The Atheist Lie
someone2
atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
effects without causes.
The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
determinism (where effects have a cause):
"To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
in quantum mechanics."
For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely governed
by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
case of not believing in God or gods.
To hold the view that there is something other than the physical plane,
is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which there
is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
Symposium", 1941
I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
snex
so what caused god?
Jon.
someone2 wrote:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Simply not true. You have made the error of (among others, perhaps)
assuming that atheists must have logically consistent worldviews. Not
all of us do, just as many (most? all?) theists don't.
What you describe below is one atheistic philosophy. Just as not all
xians accept the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, not all
atheists accept pure cause-and-effect determinism. I do, but let's see
where you go with it.
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
I agree.
> The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
> without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
> have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
> of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
> wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
> science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
Absolutely true.
> Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are
effects
> without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
Right. We will keep learning more and more as long as we can, closing
the gaps in our knowledge as we go.
> If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
> something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
> history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There
is
> no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
> shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of
science.
>
> Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
> 'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
> http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
> determinism (where effects have a cause):
>
> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
determinism
> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory
or
> in quantum mechanics."
>
> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
I agree.
> So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely
governed
> by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
> either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
> there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects
without
> cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
> case of not believing in God or gods.
>
> To hold the view that there is something other than the physical
plane,
> is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which
there
> is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
> weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
>
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is
blind."
> Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
> Symposium", 1941
>
> I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
> destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
> understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
I would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
If there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, one who is omniscient, then
that god knows the fates of each one of us. That means those fates are
fixed just as surely as if cause-and-effect determinism is true.
Either way, we have no real say. It feels like we do, because we don't
know what's coming next, but we don't.
Further, if such a god interferes with our lives in such a way as to
nullify the laws of cause and effect, then such a god must be "exempt"
from those laws. Is such a thing possible? If the god is not exempt,
then it is just another cause, with preceding causes, etc. Turtles all
the way down.
If the god is exempt from the laws of cause and effect, what laws is it
subject to? If none, then it is omnipotent. If omnipotent and
omniscient, it has the power to change anything in any way it wishes.
It would then be impossible to "displease" or "anger" such a god,
because the entire universe must, logically, be in exactly the
condition that god wishes it to be in.
Meaning:
- God wanted Terri Schiavo to die the way she did
- God wanted George Bush to invade Iraq
- God wanted Osama Bin Laden to blow up the WTC
- God wanted Hitler to kill 6 million Jews
- etc., etc.
Is that the kind of God you want me to believe in? I think not. I'd
rather go on being a deterministic (and determined) atheist.
Comments?
Jon.
aa #703
someone2
Your not an atheist then.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>
support their claim that god(s) are indeed real and factual."
The default position is, there are no gods.
Everything else you write is worthless after that point. An atheist is
defined as someone with out faith in gods, and the above statement is
one of the most compelling reasons why.
Falsify the statement above, with some objective evidence for the
existence of a god, then you'll have something to talk about.
Till that time however, you don't have a clue, what an atheist is.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor ktay...@getnet.net
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Brian Westley
>The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
>atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
>involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
That's not a lie, that's what the word means.
>If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
>given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
>your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
This baseless assertion has nothing to do with the definition
of an ordinary word like 'atheist'.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Claytonus Vs. Godzilla
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip usual bullshit>
Please don't feed the nym-morphing flame baiting troll!
<plonk for the 2023395th time>
Denis Loubet
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Not believeing in gods is the sole atheist position.
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
This has nothing to do with atheism.
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
Nor this.
(snip more stuff having nothing to do with atheism.)
> So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely governed
> by the laws which govern the physical plan),
This is not the atheist position. Atheists are free to believe in whatever
supernatural realms they wish just so long as no gods are involved.
> you must believe that
> either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
> there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
> cause, against the weight of scientific evidence.
This has nothing to do with being an atheist.
> It is not simply a
> case of not believing in God or gods.
Not believing in gods is the sole criteria to be an atheist.
Anything else is unnecessary rationalization.
Atheism is not about one's rationalization or reason for not believing in
gods.
> To hold the view that there is something other than the physical plane,
> is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which there
> is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
> weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
Atheists are free to hold with supernatural claims. All that is required is
that they do not hold with any god.
Atheists are free to believe that extra-dimensional aliens created the
universe, and that fairies make the wind. Your cosmological ruminations are
equally irrelevant.
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
> Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
> Symposium", 1941
>
> I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
> destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
> understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
This is utterly irrelevant to the atheist position.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http:/www.io.com/~dloubet
someone2
>seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
>fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
OK, I'll play along with your parallel argument, though I'd like to
point out from the start, that this is all hypothetical. Not believing
in a fixed destiny, nor effects without cause, would leave the only
option that there is something else, though what that something else
is, would be up for grabs. I've heard some suggestions about
multi-dimensional space goats :)
Also not believing in a fixed destiny doesn't make it so, the same goes
for effects without causes.
Point being, that to go down this line of discussion, will simply be a
case of you posing me dilemmas, and me giving answers. I obviously
couldn't prove any answers, and therefore won't be able to provide any
evidence to back them up. I won't therefore be expecting to be asked
for evidence.
>If there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, one who is omniscient,
then
>that god knows the fates of each one of us. That means those fates
are
>fixed just as surely as if cause-and-effect determinism is true.
>Either way, we have no real say. It feels like we do, because we
don't
>know what's coming next, but we don't.
>would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
>seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
>fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
That God wouldn't know the fates of each of us, because we are free to
make the choices influence our fate, though a whole multiverse of
possibilities could be considered. You could argue that this would mean
that God isn't omniscient, I would argue that God can only know, what
is to be known.
>Further, if such a god interferes with our lives in such a way as to
>nullify the laws of cause and effect, then such a god must be "exempt"
>from those laws. Is such a thing possible? If the god is not exempt,
>then it is just another cause, with preceding causes, etc. Turtles
all
>the way down.
God is not governed by the laws of cause and effect, neither are our
souls. The laws of cause and effect, are created by God, and are used
to govern the physical universe. The universe would be deterministic,
up until choice is demonstrated.
God wouldn't interfere with our lives in such a way as to nullify the
laws of cause and effect.
God and the Devil, would only interfere with our lives through
inspiration. Our souls would be free to choose how to act on that
inspiration, and whether to act selflessly or selfishly.
>If the god is exempt from the laws of cause and effect, what laws is
it
>subject to? If none, then it is omnipotent. If omnipotent and
>omniscient, it has the power to change anything in any way it wishes.
>It would then be impossible to "displease" or "anger" such a god,
>because the entire universe must, logically, be in exactly the
>condition that god wishes it to be in
It would more of a case that our choices could upset God.
someone2
>of an ordinary word like 'atheist'.
I'm not talking about the definition of the word atheist. I am talking
about the logical positions that an atheist can hold.
someone2
I can and did show the only two positions that an atheist can logically
hold. If you disagree with what I said, then show me an alternative
logical position.
Explain to me how an atheist can logically believe that effects have
causes, and that their destiny is not fixed.
Fester
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
That particular dilemna has been scientifically resolved, at least to our
best ability at present, by the presence of randomness in quantum physics.
NEXT!
Mark K. Bilbo
<1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, someone2
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't involve
> anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Except it's not a lie. Atheism is being without belief in any gods.
And that's all.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
someone2
governed
>> by the laws which govern the physical plan),
>This is not the atheist position. Atheists are free to believe in
whatever
>supernatural realms they wish just so long as no gods are involved.
I suppose it depends on whether you define beings that operate within
supernatural realm gods.
With regards to fairies making the wind etc, notice that I used the
word 'logically', throughout.
someone2
I never claimed to have the answers, just that if you don't believe in
a fixed destiny, or effects without cause, there would seem to have to
be something else.
If you want to go down hypothetical routes, then how about there exists
another universe where energy is distributed equally throughout, it
didn't originate from a starting point like ours ('Big Bang'). There
was no 'start', it always was. It was from this universe, that ours
originates.
This is just hypothetical though, how could we ever tell?
someone2
our
>best ability at present, by the presence of randomness in quantum
physics.
As I said:
>>Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are
effects
>>without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
>>simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>>If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
>>something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
>>history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There
is
>>no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
>>shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of
science.
>>Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
>>'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
>>http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/file s/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
Robibnikoff
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
That's not a lie, liar.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
>>Till that time however, you don't have a clue, what an atheist is.
>
>
> I can and did show the only two positions that an atheist can logically
> hold. If you disagree with what I said, then show me an alternative
> logical position.
>
You did this in the judge thread to. Go off on some irrelevant tangent,
that has nothing to do with the topic you start.
>
> Explain to me how an atheist can logically believe that effects have
> causes, and that their destiny is not fixed.
>
Has nothing to do with being an atheist.
A = with out
theism = faith or belief in god(s)
And my statement about objective evidence not being presented, is till
one of the most compelling reasons for atheism.
It has nothing to do with your view of the universe, randomness, cause,
effect, or the price of tea in China.
It has to do with the lack of faith in gods.
Why do yo people always have to make things so much more complicated
then they really are? Why do you always have to take the simple, and
try to make it unsimple?
someone2
>And that's all.
I'm not talking about the definition of atheism, I am talking about the
Jon.
someone2 wrote:
> >I would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
> >seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
> >fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
>
> OK, I'll play along with your parallel argument, though I'd like to
> point out from the start, that this is all hypothetical. Not
believing
> in a fixed destiny, nor effects without cause, would leave the only
> option that there is something else, though what that something else
> is, would be up for grabs. I've heard some suggestions about
> multi-dimensional space goats :)
>
> Also not believing in a fixed destiny doesn't make it so, the same
goes
> for effects without causes.
>
> Point being, that to go down this line of discussion, will simply be
a
> case of you posing me dilemmas, and me giving answers. I obviously
> couldn't prove any answers, and therefore won't be able to provide
any
> evidence to back them up. I won't therefore be expecting to be asked
> for evidence.
Fair enough, this can be a philosophical, rather than a scientific,
debate. We won't rely on facts so much as logical arguments, as we
have been doing so far.
> >If there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, one who is omniscient,
> then
> >that god knows the fates of each one of us. That means those fates
> are
> >fixed just as surely as if cause-and-effect determinism is true.
> >Either way, we have no real say. It feels like we do, because we
> don't
> >know what's coming next, but we don't.
> >would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
> >seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
> >fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
>
> That God wouldn't know the fates of each of us, because we are free
to
> make the choices influence our fate, though a whole multiverse of
> possibilities could be considered. You could argue that this would
mean
> that God isn't omniscient, I would argue that God can only know, what
> is to be known.
Surely an omniscient being knows what I'm going to have for breakfast
tomorrow (or even if I will still be alive for breakfast)? If this god
can't see into the future, that's not much omniscience. It also pretty
well undermines all prophecy. Do you really want to give up that much
ground?
Also, can the god be omnipotent without being omniscient? I would
argue not. Omnipotence (the power to do anything) cannot be
circumscribed by limited knowledge, by definition. Similarly, if the
god is omnipotent, then it has the power or ability to *know* anything
(as a subset of the power to *do* anything) and is therefore either
omniscient or ignorant by choice.
If the god is not omnipotent, then what are the limits on its powers?
Who or what imposed those limits?
> >Further, if such a god interferes with our lives in such a way as to
> >nullify the laws of cause and effect, then such a god must be
"exempt"
> >from those laws. Is such a thing possible? If the god is not
exempt,
> >then it is just another cause, with preceding causes, etc. Turtles
> >all the way down.
>
> God is not governed by the laws of cause and effect, neither are our
> souls. The laws of cause and effect, are created by God, and are used
> to govern the physical universe. The universe would be deterministic,
> up until choice is demonstrated.
>
> God wouldn't interfere with our lives in such a way as to nullify the
> laws of cause and effect.
There go miracles.
There goes, too, any possibility of our ever being able to distinguish
between a god-ruled universe and one where pure cause-and-effect
govern.
> God and the Devil, would only interfere with our lives through
> inspiration. Our souls would be free to choose how to act on that
> inspiration, and whether to act selflessly or selfishly.
Hold on. Are you giving the Devil the power to be outside
cause-and-effect as well? Are there two gods being posited here?
> >If the god is exempt from the laws of cause and effect, what laws is
> >it subject to? If none, then it is omnipotent. If omnipotent and
> >omniscient, it has the power to change anything in any way it
wishes.
> >It would then be impossible to "displease" or "anger" such a god,
> >because the entire universe must, logically, be in exactly the
> >condition that god wishes it to be in
>
> It would more of a case that our choices could upset God.
Again, this requires that the god not be omnipotent or omniscient. If
omnipotent, it has the power to change our choices either directly by
acting on our minds, or indirectly by acting on those preconditions
which influence our minds to make the choices. If the god has the
power to change our choices, then the choices we are making must be the
ones it chooses for us.
If omniscient, then the god knew, when it created the universe (I
presume this to be part of your worldview; please correct me if I'm
wrong) exactly how everything - and I mean everything, down to the
tiniest subatomic particle - would turn out. It chose to go through
with the creation in the way it did, meaning that it is responsible for
everything. The bad stuff, too - not just the good stuff.
If (as most theologians hold) the god is both omniscient and
omnipotent, then both arguments apply, and even more forcefully.
In either case, everything that happens is exactly what the god wanted
to have happen, and it is meaningless for that god to be upset by
anything.
Jon.
aa #703
someone2
Well argued. Just incase you didn't understand, I'm not talking about
the definition of atheism, I'm talking about the positions atheists can
logically hold.
Maybe you can explain how an atheist can logically hold the position
that their destiny is not fixed, and also believe that effects have a
cause.
Fester
> >That particular dilemna has been scientifically resolved, at least to
> our
>>best ability at present, by the presence of randomness in quantum
> physics.
>
> As I said:
>
>>>Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are
> effects
>>>without causes. This is a lie.
Evidence? You call such conlcusions a lie, but you have no evidence to the
contrary.
>>> How can we ever know that we aren't
>>>simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
We can't know. Therefore we must continue to learn and draw what
conclusions we can. That means that there are limits to what we know, and
possibly even limits to what is knowable.
raven1
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Why does atheism imply determinism?
*nemo*
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Try this. Look at the literal meaning of the word's roots. Then come
back and explain how the statement is a "lie."
Oh and in case you're curious, I looked over the rest of your post and
it's blather. Just thought you'd like to know.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
someone2
>> causes, and that their destiny is not fixed.
>Has nothing to do with being an atheist.
>A = with out
>theism = faith or belief in god(s)
The post isn't about the definition of atheism, it is about the
positions an atheist can logically hold.
someone2
>tomorrow (or even if I will still be alive for breakfast)? If this
god
>can't see into the future, that's not much omniscience. It also
pretty
>well undermines all prophecy. Do you really want to give up that much
>ground?
As I said, it can only know what is to be known.
It doesn't undermine prophecy. For example there could have been a
prophecy that one day mankind will be able to fly. This would rely on
nothing more than an understanding of
the laws that govern our universe, and an understanding of man's thirst
for knowledge.
>> God wouldn't interfere with our lives in such a way as to nullify
the
>> laws of cause and effect.
>There go miracles.
I have been told that the river crossed by Moses does in fact become so
shallow at sometimes that people are able to cross on foot. That he was
inspired to lead the people out of Egypt at such a time could be
considered a miracle.
>There goes, too, any possibility of our ever being able to distinguish
>between a god-ruled universe and one where pure cause-and-effect
>govern.
Religion requires faith. You'd have to take it on faith, that if you
voluntarily jump from a tall building, it wasn't your fixed destiny and
that there was nothing you could do to have not jumped, it was simply
your choice.
>> God and the Devil, would only interfere with our lives through
>> inspiration. Our souls would be free to choose how to act on that
>> inspiration, and whether to act selflessly or selfishly.
>Hold on. Are you giving the Devil the power to be outside
>cause-and-effect as well? Are there two gods being posited here?
It depends on what you call a god? As I said, your soul is also outside
of cause-and-effect, does that make you a god?
Our souls are finite, both God and the Devil are infinite. You can
never be on the wavelength of the Devil though, you would have to love
the Devil as much as it loves itself, and to love another is to be on a
different wavelength to the Devil.
>> It would more of a case that our choices could upset God.
>Again, this requires that the god not be omnipotent or omniscient. If
>omnipotent, it has the power to change our choices either directly by
>acting on our minds, or indirectly by acting on those preconditions
>which influence our minds to make the choices. If the god has the
>power to change our choices, then the choices we are making must be
the
>ones it chooses for us.
The universe can be likened to an unbiased game board, in a game played
out between the God and the Devil, in which finite energies (our souls)
choose between being selfish, or selfless.
As I said, both can inspire you, though neither is going to effectively
eliminate your choice, that is the whole point of the game.
God isn't going to throw the board up in the air, and decide not to
play any more. It is Just.
>If omniscient, then the god knew, when it created the universe (I
>presume this to be part of your worldview; please correct me if I'm
>wrong) exactly how everything - and I mean everything, down to the
>tiniest subatomic particle - would turn out. It chose to go through
>with the creation in the way it did, meaning that it is responsible
for
>everything. The bad stuff, too - not just the good stuff.
The universe is unbiased, it isn't kind, but it isn't spiteful.
I'm not sure of the 'bad stuff' you are referring to. If it is stuff
done by humans, then it is because humans chose to be selfish.
someone2
It doesn't, as I said, as an atheist you could logically hold the view
that effects have causes, in which case it does imply determinism, or
you could hold the view that there are effects without cause.
Graham Kennedy
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Nothing incorrect about that. It's what atheism is.
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
But "If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause
and effect" is one hell of a big if, and one that many
atheists do not subscribe to.
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
Indeed.
> The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
> without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
> have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
> of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
> wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
> science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
>
> Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
> without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
Ah, and you are arguing that because we cannot know
for certain that a thing is not random, then it must
in fact not be random? Quite a leap of logic there!
Equally, I could say that when we think there is a
cause and effect explanation for ANY given phenomena,
we may find in the future that we were mistaken and that
the phenomena is in fact random. So therefore by your
logic all things must be random and there is not such
thing as cause and effect!
> If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
> something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
> history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
> no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
> shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
>
> Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
> 'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
> http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
> determinism (where effects have a cause):
>
> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
> in quantum mechanics."
And on the same logic, proving determinism in any
situation is impossible. Indeed, since science cannot
ever be certain about anything then by this "logic"
it is and forever will be impossible to prove anything
about anything, so we may as well all give up and go
home.
> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>
> So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely governed
> by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
> either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
> there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
> cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
> case of not believing in God or gods.
This is also wrong.
For instance, one might lack belief in god and
so be an atheist, and yet simply have no opinion
on the matter you discuss.
Or one might be an atheist and just not care
whether it makes sense or not by your argument.
Or one may accept that your argument is valid (hey,
don't laugh, it could happen!), and say what the
hell, I'm an atheist anyway.
You see, atheism is just lack of theism. It doesn't
have to be defensible, it doesn't have to be logical,
it doesn't have to involve having or lacking any other
belief, it doesn't involve following any moral code.
All those things CAN be true for an atheist, but they
are not necessary for it.
It's really very simple - lack theism, you're an
atheist.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
But you said in your opening statement:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
Which is to say, that you are attempting to ADD to the classic
definition of an atheist.
And despite your best attempt in install YOUR limited version and view,
the definition and position of the atheist, has not changed.
An atheist is a person with out faith in gods.
What comes after that, has nothing to do with being an atheist, there
for, it is not a lie.
Now, do you plan to apologize to all the atheists that post here, for
calling them liars?
Jon.
someone2 wrote:
> >Surely an omniscient being knows what I'm going to have for
breakfast
> >tomorrow (or even if I will still be alive for breakfast)? If this
> >god
> >can't see into the future, that's not much omniscience. It also
> >pretty
> >well undermines all prophecy. Do you really want to give up that
much
> >ground?
>
> As I said, it can only know what is to be known.
>
> It doesn't undermine prophecy. For example there could have been a
> prophecy that one day mankind will be able to fly. This would rely on
> nothing more than an understanding of
> the laws that govern our universe, and an understanding of man's
thirst
> for knowledge.
That's not a prophecy, that's a prediction. Prophecies, such as those
set out in the Bible (old and new Testaments), the Koran, and other
"holy" books, are much more specific and are always aimed at something
with religious significance.
Many prophecies concern people and what they will do. These prophecies
are claimed to be divinely inspired (ie. by a god). They are written
down as parts of books that are claimed by their followers to be
perfectly true because they are the words of a god. If the prophecies
are to be true, then the god must have knowledge of the future. If
they are not true, then either the god is a liar or he did not inspire
the people who wrote them down.
I note you have avoided my argument about a circumscribed omniscience
being incompatible with omnipotence.
> >> God wouldn't interfere with our lives in such a way as to nullify
> >>the
> >> laws of cause and effect.
>
> >There go miracles.
>
> I have been told that the river crossed by Moses does in fact become
so
> shallow at sometimes that people are able to cross on foot. That he
was
> inspired to lead the people out of Egypt at such a time could be
> considered a miracle.
Or maybe he had direct knowledge of the behaviour of the river.
There are many other claimed miracles that are not so easy to explain
away. Also, reducing miracles to simply divine inspiration robs them
of much of their power.
> >There goes, too, any possibility of our ever being able to
distinguish
>
> >between a god-ruled universe and one where pure cause-and-effect
> >govern.
>
> Religion requires faith. You'd have to take it on faith, that if you
> voluntarily jump from a tall building, it wasn't your fixed destiny
and
> that there was nothing you could do to have not jumped, it was simply
> your choice.
I don't quite follow you here. The way I see it, if you jump from a
tall building, then one of two things is true:
1) There is a god, and the god wanted you to jump. If it did not, it
would have prevented you from doing so (barring the door to the roof,
giving you an inspiration to keep living, etc.).
2) There is no god and the laws of cause and effect apply. Your
jumping is inevitable because of all of the preconditions - your
personality, your mindset that day, etc. - and all the preconditions to
those preconditions and so on.
Either way, it may *feel* like an exercise of free will, but only
because you did not know for sure the day before (or even the minute
before) that you would jump.
Choice does not equal free will. Our choices are caused by our
genetics, personality, situation, etc.
> >> God and the Devil, would only interfere with our lives through
> >> inspiration. Our souls would be free to choose how to act on that
> >> inspiration, and whether to act selflessly or selfishly.
>
> >Hold on. Are you giving the Devil the power to be outside
> >cause-and-effect as well? Are there two gods being posited here?
>
> It depends on what you call a god? As I said, your soul is also
outside
> of cause-and-effect, does that make you a god?
>
> Our souls are finite, both God and the Devil are infinite. You can
> never be on the wavelength of the Devil though, you would have to
love
> the Devil as much as it loves itself, and to love another is to be on
a
> different wavelength to the Devil.
"Both God and the Devil are infinite."? That would make them equal.
The Devil is therefore equally deserving of the title "god".
> >> It would more of a case that our choices could upset God.
>
> >Again, this requires that the god not be omnipotent or omniscient.
If
>
> >omnipotent, it has the power to change our choices either directly
by
> >acting on our minds, or indirectly by acting on those preconditions
> >which influence our minds to make the choices. If the god has the
> >power to change our choices, then the choices we are making must be
> >the ones it chooses for us.
>
> The universe can be likened to an unbiased game board, in a game
played
> out between the God and the Devil, in which finite energies (our
souls)
> choose between being selfish, or selfless.
If the game is being played by God and the Devil, how can it be that we
are making the choices?
> As I said, both can inspire you, though neither is going to
effectively
> eliminate your choice, that is the whole point of the game.
>
> God isn't going to throw the board up in the air, and decide not to
> play any more. It is Just.
>
> >If omniscient, then the god knew, when it created the universe (I
> >presume this to be part of your worldview; please correct me if I'm
> >wrong) exactly how everything - and I mean everything, down to the
> >tiniest subatomic particle - would turn out. It chose to go through
> >with the creation in the way it did, meaning that it is responsible
> >for everything. The bad stuff, too - not just the good stuff.
>
> The universe is unbiased, it isn't kind, but it isn't spiteful.
Since the universe is the sum total of everything that is, it is by
definition not biased.
> I'm not sure of the 'bad stuff' you are referring to. If it is stuff
> done by humans, then it is because humans chose to be selfish.
Well, I listed it in my first post. Those things were done by humans,
and could have been prevented by an omnipotent god. Since no god chose
to prevent them, either there is no god or the god chose for those
things to happen.
It seems you are backing further and further away from the positions
held by any of the organized religions I know of. You are getting
close to deism. Do you wish to continue?
Icebreaker
> The atheist lie, [blah blah]
Oh great, another person who knows nothing about science attempts to
crossover science with theology. Please, do us a favour: learn a little more
about any specific scientific field before starting to make all these
nonsensical claims of grandeur.
Icebreaker
Mike Painter
>> That particular dilemna has been scientifically resolved, at least
>> to our best ability at present, by the presence of randomness in
>> quantum physics.
>
> As I said:
>
You continue to say the same thing.
If you are going to quote from the bit of philosophy that you offer as
science, you should quote the section where the writer says that his work is
metaphysical.
But if you really believe this just predict the decay of a radioactive
substance or draw a picture of somebody's finger prints before birth.
Mike Painter
>
> I have been told that the river crossed by Moses does in fact become
> so shallow at sometimes that people are able to cross on foot. That
> he was inspired to lead the people out of Egypt at such a time could
> be considered a miracle.
What river and why would knowing about a ford be considered a miracle?
Of course modern theology, geology and archeology ask, What Moses?
Doc Smartass
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Subject: The Atheist Lie
Shaddup, bitch.
--
Dr. Smartass -- BAAWA Knight of Heckling -- a.a. #1939
Never use a weapon you don't like the taste of.
Steve Knight
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The atheist lie, is.........
I've never masturbated in my life!
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
glenn....@btinternet.com
Google account.
>with religious significance.
Don't forget, I allow for God to consider a multiverse of possibilities
of what we will do, so something like Peter denying Jesus three times
before the cock crows, could have been forseen to have happened,
through knowing Peter, and what he was likely to do.
>I note you have avoided my argument about a circumscribed omniscience
>being incompatible with omnipotence.
I haven't avoided it, I have simply said that God could be omniscient
in the sense that it knows all that can be known. It can even consider
all possibilities for the future. If you don't wish to count that as
being omniscient, then that's your choice.
>> I have been told that the river crossed by Moses does in fact become
>>so
>> shallow at sometimes that people are able to cross on foot. That he
>>was
>> inspired to lead the people out of Egypt at such a time could be
>> considered a miracle.
>Or maybe he had direct knowledge of the behaviour of the river.
Maybe, though as we agreed, we are talking hypothetically here, so it
is not a case of me providing evidence of one solution over the other.
>There are many other claimed miracles that are not so easy to explain
>away. Also, reducing miracles to simply divine inspiration robs them
>of much of their power.
The harder the miracle is to explain away by divine inspiration, surely
just points to the fact that the inspiration must have been divine. Not
simply a case of Moses having knowledge of the river for example.
>>>There goes, too, any possibility of our ever being able to
>>> distinguish
>>>between a god-ruled universe and one where pure cause-and-effect
>>>govern.
>> Religion requires faith. You'd have to take it on faith, that if you
>> voluntarily jump from a tall building, it wasn't your fixed destiny
>>and
>> that there was nothing you could do to have not jumped, it was
simply
>> your choice.
>I don't quite follow you here. The way I see it, if you jump from a
>tall building, then one of two things is true:
>1) There is a god, and the god wanted you to jump. If it did not, it
>would have prevented you from doing so (barring the door to the roof,
>giving you an inspiration to keep living, etc.).
I have already said, maybe it doesn't break the rules of the physical
universe, it would be against the rules of the game. You will always be
provided with an alternative to jumping. If you jump, it is because you
chose to.
>2) There is no god and the laws of cause and effect apply. Your
>jumping is inevitable because of all of the preconditions - your
>personality, your mindset that day, etc. - and all the preconditions
to
>those preconditions and so on.
Exactly, it was predetermined that you would jump, from the time of the
'Big Bang' and that there was nothing you could have done to not have
jumped.
>Either way, it may *feel* like an exercise of free will, but only
>because you did not know for sure the day before (or even the minute
>before) that you would jump.
The difference, is that with one perspective you think that you had a
choice in jumping, in the other it was predetermined that you would,
and that there was nothing you could have done not to have jumped.
>Choice does not equal free will. Our choices are caused by our
>genetics, personality, situation, etc.
Maybe, maybe not, as we agreed though, it is not going to be about
producing evidence either way.
>"Both God and the Devil are infinite."? That would make them equal.
>The Devil is therefore equally deserving of the title "god".
I'm sure satanists would agree with you.
>If the game is being played by God and the Devil, how can it be that
we
>are making the choices?
Consider it as an experiment, to determine which it is better to be.
Selfless, or selfish.
>> I'm not sure of the 'bad stuff' you are referring to. If it is stuff
>> done by humans, then it is because humans chose to be selfish.
>Well, I listed it in my first post. Those things were done by humans,
>and could have been prevented by an omnipotent god. Since no god
chose
>to prevent them, either there is no god or the god chose for those
>things to happen.
As I said, it is a game, an experiment. As I said, people chose for
those things to happen. The are free to chose what they do within the
game. If they weren't they wouldn't be responsible for what they did.
>It seems you are backing further and further away from the positions
>held by any of the organized religions I know of. You are getting
>close to deism. Do you wish to continue?
I'm quite happy to. Do you?
Christopher A. Lee
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
>atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
>involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
That was the theist lie about atheists. Repeated by an in-your-face
nasty bigot who can't live and let live.
glenn....@btinternet.com
>for certain that a thing is not random, then it must
>in fact not be random? Quite a leap of logic there!
No I am arguing that the history of science points towards there being
causes behind effects, and where things have seemed to be random, it
has been shown that it has been down to our ignorance.
There might indeed be randomness, but it is the same argument as put
forward for the 'God of the Gap'. The space both exist in, just gets
smaller and smaller, the more we know. If we reach a point that we find
it harder to explain, the history of science suggests it is down to our
ignorance, but maybe it isn't, how could you tell.
>It's really very simple - lack theism, you're an
>atheist.
The post wasn't about the definition of an atheist, it is about the
logical positions that an atheist can hold.
I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that their
destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
glenn....@btinternet.com
>calling them liars?
If you can show me how an atheist can logically believe that their
future isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have causes, then
I will apologise, for then there would be no restrictions on the
positions that an atheist can logically hold, and what I claimed was a
total falsehood.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
You claimed that there was a lie, about atheists, and what they don't
believe in.
Do I need to post it again, and point out where you are wrong? Or are
you going to grown up to admit you are off on a tangent that has nothing
to do with atheism?
keit...@yahoo.com
I hope you don't mind me jumping in; I tell you I am a Christian so you
can have some idea how to take my comments. Let me say right now that I
am giving you *my* view but that knowing how fallible I am I have no
right to any arrogance I might feel tempted toward.
(snip)
>
> > If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
> then
> > given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> > your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change
it.
> >
> > If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> > universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
be
> > effects without causes.
>
> I agree.
I'm not sure about that. For one thing, assuming the Big Bang was the
1st cause--the input--then *it* at least wasn't the result of a cause
so the model you proposed as "pure cause and effect" allows for some
event to be not caused by something else. Given that, I don't see why
agent causality--free agents making decisions, choosing their own
inputs that produce singular outputs--wouldn't be oure cause and
effect. That a person isn't *caused* to make his choice doesn't seem
any more problematic than the 1st cause not itself being caused. The
view you called "pure cause and effect" doesn't say that every input
has to be an output of some other cause.
> > The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
> > without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious
people
> > have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the
'God
> > of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
> > wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history
of
> > science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our
ignorance.
>
> Absolutely true.
I don't agree. In the past people said lightning was caused by God; now
scientifsts say lightning is caused by atmospheric conditions, by water
molecules following the laws of physics. But those aren't mutually
exclusive claims--it could be that God caused the laws of physics and
the atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, if the laws of physics
determine the exact path of all matter in the universe (given the
initial conditions) then taht woudl preclude free agents from causing
the matter in their bodies to move differently from how the laws of
physics forced it to move. That *would* preclude agent causality
(except for God who could presumably change the laws of physics).
>
> > Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are
> effects
> > without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> > simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>
> Right. We will keep learning more and more as long as we can,
closing
> the gaps in our knowledge as we go.
You seem very confident that our knowledge will continue to progress,
that our epistemological gas tank won't run out of gas. But I would
suggest there can be no evidence for this and your belief in such
progress is an expression of faith. I share that faith BTW
>
>(snip a bunch for space)
> >
> > I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
> > destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
> > understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
>
> I would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
> seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
> fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
>
> If there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, one who is omniscient,
then
> that god knows the fates of each one of us. That means those fates
are
> fixed just as surely as if cause-and-effect determinism is true.
> Either way, we have no real say. It feels like we do, because we
don't
> know what's coming next, but we don't.
I would not agree. I think perhaps my problem with your statement is
calling the future "fixed". By definition the future is "what WILL be".
As a matter of logic, only one of a set of mutually exclusive
alternatives will be, regardles of whether all events are caused by a
single initial input, or are caused by a set of free decisions by free
creatures, or are sheer random events. The idea of *changing* the
future is thus a contradiction, if you make it so that X won't happen
in the future then X wasn't "what will be" in the first place. It seems
to me that saying the future is fixed is the negation of saying that
the future can be changed, but since changing the future is a
contradiction then so is the idea of the future being fixed.
It seems to me that the question of freedom is a question about
causality and nothing else. And I don't see how God knowing in advance
what you will do implies that you and your free decisions didn't cause
those future actions. In a deterministic universe, your actions were
caused by the 1st cause--the initial conditions, the input--and are not
freely chosen. But if that isn't the case and yet God still knows in
advance what you will do, then I don't see how his knowledge really has
anything to do with whether or not your action was free.
>
> Further, if such a god interferes with our lives in such a way as to
> nullify the laws of cause and effect, then such a god must be
"exempt"
> from those laws. Is such a thing possible? If the god is not
exempt,
> then it is just another cause, with preceding causes, etc. Turtles
all
> the way down.
I would say that God can change the laws of physics so he could change
what effect would result from an input. I'm not sure quite whatt
changing the law of cause and effect would mean.
>
> If the god is exempt from the laws of cause and effect, what laws is
it
> subject to? If none, then it is omnipotent. If omnipotent and
> omniscient, it has the power to change anything in any way it wishes.
> It would then be impossible to "displease" or "anger" such a god,
> because the entire universe must, logically, be in exactly the
> condition that god wishes it to be in.
I don't agree. I don't see why God couldn't know in advance that you
would freely do A instead of B and yet if he had his druthers you'd
freely do B. But it would be a contradiction for *God* to make you
freely do B and omnipotence doesn't require his doing contradictions.
>
> Meaning:
> - God wanted Terri Schiavo to die the way she did
> - God wanted George Bush to invade Iraq
> - God wanted Osama Bin Laden to blow up the WTC
> - God wanted Hitler to kill 6 million Jews
> - etc., etc.
I don't agree with the above. I would say that God did allow all of the
above so he must have seen that it was better that *he* allow it those
things than that *he* prevent them. But this might just be a function
of it being better that the folks involved be free wrt those things
than that God prevent them from being free. It might have been *best*
if the free agents were free and chose the right thing, but demanding
that God force that to happen is a contradiction.
Or so it seems to ignorant ol' me
keith
>
> Is that the kind of God you want me to believe in? I think not. I'd
> rather go on being a deterministic (and determined) atheist.
>
> Comments?
>
> Jon.
> aa #703
someone3
quite clearly about the logical positions atheists can hold. If you are
claiming that the only logical position that an atheist can't hold is a
Big Bucket
news:1112315110.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>Till that time however, you don't have a clue, what an atheist is.
>
> I can and did show the only two positions that an atheist can logically
> hold.
No, and you didn't answer any of his questions, either.
> If you disagree with what I said, then show me an alternative
> logical position.
"I don't know."
Funny how honesty never occurs to the Apologist Propogandist, isn't it?
> Explain to me how an atheist can logically believe that effects have
> causes,
The same way anyone can - evidence. Just as we have strong evidence of
uncaused events, despite your pathetic handwaving.
> and that their destiny is not fixed.
By what?
Be specific, and for once in your life, back it up with something other
than your fevered imagination.
Fred Stone
news:1112315199....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>>This baseless assertion has nothing to do with the definition
>>of an ordinary word like 'atheist'.
>
> I'm not talking about the definition of the word atheist. I am talking
> about the logical positions that an atheist can hold.
>
First off, an atheist doesn't have to hold a logical position at all. And
if he does, it isn't limited by your simplistic lack of understanding.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
Fred Stone
news:1112315535.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>> So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely
>>> governed by the laws which govern the physical plan),
>
>>This is not the atheist position. Atheists are free to believe in
>>whatever supernatural realms they wish just so long as no gods are
>>involved.
>
> I suppose it depends on whether you define beings that operate within
> supernatural realm gods.
>
> With regards to fairies making the wind etc, notice that I used the
> word 'logically', throughout.
>
"Logic" and "supernatural realms" do not belong in the same discussion.
Fred Stone
news:1112322367....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>Ah, and you are arguing that because we cannot know
>>for certain that a thing is not random, then it must
>>in fact not be random? Quite a leap of logic there!
>
> No I am arguing that the history of science points towards there being
> causes behind effects, and where things have seemed to be random, it
> has been shown that it has been down to our ignorance.
>
You keep repeating this, even though you have been shown that you are
incorrect.
> There might indeed be randomness, but it is the same argument as put
> forward for the 'God of the Gap'. The space both exist in, just gets
> smaller and smaller, the more we know. If we reach a point that we
> find it harder to explain, the history of science suggests it is down
> to our ignorance, but maybe it isn't, how could you tell.
>
By identifying what we don't know.
>>It's really very simple - lack theism, you're an
>>atheist.
>
> The post wasn't about the definition of an atheist, it is about the
> logical positions that an atheist can hold.
>
> I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that
> their destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a
> cause.
>
By understanding that a "fixed destiny" doesn't mean a damned thing in a
quantum mechanical universe.
Fred Stone
news:1112315110.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>Till that time however, you don't have a clue, what an atheist is.
>
> I can and did show the only two positions that an atheist can logically
> hold. If you disagree with what I said, then show me an alternative
> logical position.
>
Been there, done that. You seem to be completely resistant to learning any
damned thing about us.
> Explain to me how an atheist can logically believe that effects have
> causes, and that their destiny is not fixed.
>
We are an intimate part of the chain of causation of our own destiny.
Fred Stone
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
I seriously doubt that anyone can show you anything, since you have
repeated failed to acknowledge such demonstrations.
Fred Stone
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>
That is not a lie.
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
> then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
> Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
> change it.
>
Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for a
given input.
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
>
Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
> The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
> without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
> have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
> of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
> wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
> science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
>
Not true. You keep repeating that, and it *still* isn't true. Your
misinterpretations of Bohm and Bricmont are not proof to the contrary.
> Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
> without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>
We can know that there are no causes.
> If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
> something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
> history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
> no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
> shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
>
> Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
> 'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
> http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
> determinism (where effects have a cause):
>
> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
> in quantum mechanics."
>
> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>
Been there, done that. It's not Bricmont who went wrong, it is *you* who
do not understand his writings. You *still* haven't responded to my
posts about that, except to repeat your same erroneous
misunderstandings.
> So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely
> governed by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe
> that either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and
> that there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects
> without cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not
> simply a case of not believing in God or gods.
>
"Effects without causes" are not against the weight of scientific
evidence. In fact we can identify several such effects and we can
determine with experimental certainty that they are not caused.
> To hold the view that there is something other than the physical
> plane, is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in
> which there is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in
> (against the weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
>
The problem with this argument is that our destiny, fixed or not, is
dependant upon what we do. It is simply logically void of meaning to say
that we can "change our destiny", whether in a deterministic or a non-
deterministic universe. Anything we do to "change it" was always part of
the future anyway. The future will be what it will be, "determined" or
not.
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
> Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
> Symposium", 1941
>
> I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
> destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
> understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
>
We understand logically that your position is neither logical nor in
accord with the scientific evidence.
Elf M. Sternberg
> With regards to fairies making the wind etc, notice that I used the
> word 'logically', throughout.
You would have had more luck with this article if you had
accurately labeled the position against which you argue "metaphysical
naturalism."
Elf
pan
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
>atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
>involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>
>If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
>given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
>your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
>If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
>effects without causes.
Huh?
>
>The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
>without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
>have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
>of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
>wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
>science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
>
>Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
>without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
>simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>
>If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
>something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
>history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
>no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
>shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
Try this:
Natural processes 'caused' the big bang. And these natural processes
have always been around (e.g. Laws of Nature in one form or another.).
I see no valid reason to assume that these 'processes' would have
to be some sort of sentient 'supernatural' Being.
e.g. The only form of intelligence/sentience, that we know of,
appears to have developed (over billions of years) from simpler
non-sentient life-forms. 'Intelligence' is most likely just one of a
multitude of evolutionary adaptations (e.g. for survival).
pan
>
>Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
>'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
>http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/files/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says of
>determinism (where effects have a cause):
>
>"To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
>essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
>that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
>in quantum mechanics."
>
>For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
>he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>
>So, to logically hold the atheist position (that we are purely governed
>by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
>either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
>there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
>cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
>case of not believing in God or gods.
>
>To hold the view that there is something other than the physical plane,
>is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which there
>is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
>weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
>
Don Kresch
<glenn....@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
[snip lie told about atheists]
Oh look--nothing posted but a lie.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Prism
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that their
> destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
>
Then you are experiencing a very similar problem to that of the atheiest
when s/he tries to understand how a theist can logically hold the belief
that God made everthing, knows the future, knows what everyone will do and
knows how it's all going to turn out (Revelations) and still believe you
have free will.
If you can answer that question it could quite possibly lead to the answer
to your own question.
By the way, is it nescesary to call people names (i.e. liers) just because
you fail to understand them? It just makes you sound rather antagonistic.
Virgil
pan <couchslothsnake-...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are effects
> >without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> >simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
In QM here are effects without known causes, nor any reason to suppose
that there are knowable causes for these effects.
Santolina chamaecyparissus
Steve Knight <wo...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:e9bp41pi4b6jvakau...@4ax.com...
> On 31 Mar 2005 15:30:54 -0800, "someone2"
> <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >The atheist lie, is.........
>
> I've never masturbated in my life!
>
Scott Baio is the Antichrist!
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
PlanetEarth
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
That's right!
No Imaginary ghosts, gods, or ancient man-made fears.
You poor brainwashed asshole.
raven1
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>Why does atheism imply determinism?
>
>It doesn't, as I said, as an atheist you could logically hold the view
>that effects have causes, in which case it does imply determinism, or
>you could hold the view that there are effects without cause.
And this differs from theism how? I fail to see what your point is.
Graham Kennedy
>>Ah, and you are arguing that because we cannot know
>>for certain that a thing is not random, then it must
>>in fact not be random? Quite a leap of logic there!
>
>
> No I am arguing that the history of science points towards there being
> causes behind effects, and where things have seemed to be random, it
> has been shown that it has been down to our ignorance.
But this in no way assures us that we will continue
to find this is true for other apparently random
processes.
>>It's really very simple - lack theism, you're an
>>atheist.
>
> The post wasn't about the definition of an atheist, it is about the
> logical positions that an atheist can hold.
>
> I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that their
> destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
Maybe, maybe not. But atheism doesn't have to be
logically defensible for people to be atheists.
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
someone3
their
>> destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
>Maybe, maybe not. But atheism doesn't have to be
>logically defensible for people to be atheists.
The post wasn't about the definition of atheists though. It was clearly
Robibnikoff
"someone3" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112350443.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
BTW, you are a nyme-shifting shit. How dishonest.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
someone3
>> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
>> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>That's right!
>No Imaginary ghosts, gods, or ancient man-made fears.
>You poor brainwashed asshole.
If you are suggesting that belief in 'Imaginary ghosts, gods, or
ancient man-made fears' is the only logical position that athiests
cannot hold, then you are perpetuating the lie.
If that is what you are suggesting, please enlighten me as to how an
atheist could logically hold the position that their future isn't
fixed, and yet believe that effects have a cause.
If you can, I will apologise for the post.
someone3
>> then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
>> Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
>> change it.
>Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for
a
>given input.
Your saying that these non-deterministic systems are governed purely by
cause and effect are you? If you can show me how a system can be purely
governed by cause and effect, and have more than one outcome, then I am
indeed incorrect, otherwise you are for suggesting I was.
>> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
be
>> effects without causes.
>Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
I never said it did, I said that to have more than one possible
outcome, it can't be governed by purely cause and effect.
>We can know that there are no causes.
Really how? How can we ever know that it isn't a case of us simply
being ignorant as to the cause?
>> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
determinism
>> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
>> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory
or
>> in quantum mechanics."
>> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read
what
>> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>Been there, done that. It's not Bricmont who went wrong, it is *you*
who
>do not understand his writings. You *still* haven't responded to my
>posts about that, except to repeat your same erroneous
>misunderstandings.
So you agree with his conclusion then do you, that there is not the
slightest argument in favour of refuting determinism in chaos theory or
quantum mechanics?
[I think Fred if you look at the post "To All Christians: Prove your
case!" it is you that haven't responded, or at least your response
doesn't seem to be showing up on Google. Anyway, it doesn't matter, as
you're going to answer me here I presume.]
Graham Kennedy
>>>I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that
>
> their
>
>>>destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
>
>
>
>>Maybe, maybe not. But atheism doesn't have to be
>>logically defensible for people to be atheists.
>
>
> The post wasn't about the definition of atheists though.
But that particular part of my response was.
someone3
>But that particular part of my response was.
The only other part of your post was:
>>No I am arguing that the history of science points towards there
being
>>causes behind effects, and where things have seemed to be random, it
>>has been shown that it has been down to our ignorance.
>But this in no way assures us that we will continue
>to find this is true for other apparently random
>processes.
I never said it did, as I said in the part you creatively snipped:
Therion Ware
On 1 Apr 2005 02:14:03 -0800 in alt.atheism, someone3 ("someone3"
<glenn....@btinternet.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Well, despite what you've said, at some length, I really don't see
that your position shows that lack of belief in a God necessarily
implies determinism or that belief in a God (or its actual existence)
necessarily implies freedom.
That said, you do raise at least by implication, some interesting
issues, one of which is "is a deterministic universe necessarily and
in principle predictable in detail?".
If the universe is deterministic but not in principle predictable in
detail, what does "deterministic" mean if all things are "fated" to
happen but we cannot say what will happen? The difference that makes
no difference *is* no difference, perhaps?
More generally, do all effects have causes? What about the universe?
To assume to universe had a cause is to assume that causality was in
some way "preexistent" to the universe when we have very good grounds
to think that causality is a product of the universe, rather in the
way space and time are.. Which to say that to my mind assuming the
universe requires a cause is a trifle circular.
And then there's the biggie! "Does God have Free Will?".
Suppose I know everything. Suppose I can do anything. Suppose I have
desires! Am I compelled to take the most causally efficient route to
archive what I desire? If so, "free will" is an artifact of ignorance
and the more you know the less freedom you have.
Which is worth thinking about, if you've had a few!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
someone3
>> then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
>> Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
>> change it.
>Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for
a
>given input.
Your saying that these non-deterministic systems are governed purely by
cause and effect are you? If you can show me how a system can be purely
governed by cause and effect, and have more than one outcome, then I
indeed incorrect, otherwise you are for suggesting
I was.
>> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
be
>> effects without causes.
>Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
I never said it did, I said that to have more than one possible
outcome, it can't be governed by purely cause and effect.
>We can know that there are no causes.
Really how? How can we ever know that it isn't a case of us simply
being ignorant as to the cause?
>> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
determinism
>> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
>> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory
or
>> in quantum mechanics."
>> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read
what
>> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>Been there, done that. It's not Bricmont who went wrong, it is *you*
who
>do not understand his writings. You *still* haven't responded to my
>posts about that, except to repeat your same erroneous
>misunderstandings.
So you agree with his conclusion then do you, that there is not the
someone3
>> then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
>> Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
>> change it.
>Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for
a
>given input.
Your saying that these non-deterministic systems are governed purely by
cause and effect are you? If you can show me how a system can be purely
governed by cause and effect, and have more than one outcome, then I
indeed incorrect, otherwise you are for suggesting
I was.
>> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
be
>> effects without causes.
>Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
I never said it did, I said that to have more than one possible
outcome, it can't be governed by purely cause and effect.
>We can know that there are no causes.
Really how? How can we ever know that it isn't a case of us simply
being ignorant as to the cause?
>> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
determinism
>> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
>> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory
or
>> in quantum mechanics."
>> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read
what
>> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>Been there, done that. It's not Bricmont who went wrong, it is *you*
who
>do not understand his writings. You *still* haven't responded to my
>posts about that, except to repeat your same erroneous
>misunderstandings.
So you agree with his conclusion then do you, that there is not the
someone3
>>It doesn't, as I said, as an atheist you could logically hold the
view
>>that effects have causes, in which case it does imply determinism, or
>>you could hold the view that there are effects without cause.
>And this differs from theism how? I fail to see what your point is.
With theism, you could believe that effects do have causes, and that
the universe is deterministic up until choice is demonstrated.
So you could believe in a universe that is governed by
cause-and-effect, but also that you have a soul which is above these
physical laws (which were created by God to govern the physical plane),
so your future is not fixed, the choices you (or others) make, will
effect your future.
In atheism, you can't logically hold the view that effects have causes,
and not believe that your whole life was predetermined from the time of
the 'Big Bang'.
Therion Ware
On 1 Apr 2005 03:09:06 -0800 in alt.atheism, someone3 ("someone3"
<glenn....@btinternet.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Do you think it's possible for you to include the attributation when
you post?
someone3
effects
>>>without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
>>>simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>In QM here are effects without known causes, nor any reason to suppose
>that there are knowable causes for these effects.
As I went on to say:
>>>If the 'Gap' were actually real, then this is strong evidence of
>>>something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
>>>history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There
is
>>>no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just
the
>>>shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of
science.
>>>Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
>>> 'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
>>> http://www.fyma.ucl.ac.be/file s/Turin.pdf ) (top of page 27) says
someone3
>Natural processes 'caused' the big bang. And these natural processes
>have always been around (e.g. Laws of Nature in one form or another.).
>I see no valid reason to assume that these 'processes' would have
>to be some sort of sentient 'supernatural' Being.
>e.g. The only form of intelligence/sentience, that we know of,
>appears to have developed (over billions of years) from simpler
>non-sentient life-forms. 'Intelligence' is most likely just one of a
>multitude of evolutionary adaptations (e.g. for survival).
Maybe you're right, who knows?
The point of the post was to illustrate that being an atheist,
"believing in God or gods" is not the only logical viewpoint that an
atheist cannot hold.
They cannot logically hold the position that the universe we see around
us is purely governed by cause-and-effect, and also believe that their
future was not pre-determined from the time of the 'Big Bang', and that
there is nothing they can do to change it.
If you can show me how they could logically hold the above position,
then I will post an apology.
someone3
>you post?
Hi Therion Ware, sorry, I will try to remember to do so in future. If
you look at the post through Google beta edition, it should become
clear. I've posted the link below:
Graham Kennedy
>>>The post wasn't about the definition of atheists though.
>
>
>>But that particular part of my response was.
>
>
> The only other part of your post was:
If you think that's the only other thing I said,
perhaps you need to re-read the post.
John Baker
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
Are you really this stupid, or are you just pretending? You clearly
have no clue as to what atheism actually is.
And stop modifying your nic to escape killfiles. Only trolls do that.
Jez
>>>Explain to me how an atheist can logically believe that effects have
>
>
>>>causes, and that their destiny is not fixed.
>
>
>>Has nothing to do with being an atheist.
>>A = with out
>>theism = faith or belief in god(s)
>
>
> The post isn't about the definition of atheism, it is about the
> positions an atheist can logically hold.
>
How can one logically hold the position that God exists ?
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
Jez
>>That's not a lie, liar.
>
>
> Well argued. Just incase you didn't understand, I'm not talking about
> the definition of atheism, I'm talking about the positions atheists can
> logically hold.
Why focus on atheists ? What logical positions could Christians hold ?
>
> Maybe you can explain how an atheist can logically hold the position
> that their destiny is not fixed, and also believe that effects have a
> cause.
Your confused effects have causes, doesn't mean 'destiny', (Whatever the
fuck that is.), is fixed.
Christopher A. Lee
>glenn....@btinternet.com wrote in news:1112322367.406633.27970
>@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>
>> I fail to see how an atheist can logically hold the position that their
>> destiny isn't fixed, and also believe that all effects have a cause.
>>
>
>Then you are experiencing a very similar problem to that of the atheiest
>when s/he tries to understand how a theist can logically hold the belief
>that God made everthing, knows the future, knows what everyone will do and
>knows how it's all going to turn out (Revelations) and still believe you
>have free will.
Spiel is a binary thinking idiot who attributes a strawman position to
everybody else, that is a caricature opposite of his. About things
that would never even occur to them.
Like a lot of religionists, he imagines his doctrinal "answers" are to
"questions" that everybody has, because he can't think outside the box
where his "issues" are irrelevant.
glenn....@btinternet.com
>have no clue as to what atheism actually is.
The post isn't about a definition of atheism John. All it is about, is
that for the logical atheist, the position that there is a God or
gods, is not the only logical position that they are unable to hold.
They are also unable to logically hold the position that the universe
is purely governed by cause-and-effect, and that their future is not
fixed. If you can show me how they can logically hold that position, I
will post an apology.
>And stop modifying your nic to escape killfiles. Only trolls do that.
The reason I am modifying my nic, and using a different email address,
is that Google keeps telling me that I am unable to post because I have
posted too many mails in too short a time period. Though the amount of
mails, and the time period is not specified, nor is it clear whether my
account is permanently blocked. It has just happened again, so I am now
onto someone4.
See:
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=15331&topic=245
DanielSan
Why are you so hard up on this, someone? The universe CAN exist with
cause-and-effect _AND_ not fixed. Why is this so hard for you to
understand?
DanielSan
>>>If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
>>>then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
>>>Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
>>>change it.
>
>
>>Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for
>
> a
>
>>given input.
>
>
> Your saying that these non-deterministic systems are governed purely by
> cause and effect are you? If you can show me how a system can be purely
> governed by cause and effect, and have more than one outcome, then I am
> indeed incorrect, otherwise you are for suggesting I was.
Drop a droplet of water on the back of your hand. Watch how the droplet
runs down your hand. Study its path. Now, dry your hand.
Next, predict how the next droplet of water you drop on your hand will
go. Predict its path.
Next, drop the next droplet of water on the back of your hand. The
water takes a different path!
Cause-and-effect and different outcome.
I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.
>
>
>>>If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>>>universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
>
> be
>
>>>effects without causes.
>
>
>>Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
>
>
> I never said it did, I said that to have more than one possible
> outcome, it can't be governed by purely cause and effect.
Why not?
>
>
>>We can know that there are no causes.
>
>
> Really how? How can we ever know that it isn't a case of us simply
> being ignorant as to the cause?
Exactly, but "deterministic" universes have their own set of problems.
What causes A? I've never gotten a satisfactory response for this question.
DanielSan
Except that our lives were NOT predetermined from the time of the Big
Bang. Let me know if any of this is sinking in or not.
pan
>Hi Jon and Someone2
>
>I hope you don't mind me jumping in; I tell you I am a Christian so you
>can have some idea how to take my comments. Let me say right now that I
>am giving you *my* view but that knowing how fallible I am I have no
>right to any arrogance I might feel tempted toward.
>
>(snip)
>
>
>>
>> > If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
>> then
>> > given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
>> > your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change
>it.
>> >
>> > If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>> > universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
>be
>> > effects without causes.
>>
>> I agree.
>
>
>I'm not sure about that. For one thing, assuming the Big Bang was the
>1st cause--the input--then *it* at least wasn't the result of a cause
>so the model you proposed as "pure cause and effect" allows for some
>event to be not caused by something else. Given that, I don't see why
>agent causality--free agents making decisions, choosing their own
>inputs that produce singular outputs--wouldn't be oure cause and
>effect. That a person isn't *caused* to make his choice doesn't seem
>any more problematic than the 1st cause not itself being caused. The
>view you called "pure cause and effect" doesn't say that every input
>has to be an output of some other cause.
>
>
>
>> > The history of science has shown us, that where randomness(effects
>> > without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious
>people
>> > have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the
>'God
>> > of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
>> > wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history
>of
>> > science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our
>ignorance.
>>
>> Absolutely true.
>
>I don't agree. In the past people said lightning was caused by God; now
>scientifsts say lightning is caused by atmospheric conditions, by water
>molecules following the laws of physics. But those aren't mutually
>exclusive claims--it could be that God caused the laws of physics and
>the atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, if the laws of physics
>determine the exact path of all matter in the universe (given the
>initial conditions) then taht woudl preclude free agents from causing
>the matter in their bodies to move differently from how the laws of
>physics forced it to move. That *would* preclude agent causality
>(except for God who could presumably change the laws of physics).
>>
>> > Many try to argue that quantum mechanics, shows that there are
>> effects
>> > without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
>> > simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>>
>> Right. We will keep learning more and more as long as we can,
>closing
>> the gaps in our knowledge as we go.
>
>You seem very confident that our knowledge will continue to progress,
>that our epistemological gas tank won't run out of gas. But I would
>suggest there can be no evidence for this and your belief in such
>progress is an expression of faith. I share that faith BTW
>>
>>(snip a bunch for space)
>
>
>> >
>> > I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
>> > destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
>> > understand what logically holding the atheist position means.
>>
>> I would like to suggest interesting parallel to your argument, which
>> seems to be arguing that if we are to have true free will (ie. our
>> fates are not fixed), there must be a god or gods.
>>
>> If there is a Judeo-Christian-Islamist god, one who is omniscient,
>then
>> that god knows the fates of each one of us. That means those fates
>are
>> fixed just as surely as if cause-and-effect determinism is true.
>> Either way, we have no real say. It feels like we do, because we
>don't
>> know what's coming next, but we don't.
>
>I would not agree. I think perhaps my problem with your statement is
>calling the future "fixed". By definition the future is "what WILL be".
>As a matter of logic, only one of a set of mutually exclusive
>alternatives will be, regardles of whether all events are caused by a
>single initial input, or are caused by a set of free decisions by free
>creatures, or are sheer random events. The idea of *changing* the
>future is thus a contradiction, if you make it so that X won't happen
>in the future then X wasn't "what will be" in the first place. It seems
>to me that saying the future is fixed is the negation of saying that
>the future can be changed, but since changing the future is a
>contradiction then so is the idea of the future being fixed.
>
>It seems to me that the question of freedom is a question about
>causality and nothing else. And I don't see how God knowing in advance
>what you will do implies that you and your free decisions didn't cause
>those future actions. In a deterministic universe, your actions were
>caused by the 1st cause--the initial conditions, the input--and are not
>freely chosen. But if that isn't the case and yet God still knows in
>advance what you will do, then I don't see how his knowledge really has
>anything to do with whether or not your action was free.
>>
>> Further, if such a god interferes with our lives in such a way as to
>> nullify the laws of cause and effect, then such a god must be
>"exempt"
>> from those laws. Is such a thing possible? If the god is not
>exempt,
>> then it is just another cause, with preceding causes, etc. Turtles
>all
>> the way down.
>
>I would say that God can change the laws of physics so he could change
>what effect would result from an input. I'm not sure quite whatt
>changing the law of cause and effect would mean.
>>
>> If the god is exempt from the laws of cause and effect, what laws is
>it
>> subject to? If none, then it is omnipotent. If omnipotent and
>> omniscient, it has the power to change anything in any way it wishes.
>> It would then be impossible to "displease" or "anger" such a god,
>> because the entire universe must, logically, be in exactly the
>> condition that god wishes it to be in.
>
>I don't agree. I don't see why God couldn't know in advance that you
>would freely do A instead of B and yet if he had his druthers you'd
>freely do B. But it would be a contradiction for *God* to make you
>freely do B and omnipotence doesn't require his doing contradictions.
>>
>> Meaning:
>> - God wanted Terri Schiavo to die the way she did
>> - God wanted George Bush to invade Iraq
>> - God wanted Osama Bin Laden to blow up the WTC
>> - God wanted Hitler to kill 6 million Jews
>> - etc., etc.
>
>
>I don't agree with the above. I would say that God did allow all of the
>above so he must have seen that it was better that *he* allow it those
>things than that *he* prevent them. But this might just be a function
>of it being better that the folks involved be free wrt those things
>than that God prevent them from being free. It might have been *best*
>if the free agents were free and chose the right thing, but demanding
>that God force that to happen is a contradiction.
Hey Keith,
How goes it?
Do you believe that there are *specific* reasons why we choose to do
one thing and not another?
pan
>
>Or so it seems to ignorant ol' me
>
>keith
>>
>> Is that the kind of God you want me to believe in? I think not. I'd
>> rather go on being a deterministic (and determined) atheist.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Jon.
>> aa #703
Mark K. Bilbo
<1112316199....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, someone2
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
>>Except it's not a lie. Atheism is being without belief in any gods. And
>>that's all.
>
> I'm not talking about the definition of atheism, I am talking about the
> positions that an atheist can logically hold.
That's not what you wrote. You wrote:
"The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't involve
anything other than not believing in God or gods."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Group website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
Michael Voytinsky
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
If if there are effects without causes, then there is nothing we can do
to change that - by definition.
So, either our destiny is fixed by the deterministic universe, our our
destiny is affected by random uncaused events. In either case, there
is no room for free will.
DanielSan
Um, yeah. The only place that we can't have free will to affect our
destiny is in a deterministic universe. Indeterministic universes are
the only place that we have free will.
Thankfully, we live in an indeterministic universe. :-)
someone4
+0100 said:
>Well, despite what you've said, at some length, I really don't see
>that your position shows that lack of belief in a God necessarily
>implies determinism or that belief in a God (or its actual existence)
>necessarily implies freedom.
I didn't say that atheism implies determinism. The post was simply
about that for a *logical* atheist, that there is a God, or gods, isn't
the only position they can't logically hold. They can't *logically*
hold the position that the universe is purely governed by
cause-and-effect, and that their future is not fixed either. If you can
show me how they can *logically* hold that position, then I will post
an apology.
>If the universe is deterministic but not in principle predictable in
>detail, what does "deterministic" mean if all things are "fated" to
>happen but we cannot say what will happen? The difference that makes
>no difference *is* no difference, perhaps?
There is a difference. Consider a logical atheist who believes that the
universe is purely governed by cause-and-effect, and that randomness is
no different from the 'God of the Gap', and that it is down to our
ignorance. They will also believe that their destiny is fixed, and that
it was predetermined from the time of the 'Big Bang'.
Now I'm going to contrast the above atheist, with a theist who believes
that they have a soul, which is above physical laws, and that their
destiny is not fixed, but is influenced by the decision they (and
others) make.
Now consider that they both decide to jump off a cliff.
To the theist, it is clear, that the reason they jumped, is because
they chose to.
To the above atheist, that they were able to jump, meant that it was
their fixed destiny, it was determined they would do so from the time
of the 'Big Bang', and there was nothing they could do to alter their
destiny.
The same would be true if the above atheist went on a murderous
rampage. That they able to do it, would mean that it was their destiny.
In their mind then, they could argue that they aren't really
responsible, it's not like they could have done anything else. By the
way, I'm not saying that anyone will believe their version though, and
not hold them responsible.
>More generally, do all effects have causes? What about the universe?
>To assume to universe had a cause is to assume that causality was in
>some way "preexistent" to the universe when we have very good grounds
>to think that causality is a product of the universe, rather in the
>way space and time are.. Which to say that to my mind assuming the
>universe requires a cause is a trifle circular.
If all effects do have a cause, then I can see your point, and the
trouble it would cause for the atheist perspective. To prove that they
do though, might lay outside of our knowledge, or maybe there really is
randomness, where effects have no cause. Point being, is that it is
likely to come down to a matter of belief as to whether the universe is
purely governed by cause-and-effect.
>From the perspective of someone who believes in something else though,
they could think that there is a universe in which energy is equally
distributed, there was no 'Big Bang', or starting point from which the
energy distribution clearly originates. Therefore the question of a
'start', no longer makes sense. It always was. It was from this
universe that ours was created.
>And then there's the biggie! "Does God have Free Will?".
>Suppose I know everything. Suppose I can do anything. Suppose I have
>desires! Am I compelled to take the most causally efficient route to
>archive what I desire? If so, "free will" is an artifact of ignorance
>and the more you know the less freedom you have.
Taking the most causally efficient route, and being compelled to are
not the same. You could choose to be totally illogical in attempting to
achieve your desires. I see your point though, why would you? If you
assume that you are going to be logical in achieving your goals, then
consider a game of chess, where it is checkmate in three moves. There
might be two ways of achieving it. One time you might choose route 1,
another time you might choose route 2, they are equally efficient in
achieving your desire of winning the game. Free will still exists.
DanielSan
> Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> on Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:57:13
> +0100 said:
>
>
>>Well, despite what you've said, at some length, I really don't see
>>that your position shows that lack of belief in a God necessarily
>>implies determinism or that belief in a God (or its actual existence)
>>necessarily implies freedom.
>
>
> I didn't say that atheism implies determinism. The post was simply
> about that for a *logical* atheist, that there is a God, or gods, isn't
> the only position they can't logically hold. They can't *logically*
> hold the position that the universe is purely governed by
> cause-and-effect, and that their future is not fixed either. If you can
> show me how they can *logically* hold that position, then I will post
> an apology.
I posted an answer less than an hour ago. Perhaps you can read that and
respond. Thanks.
Christopher A. Lee
<glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> on Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:57:13
>+0100 said:
>
>>Well, despite what you've said, at some length, I really don't see
>>that your position shows that lack of belief in a God necessarily
>>implies determinism or that belief in a God (or its actual existence)
>>necessarily implies freedom.
>
>I didn't say that atheism implies determinism. The post was simply
>about that for a *logical* atheist, that there is a God, or gods, isn't
>the only position they can't logically hold. They can't *logically*
>hold the position that the universe is purely governed by
>cause-and-effect, and that their future is not fixed either. If you can
>show me how they can *logically* hold that position, then I will post
>an apology.
Except that this does not follow from being atheist. None of your
strawmen do, dishonest nym-shifter.
Mark K. Bilbo
<1112325553.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, someone3
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> As I said, my post was not about the definition of atheism, it post was
> quite clearly about the logical positions atheists can hold.
No it wasn't clearly anything...
DanielSan
Oops, I posted too soon. Let me respond to the second part of the post.
>
>
>>If the universe is deterministic but not in principle predictable in
>>detail, what does "deterministic" mean if all things are "fated" to
>>happen but we cannot say what will happen? The difference that makes
>>no difference *is* no difference, perhaps?
>
>
> There is a difference. Consider a logical atheist who believes that the
> universe is purely governed by cause-and-effect, and that randomness is
> no different from the 'God of the Gap', and that it is down to our
> ignorance. They will also believe that their destiny is fixed, and that
> it was predetermined from the time of the 'Big Bang'.
>
> Now I'm going to contrast the above atheist, with a theist who believes
> that they have a soul, which is above physical laws, and that their
> destiny is not fixed, but is influenced by the decision they (and
> others) make.
>
> Now consider that they both decide to jump off a cliff.
>
> To the theist, it is clear, that the reason they jumped, is because
> they chose to.
That would be the atheist position, too, but...
> To the above atheist, that they were able to jump, meant that it was
> their fixed destiny, it was determined they would do so from the time
> of the 'Big Bang', and there was nothing they could do to alter their
> destiny.
Um, this is a load. I'm sorry, but it is.
The decision to jump was made _at that time_ by either the theist or
atheistm, and not predetermined for either of them at the Big Bang.
(Either of them are a bunch of morons in this scenario, but I digress.)
How do you come up with this stuff? I've never heard such a load of
bull in my life.
>
> The same would be true if the above atheist went on a murderous
> rampage. That they able to do it, would mean that it was their destiny.
Again, a total load of bull. I'm able to strap dynamite to myself, walk
into a crowded mall, and blow myself and 48 people up. Just because I
can doesn't mean I will. It's called using your brain.
> In their mind then, they could argue that they aren't really
> responsible, it's not like they could have done anything else. By the
> way, I'm not saying that anyone will believe their version though, and
> not hold them responsible.
Because they are responsible. Atheists aren't robots preprogrammed do
things.
>
>
>>More generally, do all effects have causes? What about the universe?
>>To assume to universe had a cause is to assume that causality was in
>>some way "preexistent" to the universe when we have very good grounds
>>to think that causality is a product of the universe, rather in the
>>way space and time are.. Which to say that to my mind assuming the
>>universe requires a cause is a trifle circular.
>
>
> If all effects do have a cause, then I can see your point, and the
> trouble it would cause for the atheist perspective.
As an atheist, I see no trouble with a cause-and-effect universe.
> To prove that they
> do though, might lay outside of our knowledge, or maybe there really is
> randomness, where effects have no cause. Point being, is that it is
> likely to come down to a matter of belief as to whether the universe is
> purely governed by cause-and-effect.
Not belief.
Belief implies knowing without evidence.
There is loads of evidence for cause-and-effect. Heck, I couldn't post
this message without cause-and-effect. I push the key down, it sends an
electrical signal to the computer, it processes the information and does
what its programmed to do.
Therefore, it is not a belief that, when I push a key down, the letter
appears on my screen. It is knowledge and expectation. Not belief.
>
>>From the perspective of someone who believes in something else though,
> they could think that there is a universe in which energy is equally
> distributed, there was no 'Big Bang', or starting point from which the
> energy distribution clearly originates. Therefore the question of a
> 'start', no longer makes sense. It always was. It was from this
> universe that ours was created.
>
>
>>And then there's the biggie! "Does God have Free Will?".
>
>
>>Suppose I know everything. Suppose I can do anything. Suppose I have
>>desires! Am I compelled to take the most causally efficient route to
>>archive what I desire? If so, "free will" is an artifact of ignorance
>>and the more you know the less freedom you have.
>
>
> Taking the most causally efficient route, and being compelled to are
> not the same. You could choose to be totally illogical in attempting to
> achieve your desires. I see your point though, why would you? If you
> assume that you are going to be logical in achieving your goals, then
> consider a game of chess, where it is checkmate in three moves. There
> might be two ways of achieving it. One time you might choose route 1,
> another time you might choose route 2, they are equally efficient in
> achieving your desire of winning the game. Free will still exists.
Exactly. But, according to your atheist in this scenario, the atheist
must always choose route 1. This atheist you've concocted would have no
free will at all. But, thankfully, we all have free will to choose
route 2, route 3, or smack the board away in frustration, scattering the
pieces everywhere. ;-)
someone4
>cause-and-effect _AND_ not fixed. Why is this so hard for you to
>understand?
DanielSan, I explained all this to you before in the thread you started
"To All Christians: Prove your faith". In that you accepted that if a
system is governed by cause-and-effect, one input can only have one
output.
Plus on another branch on this post:
Michael Voytins wrote:
>> So, either our destiny is fixed by the deterministic universe, our
our
>> destiny is affected by random uncaused events. In either case,
there
>> is no room for free will.
and you replied:
Dave
> [...]
> To be a logical atheist ...you must believe that either your
> destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that there
> is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects
> without cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It
> is not simply a case of not believing in God or gods.
So I can't be a logical atheist unless I have an advanced degree in
physics but any stupid pud can be a "logical" theist. Ask me if I care.
Theists are liars. It is the basis of their day-to-day existance. They
must reinterpret everything around them in terms of lies. They would
like to believe that this is natural and necessary.
Prism
news:1112356223....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>
> The point of the post was to illustrate that being an atheist,
> "believing in God or gods" is not the only logical viewpoint that an
> atheist cannot hold.
>
I really dislike your use of double negatives. This is the same sentence
without the double negative so it makes more sense.
The point of the post was to illustrate that being an atheist, "NOT
believing in God or gods" is the only logical viewpoint that an atheist
can hold.
Now it appears you are just stating the definition of atheism. If so,
then yes, I agree. It is logical that an atheist holds the veiwpoint that
defines him/her. If that is not your intent, please post your point in a
grammatically correct way so it can be understood.
> They cannot logically hold the position that the universe we see around
> us is purely governed by cause-and-effect, and also believe that their
> future was not pre-determined from the time of the 'Big Bang', and that
> there is nothing they can do to change it.
>
Yes, I agree. You are correct. 'Pure' cause and effect allows absolute
pre-determination. Thats what clockwork is all about. Thats logic.
> If you can show me how they could logically hold the above position,
> then I will post an apology.
>
No need. All you have posted are simple logic statements with double
negatives in them that make them appear to be contradictory.
I can do the same thing.
Theists cannot logically hold the position that monkeys will fly out
their butts and also beleive that their butts do not contain monkeys that
cannot fly.
If you can show me how you could logically hold the above position, I
will apologise.
The only difference between you and me is that I am not insisting that I
am making a point.
someone4
do
>to change that - by definition.
>So, either our destiny is fixed by the deterministic universe, our our
>destiny is affected by random uncaused events. In either case, there
>is no room for free will
>From an atheist perspective, agreed, a theist though could argue that
they have a soul that is simply above the laws that govern this
universe, free will and the soul being one and the same. You could ask
them how the soul works then, and they could honestly answer that they
don't know.
kathryn
"someone2" <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1112311854....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
>
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
>
> without causes) has been thought to exist, and many religious people
> have been tempted to say that God or gods caused the effect (the 'God
> of the Gap' argument), the religious people have been shown to be
> wrong. Randomness is the atheist 'God of the Gap', and the history of
> science has shown the gap is simply the gap created by our ignorance.
>
> without causes. This is a lie. How can we ever know that we aren't
> simply ignorant as to what those causes are?
>
> something outside of the physical plane causing the effect, as the
> history of science shows us that an effect does have a cause. There is
> no proof that there is a gap however, and that the gap isn't just the
> shadow cast by our ignorance under the investigative light of science.
>
> Jean Bricmont, a theoretical physicist in his conclusion to
> 'Determinism, Chaos, and Quantum Mechanics' (
> determinism (where effects have a cause):
>
> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of determinism
> essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument in favour of
> that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in chaos theory or
> in quantum mechanics."
>
> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read what
> he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>
> by the laws which govern the physical plan), you must believe that
> either your destiny is fixed (if effects do have causes), and that
> there is nothing you can do to change it, or believe in effects without
> cause, against the weight of scientific evidence. It is not simply a
> case of not believing in God or gods.
>
> is simply a matter of not believing in a fixed destiny, in which there
> is nothing you can do to change it, nor believing in (against the
> weight of scientific evidence) effects without cause.
>
> "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
> Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a
> Symposium", 1941
>
> I must point out, that some atheists, simply do believe that their
> destiny is fixed, or in randomness. They are true atheists, who
I assume by your argument that you believe that all theists believe exactly
the same thing and that's what makes them theists?
Frank J Warner
someone2 <glenn....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> The atheist lie, I've heard spun by many (though by no means all)
> atheists, is that logically holding the atheist position doesn't
> involve anything other than not believing in God or gods.
>
> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect, then
> given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output. Therefore
> your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to change it.
>
> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must be
> effects without causes.
I am so sick of this argument. It reminds me of the (quite serious)
discussions held hundreds of years ago about how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin. This tedious concern with irrelevant details has
absolutely no impact on real-world situations. It isn't important. Its
answer or solution, if such should ever finally be agreed upon by all,
would change nothing about the way I buy peas or tie my shoelaces or
fuck or even die.
It's a stupid, meaningless, irrelevant argument by brain-dead theists
seeking to bolster their own fear-filled fantasies by seeming to find
an inherent contradiction in a apparently godless Universe.
So, "someone2," if you got a god, put up or shut up. Don't imagine we
haven't seen this pitiful attempt at rarified philosophical "thought" a
thousand times before, and each time found it wanting.
-Frank
--
fwarner1-at-franksknives-dot-com
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com/
Fred Stone
news:1112351330....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>> If the universe we live in is governed by purely cause and effect,
>>> then given an input('Big Bang'), there can only be one output.
>>> Therefore your destiny is fixed, and there is nothing you can do to
>>> change it.
>
>>Incorrect. Non-deterministic systems can have more than one output for
>>a given input.
>
> Your saying that these non-deterministic systems are governed purely
> by cause and effect are you? If you can show me how a system can be
> purely governed by cause and effect, and have more than one outcome,
> then I am indeed incorrect, otherwise you are for suggesting I was.
>
Obviously I cannot show you anything unless you open your eyes.
>>> If given an input, there are multiple possible outcomes, then the
>>> universe cannot be governed purely by cause and effect, there must
>>> be effects without causes.
>
>>Incorrect. "Effects without causes" does not depend on indeterminism.
>
> I never said it did,
You just did, liar.
> I said that to have more than one possible
> outcome, it can't be governed by purely cause and effect.
>
Liar.
>>We can know that there are no causes.
>
> Really how? How can we ever know that it isn't a case of us simply
> being ignorant as to the cause?
>
By accounting for all the inputs to a physical system and observing that
events occur at random without any input.
>>> "To conclude, I would say that not only is a refutation of
>>> determinism essentially impossible, but not the slightest argument
>>> in favour of that idea is to be found in modern physics, whether in
>>> chaos theory or in quantum mechanics."
>
>>> For those of you that disagree with his conclusion, please, read
>>> what he wrote, and point out where he went wrong.
>
>>Been there, done that. It's not Bricmont who went wrong, it is *you*
>>who do not understand his writings. You *still* haven't responded to
>>my posts about that, except to repeat your same erroneous
>>misunderstandings.
>
> So you agree with his conclusion then do you, that there is not the
> slightest argument in favour of refuting determinism in chaos theory
> or quantum mechanics?
>
No, I do not agree with your misunderstanding of his conclusion.
> [I think Fred if you look at the post "To All Christians: Prove your
> case!" it is you that haven't responded, or at least your response
> doesn't seem to be showing up on Google. Anyway, it doesn't matter, as
> you're going to answer me here I presume.]
>
I have answered you any number of times, in different threads. I don't
take your orders.
Why did you snip the rest of my response? You're getting to be a real
asshole, you know?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
Jon.
glenn....@btinternet.com wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, had a problem posting, so I had to set up a new
> Google account.
>
> >>>Surely an omniscient being knows what I'm going to have for
> >>>breakfast
> >>>tomorrow (or even if I will still be alive for breakfast)? If
this
> >>>god
> >>>can't see into the future, that's not much omniscience. It also
> >>>pretty
> >>>well undermines all prophecy. Do you really want to give up that
> >>> much
> >>>ground?
>
> >> As I said, it can only know what is to be known.
>
> >> It doesn't undermine prophecy. For example there could have been a
> >> prophecy that one day mankind will be able to fly. This would rely
> on
> >> nothing more than an understanding of
> >> the laws that govern our universe, and an understanding of man's
> >>thirst
> >> for knowledge.
>
> >That's not a prophecy, that's a prediction. Prophecies, such as
those
>
> >set out in the Bible (old and new Testaments), the Koran, and other
> >"holy" books, are much more specific and are always aimed at
something
>
> >with religious significance.
>
> >Many prophecies concern people and what they will do. These
> prophecies
> >are claimed to be divinely inspired (ie. by a god). They are
written
> >down as parts of books that are claimed by their followers to be
> >perfectly true because they are the words of a god. If the
prophecies
>
> >are to be true, then the god must have knowledge of the future. If
> >they are not true, then either the god is a liar or he did not
inspire
>
> >the people who wrote them down.
>
> Don't forget, I allow for God to consider a multiverse of
possibilities
> of what we will do, so something like Peter denying Jesus three times
> before the cock crows, could have been forseen to have happened,
> through knowing Peter, and what he was likely to do.
"Likely"? That doesn't fit well with omniscience or prophecy.
Prophecy is saying what will happen, not what is likely to happen. If
it's only likely, then the capital-T Truth of the Bible is no longer
available to followers.
> >I note you have avoided my argument about a circumscribed
omniscience
> >being incompatible with omnipotence.
>
> I haven't avoided it, I have simply said that God could be omniscient
> in the sense that it knows all that can be known. It can even
consider
> all possibilities for the future. If you don't wish to count that as
> being omniscient, then that's your choice.
That still doesn't square with omnipotence, though. How can a god
influence the future if it only knows "all possibilities" and not which
one will actually come about? And if it can't influence the future, is
it omnipotent?
Also: you say that the god won't interfere in such a way that it
violates the laws of cause and effect. You also say that the god knows
(because it created) the laws of cause and effect. It also knows all
there is to be known. It can therefore apply those laws of cause and
effect to all there is to be known, and deduce everything that will
happen. Unless there is something that exists that it cannot know -
like a soul. Then it's not omniscient.
> >> I have been told that the river crossed by Moses does in fact
become
>
> >>so
> >> shallow at sometimes that people are able to cross on foot. That
he
> >>was
> >> inspired to lead the people out of Egypt at such a time could be
> >> considered a miracle.
>
> >Or maybe he had direct knowledge of the behaviour of the river.
>
> Maybe, though as we agreed, we are talking hypothetically here, so it
> is not a case of me providing evidence of one solution over the
other.
>
> >There are many other claimed miracles that are not so easy to
explain
> >away. Also, reducing miracles to simply divine inspiration robs
them
> >of much of their power.
>
> The harder the miracle is to explain away by divine inspiration,
surely
> just points to the fact that the inspiration must have been divine.
Not
> simply a case of Moses having knowledge of the river for example.
How does one turn water into wine through divine inspiration? Or rise
from the dead?
> >>>There goes, too, any possibility of our ever being able to
> >>> distinguish
> >>>between a god-ruled universe and one where pure cause-and-effect
> >>>govern.
>
> >> Religion requires faith. You'd have to take it on faith, that if
you
>
> >> voluntarily jump from a tall building, it wasn't your fixed
destiny
> >>and
> >> that there was nothing you could do to have not jumped, it was
> simply
> >> your choice.
>
> >I don't quite follow you here. The way I see it, if you jump from a
> >tall building, then one of two things is true:
>
> >1) There is a god, and the god wanted you to jump. If it did not,
it
> >would have prevented you from doing so (barring the door to the
roof,
> >giving you an inspiration to keep living, etc.).
>
> I have already said, maybe it doesn't break the rules of the physical
> universe, it would be against the rules of the game. You will always
be
> provided with an alternative to jumping. If you jump, it is because
you
> chose to.
Giving inspiration to keep living would not be breaking the rules of
the physical universe. Let's say I was despondent and about to jump.
A god could put a thought into my mind that I have a family that loves
me, or that things will get better, or whatever, that causes me to
change my decision. If it doesn't, then it chose for me to jump.
Of course, if it can't put that kind of inspiration into my mind, then
it's not omnipotent.
> >2) There is no god and the laws of cause and effect apply. Your
> >jumping is inevitable because of all of the preconditions - your
> >personality, your mindset that day, etc. - and all the preconditions
> to
> >those preconditions and so on.
>
> Exactly, it was predetermined that you would jump, from the time of
the
> 'Big Bang' and that there was nothing you could have done to not have
> jumped.
>
> >Either way, it may *feel* like an exercise of free will, but only
> >because you did not know for sure the day before (or even the minute
> >before) that you would jump.
>
> The difference, is that with one perspective you think that you had a
> choice in jumping, in the other it was predetermined that you would,
> and that there was nothing you could have done not to have jumped.
>
> >Choice does not equal free will. Our choices are caused by our
> >genetics, personality, situation, etc.
>
> Maybe, maybe not, as we agreed though, it is not going to be about
> producing evidence either way.
>
> >"Both God and the Devil are infinite."? That would make them equal.
> >The Devil is therefore equally deserving of the title "god".
>
> I'm sure satanists would agree with you.
It's your phrase - I'm just drawing the logical conclusion. I think
all theists, including Satanists, are wrong.
> >If the game is being played by God and the Devil, how can it be that
> we
> >are making the choices?
>
> Consider it as an experiment, to determine which it is better to be.
> Selfless, or selfish.
Are we just pawns in an experiment? Why does this god need to know
whether it's better to be selfless or selfish?
> >> I'm not sure of the 'bad stuff' you are referring to. If it is
stuff
>
> >> done by humans, then it is because humans chose to be selfish.
>
> >Well, I listed it in my first post. Those things were done by
humans,
>
> >and could have been prevented by an omnipotent god. Since no god
> chose
> >to prevent them, either there is no god or the god chose for those
> >things to happen.
>
> As I said, it is a game, an experiment. As I said, people chose for
> those things to happen. The are free to chose what they do within the
> game. If they weren't they wouldn't be responsible for what they did.
Just like there are choices in the absence of free will, there is
responsibility in the absence of free will. Responsibility is a
societal construct we use because it is valuable in our society. We
need to hold people responsible for their actions to prevent them and
others from acting in socially destructive ways.
> >It seems you are backing further and further away from the positions
> >held by any of the organized religions I know of. You are getting
> >close to deism. Do you wish to continue?
>
> I'm quite happy to. Do you?
Sure. I don't always have time to respond right away, but this is a
stimulating discussion.
Jon.
aa #703