

That is not a citation - an external reference to a authoritative source for substantiation. You would also need to provide a definition for 'soul', and 'spirit world'.

here is where I got the info, the math works out. So that's authority in itself.

Science and the Bible, Part 1: The Nature of our Reality - Chuck Missler

soul being eternal: soul meaning the real you, the intellectual emotional aspect....

Beyond Time and Space with Chuck Missler - YouTube

 

[Davian]

here is where I got the info, the math works out. So that's authority in itself.

Science and the Bible, Part 1: The Nature of our Reality - Chuck Missler

There is no math on that link to support your claim of causation.

soul being eternal: soul meaning the real you, the intellectual emotional aspect....

How would you demonstrate that such a thing exits?

Beyond Time and Space with Chuck Missler - YouTube

That was just apologetics.

The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.