Atheism

[Wiccan_Child]

I think your just mad that I found all your answers in five minutes on google. You want to make more assumptions about cause and affect? Go ahead, this is fun.

secondly, cause and affect is universal. Because you haven't given one example that I have disproven. (with the internet).

Except, you haven't. As I explained in exhaustive detail, you haven't demonstrated a cause for things like radioactivity. I explained why you might think you have. I explained what things like wavefunctions actually mean in relation to quantum phenomena, and why your citations don't show what you think they show.

I wonder if you actually took the time to read my post, or if you just skipped over it entirely because you couldn't be bothered.

I explained to you why "Tunnelling is due to particles having a wavefunction" doesn't in any way mean that tunnelling is actually caused by the wavefunction. The wavefunction isn't an event that triggers an instance of tunnelling, it's just a mechanical backdrop that allows it to occur - but the actual event itself is spontaneous. I gave you the analogy of the national lottery: you can't have a lottery without (say) people watching television and buying tickets, but neither do those things actually cause the random generation of numbers - that's determined by the machine itself. Likewise, the existence of the wavefunction is the physical phenomnon that allows randomness to occur, nothing more. It's not a cause.

That you did a Google search is painfully obvious to see, as you've completely misunderstood what those website were saying. I explained, in great detail, why your first impressions were wrong - and your reply is that I'm just angry? That's a cop out. If you don't want to talk to me, that's fine, but please don't resort to ad hominems - it cheapens both of us.

 

[Eudaimonist]

so if space is an entity, that negates the fact of entity causation all together, and we are back to typical laws of causation.

I didn't notice you get back to me with an explanation of your reasoning processes here, and since I'm not a mindreader, all I can tell you is that the existence of space does not deny entity-causation in the case of gravity. The point is that gravity is not caused by anything other than the entity that exerts a gravitational field. Even if space is seen as part of the context in which gravity arises, or as some additional entity involved, it's still agent causation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't notice you get back to me with an explanation of your reasoning processes here, and since I'm not a mindreader, all I can tell you is that the existence of space does not deny entity-causation in the case of gravity. The point is that gravity is not caused by anything other than the entity that exerts a gravitational field. Even if space is seen as part of the context in which gravity arises, or as some additional entity involved, it's still agent causation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

don't follow you here, mind expanding on why the presence of space and the presence of the earth creating a gravitational field is entity causation any more than anything else,

like a ball being thrown in the air isn't entity causation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Except, you haven't. As I explained in exhaustive detail, you haven't demonstrated a cause for things like radioactivity. I explained why you might think you have. I explained what things like wavefunctions actually mean in relation to quantum phenomena, and why your citations don't show what you think they show.

I wonder if you actually took the time to read my post, or if you just skipped over it entirely because you couldn't be bothered.

I explained to you why "Tunnelling is due to particles having a wavefunction" doesn't in any way mean that tunnelling is actually caused by the wavefunction. The wavefunction isn't an event that triggers an instance of tunnelling, it's just a mechanical backdrop that allows it to occur - but the actual event itself is spontaneous. I gave you the analogy of the national lottery: you can't have a lottery without (say) people watching television and buying tickets, but neither do those things actually cause the random generation of numbers - that's determined by the machine itself. Likewise, the existence of the wavefunction is the physical phenomnon that allows randomness to occur, nothing more. It's not a cause.

That you did a Google search is painfully obvious to see, as you've completely misunderstood what those website were saying. I explained, in great detail, why your first impressions were wrong - and your reply is that I'm just angry? That's a cop out. If you don't want to talk to me, that's fine, but please don't resort to ad hominems - it cheapens both of us.

I am not bothered that you were answered, you obviously are picking at straws to get out from under the fact that were.....answered.

 

[Non sequitur]

actually you are wrong the presence of isotopes are the cause of the decay, even wikipedia states this:


Radium has no stable isotopes; however, four isotopes of radium are present in decay chains

Radium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not...

WHEN.

WHEN.

WHEN.

WHEN WILL THEY START TO DECAY? WHAT CAUSES THEM TO START TO DECAY?

You keep talking about what is present in them or around them or what they like for breakfast... everything BUT the CAUSE of start of decay.


Fill in the blank...

Punching you in the face : Your face bleeding :: __________ : Radioactive decay

actually all the agents we know of are demonstrable. For example a person throwing a ball in the air.

You claim we know of "God", so demonstrate him.

noting your changing the bars is what I noticed. Not congratulations.

I didn't "change the bars", I took it back, a step, to the definition of a word you used, for clarification.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose or not...

WHEN.

WHEN.

WHEN.

WHEN WILL THEY START TO DECAY?

so you, changing the bars again...now saying you don't want to know the cause of radioactive decay of radium, you want to know when it decays? Well that's another question entirely and not the focus of our discussion. Google it if you want to know that badly.

You claim we know of "God", so demonstrate him.

huh? Purple elephants. Thats what that sounded like. What does God have to do with our discussion?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I am not bothered that you were answered, you obviously are picking at straws to get out from under the fact that were.....answered.

How am I picking at straws?

"Quantum tunneling is due to the fact that particles have a wave function."

This doesn't prove what you think it prove. Not only do you not understand what that statement means, you don't understand why it doesn't prove what you think it proves. I gave detailed explanations for why you are wrong, and your response is "I'm picking at straws". If you really believe that, prove it: explain why my refutations were wrong.

 

[Non sequitur]

so you, changing the bars again...now saying you don't want to know the cause of radioactive decay of radium, you want to know when it decays? Well that's another question entirely and not the focus of our discussion. Google it if you want to know that badly.

An incorrect and dishonest answer to "What caused the car accident?" would be "cars".

You are evading the issue! You talk about everything needs a cause, so I'm asking you to name what was the cause.

Plus, you cut out parts of my post: "WHAT CAUSES THEM TO START TO DECAY?"

If there is a cause, what CAUSES them to start to decay?

Cause: (to) make (something) happen; the one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result

huh? Purple elephants. Thats what that sounded like. What does God have to do with our discussion?

I apologize for swapping "God" for "uncaused agent". I should not have assumed a correlation.

1) You use the phrase "uncaused agents" and gave a definition.

2) Next you claimed, all the agents we know of are demonstrable.

So, demonstrable an "uncaused agent".

 

[createdtoworship]

You are evading the issue! You talk about everything needs a cause, so I'm asking you to name what was the cause.

Plus, you cut out parts of my post: "WHAT CAUSES THEM TO START TO DECAY?"

If there is a cause, what CAUSES them to start to decay?

Cause: (to) make (something) happen; the one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result

you are trying to change the bar and say your question originally was "what causes them to start", when you said originally "what causes them to decay"- regardless of the timing. Are we changing the question? Or not?

I apologize for swapping "God" for "uncaused agent". I should not have assumed a correlation.

1) You use the phrase "uncaused agents" and gave a definition.

2) Next you claimed, all the agents we know of are demonstrable.

So, demonstrable an "uncaused agent".

well we see uncaused agents all the time, a person throwing a base ball for example. Agent= person without cause, ball =caused= from person without a cause, so we have both in the situation. I was unsure if there was a question here, but I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Non sequitur]

you are trying to change the bar and say your question originally was "what causes them to start", when you said originally "what causes them to decay". Are we changing the question? Or not?

What is it with you and bars? Are you getting a bad signal, cuz that would explain a lot...

I have to keep asking you the same question, but rewording it, because you keep going off topic.

Heck, answer either question.

1) What causes them to decay?
2) What causes them to start (to decay)?
3) When to they start to decay?

well we see uncaused agents all the time, a person throwing a base ball for example. Agent= person without cause, ball =caused= from person without a cause, so we have both in the situation. I was unsure if there was a question here, but I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge.

What?!? Not by your definition ("...agents initiate sequences of events when they act, without the initiation being itself causally determined").

The person throwing a baseball is an agent, not an "uncaused agent".

You are swapping "uncaused agent" with "agent acting for unknown reasons"; not the same.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have to keep asking you the same question, but rewording it, because you keep going off topic.

Heck, answer either question.

1) What causes them to decay?
2) What causes them to start (to decay)?
3) When to they start to decay?

how could answering question one be off topic, Let me answer it yet another time for you

ANSWER TO QUESTION ONE- the presence of isotopes causes radium to decay.

(now is your turn to say, WHEN does it happen...which is question 2 I believe. And since you gave me the option of answering only one, there you go.)

What?!? Not by your definition ("...agents initiate sequences of events when they act, without the initiation being itself causally determined").

The person throwing a baseball is an agent, not an "uncaused agent".

You are swapping "uncaused agent" with "agent acting for unknown reasons"; not the same.

I think you are getting confused. Agents are all uncaused. When they threw the ball, nothing caused them to do it, they did by themselves.....hence the title "agent."

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."

 

[TScott]

So what is the point of all this and what does it have to do with atheism?

All it shows me is that a five minute search on the internet does not give one an understanding of complex problems.

But again, what does all this have to do with the OP?

 

[Non sequitur]

how could answering question one be off topic, Let me answer it yet another time for you

ANSWER TO QUESTION ONE- the presence of isotopes causes radium to decay.

(now is your turn to say, WHEN does it happen...which is question 2 I believe. And since you gave me the option of answering only one, there you go.)

Hmm.

Losing energy by emitting ionizing particles causes the decay. The mere "presence of isotopes causes radium to decay" does not cause anything.

"The presence of matches causes buildings to burn." See how that doesn't work?

No, question 2 is "What causes them to start (to decay)?"

Go right ahead.

I think you are getting confused. Agents are all uncaused. When they threw the ball, nothing caused them to do it, they did by themselves.....hence the title "agent."

I'm just going to stop you right there.

They were playing catch, so that caused the person to throw the ball. Or, he was angry at people on the internet acting like fools, so that caused him to throw a ball at the TV.

There. There are your causes for actions.


You are either being idiotic or are very good at acting like it.

You are talking about motive or reason for doing something, not causality, in regards to cause-and-effect.


Just answer Question 2. I can't take you misrepresenting things much more.

 

[Non sequitur]

So what is the point of all this and what does it have to do with atheism?

All it shows me is that a five minute search on the internet does not give one an understanding of complex problems.

But again, what does all this have to do with the OP?

"Uncaused agents".

Was there a purpose of you interjecting, besides wanting it be known that you are interjecting, since your last contribution to this thread was 4 days ago?

 

[TScott]

Was there a purpose of you interjecting, besides wanting it be known that you are interjecting?

I stated my reason for "interjecting".

I get the causation bit, but it seems to be getting in a rut, having strayed from the thread subject.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hmm.

Losing energy by emitting ionizing particles causes the decay. The mere "presence of isotopes causes radium to decay" does not cause anything.

actually I think you were wrong because if I am not mistaken decayed radium has isotopes in it. So the burnt building has burnt matches in it, all the time, in every instance. So it's safe to say the building was "caused" to burn by matches.

They were playing catch, so that caused the person to throw the ball. Or, he was angry at people on the internet acting like fools, so that caused him to throw a ball at the TV.

actually those things didn't make him throw it. ultimately his anger or an emotion did. You see? It was internal.

Just answer Question 2. I can't take you misrepresenting things much more.

no one knows, and I am someone. So I don't know.

 

[Non sequitur]

actually I think you were wrong because if I am not mistaken decayed radium has isotopes in it.

That's like saying, cars have Ford Festiva in them...

First, I'm not. Here's the definition (first sentence).

Second, radium-223, radium-224, radium-226 and radium-228, are isotopes of the radium element. Isotopes are variants of a particular chemical element. Not "things" found in elements.

I would totally love for you to admit you were wrong on this, now.

So the burnt building has burnt matches in it, all the time, in every instance. So it's safe to say the building was "caused" to burn by matches.

You keep leaving out verbs, as well as steps, which are an essential part of cause-and-effect.

The building was "caused" to burn because matches were lit (and the lit matches were used on the building).

actually those things didn't make him throw it. ultimately his anger or an emotion did. You see? It was internal.

He was angry (cause), so he threw the ball (effect).
The thrown ball (cause) broke the TV (effect).

There is no uncaused agent. Every reaction (effect) had a known agent.

Lit matches used on the building, anger, thrown ball.

no one knows, and I am someone. So I don't know.

And that would be an unknown cause.


Your original post about the big bang was, "my science says that an uncaused agent did it, and therefore something with intelligence did it".

You still have not shown why it has to be intelligent (your response to that was to ask me for an example... which I gave).

Then: gravity is an uncaused agent, everything is an uncaused agent and the presence of things are included in causality (although causes and effects are related to changes, not the state of being present.)


Never mind.

Given your thoughts on what isotopes are I don't even think you know what you think you know.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's like saying, cars have Ford Festiva in them...

First, I'm not. Here's the definition (first sentence).

Second, radium-223, radium-224, radium-226 and radium-228, are isotopes of the radium element. Isotopes are variants of a particular chemical element. Not "things" found in elements.

I would totally love for you to admit you were wrong on this, now.

I thought I was wrong, then I saw this

Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You keep leaving out verbs, as well as steps, which are an essential part of cause-and-effect.

The building was "caused" to burn because matches were lit (and the lit matches were used on the building).



He was angry (cause), so he threw the ball (effect).
The thrown ball (cause) broke the TV (effect).

There is no uncaused agent. Every reaction (effect) had a known agent.

Lit matches used on the building, anger, thrown ball.

matches are found in all building where they were burned, means they were burned by matches. Angry at his neighbor and throws ball at his head, anger was the cause of the event. Matches were the cause of the event. Don't you see?

Never mind.

figures

 

[Non sequitur]

I thought I was wrong, then I saw this

Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second sentence:

"Most radioactive elements do not decay directly to a stable state, but rather undergo a series of decays until eventually a stable isotope is reached."

...decayed radium has isotopes in it.

See, they don't have isotopes "in them".

Your comprehension of words and their meaning seems to be off.

matches are found in all building where they were burned, means they were burned by matches. Angry at his neighbor and throws ball at his head, anger was the cause of the event. Matches were the cause of the event. Don't you see?

The presence of matches did not cause the building to burn down. The matches had to ignite first. You are leaving that cause out.

No matter how you twist this around, everything in these examples has a caused agent, not an uncaused agent.


Do you not fully understand the English language?

I'm asking you seriously, because this would make sense and I apologize. i am not a teacher.

If so, please, ask someone to explain cause-and-effect and why all causes are not uncaused to you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Second sentence:

"Most radioactive elements do not decay directly to a stable state, but rather undergo a series of decays until eventually a stable isotope is reached."



See, they don't have isotopes "in them".

Your comprehension of words and their meaning seems to be off.



The presence of matches did not cause the building to burn down. The matches had to ignite first. You are leaving that cause out.

No matter how you twist this around, everything in these examples has a caused agent, not an uncaused agent.


Do you not fully understand the English language?

I'm asking you seriously, because this would make sense and I apologize. i am not a teacher.

If so, please, ask someone to explain cause-and-effect and why all causes are not uncaused to you.

see, isotopes. I told you they were there and they cause decay. Unless the link lied. Which is it? ARe you smarter than wikipedia? Don't answer that question. But here I found a nice intellectual article to keep you busy for easter

an agents.

Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Paper Suggests "Agents" and "Choice Contingency" Needed to Explain Life's Programming - Evolution News & Views

here is a quote:

The only entity that logically could possibly be considered to organize itself is an agent. But not
even an agent self-organizes. Agents organize things and events in their lives. They do not organize
their own molecular biology, cellular structure, organs and organ systems. Agents do not organize their
own being. Agents do not create themselves. They merely make purposeful choices with the brains and
minds with which they find themselves. Artificial intelligence does not organize itself either. It is
invariably programmed by agents to respond in certain ways to various environmental challenges in
the artificial life data base.
Thus the reality of self-organization is highly suspect on logical and analytic grounds even before
facing the absence of empirical evidence of any spontaneous formal self-organization. Certainly no
prediction of bona fide self-organization from unaided physicodynamics has ever been fulfilled. Of
course if we fail through sloppy definitions to discern between self-ordering phenomena and
organization, we will think that evidence of self-organization is abundant. We will point to hundreds of
peer-reviewed papers with “self-organization” in their titles. But when all of these papers are carefully
critiqued with a proper scientific skepticism, our embarrassment only grows with each exposure of the
blatant artificial selection that was incorporated into each paper’s experimental design. Such
investigator involvement is usually readily apparent right within Materials and Methods of the paper.