A question for athiests

[quatona]

May be it's just me but it seems very obvious that the idea that all things are subject to causality is generally accepted as sound logic. I'm not trying to 'smuggle' some argument in below your radar... I'm appealing to common sense..

Well, logic and even common sense tell me immediately that this axiom can not be accurate - unless you think of causality as an everlasting circle (A->B->C....->A->B...).

 

[Asimov]

I for one do not believe that there is anything but reality. The question is very simple and clear. If semantics is the problem, I can express the question differently, but the question remains the same.

I know it's simple and clear. I have no issue with the question.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

The laws of physics didn't exist until physics did

The universe sort of stumbled along ok until then, and will just have to carry on some how after the last physicist is dead

Here's an easy one:
In what way does the universe exist if we do not?

 

[Calminian]

The laws of physics didn't exist until physics did

The universe sort of stumbled along ok until then, and will just have to carry on some how after the last physicist is dead

Here's an easy one:
In what way does the universe exist if we do not?

Hmm. I detect a cop out here. I guess the above is easier than admitting you believe the laws of physics created themselves.

 

[Asimov]

Hmm. I detect a cop out here. I guess the above is easier than admitting you believe the laws of physics created themselves.

I detect a lack of comprehension here. I guess the above is easier than actually reading what he's saying.

 

[PatrickInDoubt]

I wonder if it has occurred to you that your question implies an infinite regress of explanations? If some one entity is thought to determine the rules for other entities, then what is it that determines the "rules" of that master entity? And the master of that master entity? And so on, and so on?

I still struggle with the issue of "First Cause" myself. Do you think there is a possibility that some forces such as Physics are simply eternal?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I still struggle with the issue of "First Cause" myself. Do you think there is a possibility that some forces such as Physics are simply eternal?

"Physics" isn't a force, but a description of the behavior of entities at a simple level. But as long as there are entities there are behaviors, existence implying identity, and this might as well be considered eternal.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MorkandMindy]

"Physics" isn't a force, but a description of the behavior of entities at a simple level. But as long as there are entities there are behaviors, existence implying identity, and this might as well be considered eternal.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nicely stated. I'll try to expand it to see if I've understood it correctly.

1. 'the laws of physics' are descriptions. These descriptions have changed over the years but the behaviour of the universe simply hasn't. In a hundred years they may all be different. 'The Laws of Physics' don't have an existance except as our descriptions and are determined by us and the way we best understand things at the time.

To claim 'the laws of physics' make anything happen sounds about the same to a scientist as claiming telling someone religious that 'the laws of theology' make god do certain things.

2. Simple. Physics comes from the term 'physical'. Physics is now the science of the physical world with the complex bits chemistry and biology cut out and in seperate subjects, so physics is all the rest that isn't complex. It is as simple as it can be made. One atom at a time rather than a massive molecule or organism. But simple isn't easy, at least not for the sort of brains we've evolved to have.

3. There do appear to be a lot of distict entities (1 with 80 zeros behind it in our counting system, to count all the Fermions in the universe), and we detect these entities by their behaviours, which are imbalances in charge, magnetic moment etc.

4. Description. We describe. We each remember being very small and seeing others born later going through the same stage of being very small. We have a begining before which we remember nothing, and will have an end. The eternity of universe that went on before and will go on after is not capable of a complete subjective description.

5. Eternal. These behaviours don't seem to change in space of time even though some of the entities do. It would be interesting to debate whether the universe might actually last forever.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I suppose that one might say, that whilst the laws of physics are merely descriptions of behaviour of entities, there is still some "force" (or maybe "cause") that determines the behaviour.

My question to that would be, would such a "force" or "cause" be knowable in the same way that the description of an entities behaviour is?

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Or maybe in other words, if we can give description to a property, or an event, and call it an effect, are we ever able to find with the same descriptive certainty it's cause?

 

[DailyBlessings]

When I was a child, I would ask questions like "How come people speak other languages?" or "Why do birds fly and we don't?" and my father would invariably reply: "They just do." His response didn't answer the questions (which generally did have an answer even if he did not know them)- it was more a way of giving up without admitting ignorance. I feel more or less the same way about those who submit the same non-answer in response to the important questions of existence. Saying that the universe simply exists may be descriptively true, but it is not an answer to the question of why it does. If you do not have an answer for why the universe exists, at least have the dignity to say that you do not know- don't imagine that not having the answer is somehow an answer.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Or maybe in other words, if we can give description to a property, or an event, and call it an effect, are we ever able to find with the same descriptive certainty it's cause?

Quantum mechanics arrives, good point.

There is also the basic question as to whether the effect can even be described causally.

In everyday experience I press a key on this keyboard and letters appear on the screen. As regards my neural matrix and the screen it is simple to talk of a causal link, that one idea in my head causes a result on the screen, see, I'm doing it right now.

In terms of human responsibility causality is crucial. No criminal, no crime.

But very soon things get more complicated. Some Fundie in the US kills an abortion doctor. Who was really responsible, the Fundie as a person or the whole fundie movement?

Assuming cause and effect applies I'd suggest that without the fundie movement the event/crime would not have occured. And there are plenty of people on this forum claiming that abortion is murder, so along comes the concept that ideas travel from person to person causing things to happen, and humans are more vehicles of ideas than actually first causes of anything.

Even in human experience cause and effect are not easy to ascribe.
But enter the much simpler realm of physics and causality itself generally disappears.

 

[quatona]

When I was a child, I would ask questions like "How come people speak other languages?" or "Why do birds fly and we don't?" and my father would invariably reply: "They just do." His response didn't answer the questions (which generally did have an answer even if he did not know them)- it was more a way of giving up without admitting ignorance. I feel more or less the same way about those who submit the same non-answer in response to the important questions of existence. Saying that the universe simply exists may be descriptively true, but it is not an answer to the question of why it does. If you do not have an answer for why the universe exists, at least have the dignity to say that you do not know- don't imagine that not having the answer is somehow an answer.

Maybe your father didn´t have the intention you think he had, but rather tried to communicate that which children need to learn at a certain age (the age they tend to ask why questions ad infinitum): That there are instances where "why" questions are inadequate, that when asking "why" questions you tend to omit the sort of information you are looking for, that "why" questions are actually begging the question by assuming there is some sort of "because", whilst actually there needn´t be such.

I have no clue by which process the universe came into existence, I don´t know whether it came into existence at all - I even doubt that "existence" is a meaningful term if used for the universe.

 

[Tynan]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

Hi Sojourner

The act of governing is to organize and control, presumably if 'reality' was not governed it would fall into a differing state.

What might this state be ?

And if god removed his government of reality and reality changed it's nature - who would be governing this new situation ?

I see your question as too undefined to be anything other than semantics.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Hi Sojourner

The act of governing is to organize and control, presumably if 'reality' was not governed it would fall into a differing state.

What might this state be ?

And if god removed his government of reality and reality changed it's nature - who would be governing this new situation ?

I see your question as too undefined to be anything other than semantics.

Well that depends on how you define govern. Merriam-Webster provides this definition: " to serve as a precedent or deciding principle for ".

Why on earth this word is so difficult to work with is beyond me

 

[DailyBlessings]

Maybe your father didn´t have the intention you think he had, but rather tried to communicate that which children need to learn at a certain age (the age they tend to ask why questions ad infinitum): That there are instances where "why" questions are inadequate, that when asking "why" questions you tend to omit the sort of information you are looking for, that "why" questions are actually begging the question by assuming there is some sort of "because", whilst actually there needn´t be such.

Why? I see no logical justification for your suggestion learning the reason for something would "omit the information I am looking for", much less how saying that "there is no answer" and leaving it at that would somehow provide the missing data. If more information is needed to answer the question, supply the information. Incidentally, I don't think children should be discouraged from asking questions either. Do you have kids?

I have no clue by which process the universe came into existence, I don´t know whether it came into existence at all - I even doubt that "existence" is a meaningful term if used for the universe.

If existence has any meaning at all, it applies to the universe. You can claim that it does not, but you'd be protesting something intrinsically obvious to most people so some sort of justification other than baseless skepticism would be advised.

 

[loudatheist101]

Why? I see no logical justification for your suggestion learning the reason for something would "omit the information I am looking for", much less how saying that "there is no answer" and leaving it at that would somehow provide the missing data. If more information is needed to answer the question, supply the information. Incidentally, I don't think children should be discouraged from asking questions either. Do you have kids?
If existence has any meaning at all, it applies to the universe. You can claim that it does not, but you'd be protesting something intrinsically obvious to most people so some sort of justification other than baseless skepticism would be advised.

This is a classic theist to me. "If science hasn't found out *yet* how the universe cam into place, then my God must exist and it's better to have an answer than to not".

Did the ancient Greeks know that the sun was? No. Science did not have an answer then *yet*. So, they thought it would be better to have an answer than to not have one so, they made up the story of the sun being a god on a chariot. However, science finally found the true answer through evidence and facts, that the sun is a fire ball in space, not some god on a chariot. Science's next step I think to proving some theist theory wrong, is with evolution. Maybe someday, science will finally figure out the real way how the universe was created.

 

[DailyBlessings]

This is a classic theist to me. "If science hasn't found out *yet* how the universe cam into place, then my God must exist and it's better to have an answer than to not".

This has nothing to do with a God of the Gaps- My complaint here is about pretending that there is no gap. Who said anything about God existing? Do read before commenting, sometimes.

Maybe someday, science will finally figure out the real way how the universe was created.

Wouldn't that be nice? My objection is to those who refuse to accept that there is a question to answer, in the first place.

Love the anthropomorphization of science in the midst a diatribe against theism, by the way- I understand that's the common parlance, but you'd think you would be a little more careful than usual about assigning personal attributes and virtues to a research method, while complaining about the theistic habit of doing the same with supernatural concepts.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Maybe someday, science will finally figure out the real way how the universe was created.

You trying to confuse me?

 

[MorkandMindy]

But enter the much simpler realm of physics and causality itself generally disappears.

No takers on this key point?