This is called Tie-breaker because it moves us past the log jam that results in saying God is uncased and timeless always has been always will be with cause, vs. the atheist argument that this is no better than just saying the universe happens to be here for no reason. My friend Eric Sotnak, who has a great gift for sarcasm that is not lost on me, set's it up as a matter of brute facts. There is a huge literature on brute facts but I wont go into it because I don't have time and I'm no expert. A brute fact is a thing that exists for no higher purpose, it has no reason for being it just is. [1] Now some will argue that brute facts can have physical causes or not. Since we have no examples of anything in nature that has no cause that just leaves the universe as a whole. So the comparison between atheism and theism is between God who has no cause vs a universe that has no reason for being weather it has a physical cause or not. Having no reason means it could as easily not be. Sotnak turns this into an argument agaisnt the existence of God, but couches it in terms of God as a brute fact:
Traditionally, theists have felt extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a “brute fact” – that something could have just happened without explanation. Instead, they have committed to variations on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR).I think the main reason for this is that they know quite well that without PSR, they will have no way to rule out the hypothesis that maybe the universe is just a brute fact (no God required).But I think theists could comfort themselves a bit by shedding their anxiety about this. Imagine a conversation like this between a theist (T) and an atheist (A):
A: I think the universe is a brute fact.
T: Not I. I think it was made by God.
A: But then where did God come from?
T: God is an eternal brute fact.
A: How does that make you better off than me, then?
T: Well, while no logical proof of God’s existence is possible, I have subjective or existential reasons for being a theist. It seems to me that I can feel the presence of God in the laughter of my children, for instance. For me, theism helps me to make sense of the world and comforts me with the hope that death isn’t final.
A: But if God is a brute fact, that means he could, logically speaking, have failed to exist.
T: Yup. So I feel extra lucky that he does.
Since God cannot fail to exist (definition of necessary),that is an intrinsic part of the definition of God; then to say God is a BF in this sense is to say there is no God. One might believe in a demoted god who is not the God but a sort of very power strange being we don't know about. Zeus or something. This is why we need a tie breaker because there is a supposed tie between God as BF and the Universe as BF. God cam't be a brute fact and still be God in the Christian sense. Yet there is this seeming tie between un-caused God and uncased universe. We have to do this in such a way that the universe can't be without a cause and God who has no cause cannot be a brute fact.
To break the tie we just need to distinguish between the two kinds of un-caused nature. The argument is going to turn-on the concept of a BF. The nature of God's un-caused state is not the same as the nature of BF. To be a BF a thing must have no connection to a higher purpose. God can't have a purpose higher than himself but he can have a purpose higher than mere brute facticity. Semantically the two are different, Brute facts have NO higher purpose, God has aseity not brute facticity. That it is part of the definition of what God is that he is eternal and necessary. It's not part of the definition of the universe that it exists. That's existence as a predicate. On that basis Bertrand Russell ruled out the ontological argument. Existence is not a quality to be defined as part of the object, "I have one of those brick houses it;s the kind that exists." That goes beyond the semantic aspect and it can be understood in terms of the nature of being.
God is being itself or the ground of being.[2] The universe is not the ground of being. Even if it has no cause and has always existed the universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it as "holy being." But before we go deifying the universe there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased. If it was, if we could call it God there would be a God and atheists would be wrong , even if Christians were wrong too. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal [3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4] The real contest is between a meaningless accident that somehow came to be for no reason with no higher purpose ,which we call "the universe" vs. the ground of being or holy being which is eternal, necessary (could not have failed to exist) and eternal cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres. That is not purpose higher than itself but is it;'s own purpose (that the universe doesn't have).
Now I hear the question "so what is God's big purpose?" God is not just being itself but as such is being por soir. Jean-Paul Sartre's term meaning being for itself. The alternative is being in itself. (en soir). In itself is inanimate (universe) and for itself is conscious and purpose; the purpose is set by God's nature which is love. Love is the will to the good of the other. Being for itself means it has will, volition and purpose. That purpose is to love to create more being and to provide for the good of such being. That is going to open a lot questions about the nature of life and theodicy, that has to wait for another time, This breaks the tie because it gives God a purpose, self authorized, which the BF doesn't have.
a couple of notes on Eric's dialogue:
A: I think the universe is a brute fact.T: Not I. I think it was made by God.A: But then where did God come from?T: God is an eternal brute fact.
No that is the wrong answer. He misidentifies aseity as brute fact which it is not. God has a purpose and is self perpetuated, the universe has no purpose and is not perpetuating itself. It has nothing to do with its own existence. Now we come to Eric's real gift of sarcasm:
T: Well, while no logical proof of God’s existence is possible, I have subjective or existential reasons for being a theist. It seems to me that I can feel the presence of God in the laughter of my children, for instance. For me, theism helps me to make sense of the world and comforts me with the hope that death isn’t final.
That's mockery of mystical experience, Yes God ks beyond our understanding, All the things we say about god are either very limited or metaphorical. The fact is the life transformation chances are proven fact established by 200 or more empirical scientific studies in peer reviewed journals. For more on this see my book The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman, on amazon.[5]
A: But if God is a brute fact, that means he could, logically speaking, have failed to exist.T: Yup. So I feel extra lucky that he does.
That would be a conceptual contradiction at the heart of the God concept, thus no God. Such is not the case. God us not a brute fact,
[1] There's a problem with the definition of a brute fact. Different philosophers have different definitions. Atheist from is at work. the definition is changed from the way I learned it (no reason for being) to a definition that has to include god (something we can't explain)I disagree, I don't that as a BF. God being beyond understanding and explainable for that reason is totally different than saying "X just just happens to be for no reason." The chief difference is for the one the could be a reason we just don't understand it,for the other there is none, The fact of a purpose involved with God as being i think breaks the tie
[2] Ground of being is a concept made famous by Paul Tillich and other theologians, I've written about it vociferously. It basically amounts to saying God is the basis of reality. My A"Introduction to Paul Tillich's Existential Ontology" Metacrock's Blog http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2010/02/introduction-to-paul-tillichs.html
[3] Quentin Smith, “The Uncased Beginning of the Universe.” The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (1988, Vol., 55, no. 1), 39-57.
[4] Joseph Hinman, "Quantum Particles Do not prove universe from Nothing," The religious a priori, website URL: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html
accessed 7/23/16
[5] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God:Rational Warrant for Belief. Colorado Springs:Grand Vidaduct, 2014.
A brute fact is just any fact without an explanation. I don't see that it being a brute fact that a proposition is true excludes it being the case that the proposition is necessary in whatever sense of necessity you wish to appeal to.
ReplyDeleteAs I said and documented different philosophers say different things about them. The issue is really what level of reason do we need for things.
ReplyDeleteI would define a brute fact as one for which no sufficient reason can be given. That is, rejecting PSR commits one to accepting brute facts.
ReplyDeleteEric Sotnak said...
ReplyDeleteI would define a brute fact as one for which no sufficient reason can be given. That is, rejecting PSR commits one to accepting brute facts.
I agree with that. I agree that BF' are thing for which no good reason can be given but that also includes the upper story reason such as God,
Since we have no examples of anything in nature that has no cause that just leaves and the universe as a whole.
ReplyDelete- At the quantum level, things don't have causes. Sorry if that upsets your applecart, but it's true. And the start of the universe was a quantum event.
So much for the "tiebreaker".
- At the quantum level, things don't have causes. Sorry if that upsets your applecart, but it's true. And the start of the universe was a quantum event.
ReplyDeleteyes they do ,i settled your hash on this before you don't know jack shit about it,
virtual particles do not pop out of nothing they come out of vacuum flux meaning there are already particles the idea that QM particles have no causes is a myth,
Aseity, essential to the Christian "God concept," is the opposite of bruteness. This is what Dawkins doesn't seem to understand. It's the core of the concept whether the concept refers to anything real or not.
ReplyDelete- At the quantum level, things don't have causes. Sorry if that upsets your applecart, but it's true. And the start of the universe was a quantum event.
ReplyDeleteThere are several interpretations that fit the data. Even if quantum events are uncaused, would the conditions that make those events possible also be quantum and uncaused?
7th Stooge said...
ReplyDeleteAseity, essential to the Christian "God concept," is the opposite of bruteness. This is what Dawkins doesn't seem to understand. It's the core of the concept whether the concept refers to anything real or not.
good point 7
virtual particles do not pop out of nothing they come out of vacuum flux meaning there are already particles the idea that QM particles have no causes is a myth
ReplyDelete- OK, Joe. Let's assume that this vacuum flux is something that actually exists (in reality is is nothing more than a mathematical construct). That tell us where these particles come from, but it still soesn't define a cause for the event. As I said, quantum events don't have any discernible cause. And your assertion that everything must have a cause except God is still just special pleading.
There are several interpretations that fit the data. Even if quantum events are uncaused, would the conditions that make those events possible also be quantum and uncaused?
ReplyDelete- As far as any of us know, quantum events can happen in the absence of any conditions at all.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeletevirtual particles do not pop out of nothing they come out of vacuum flux meaning there are already particles the idea that QM particles have no causes is a myth
- OK, Joe. Let's assume that this vacuum flux is something that actually exists (in reality is is nothing more than a mathematical construct).
Misleading because particles are nothing but mathematical constructs, more to the point no one really what they are.Vacuum flux is quantum particles.
That tell us where these particles come from, but it still soesn't define a cause for the event.
you really don't understand the notion of cause do you?you really need to take a class in Hume, you don't understand the philosophy of causes. There i no basis for assuming an a causal concept then still insisting upon physical law.
As I said, quantum events don't have any discernible cause. And your assertion that everything must have a cause except God is still just special pleading.
stop dropping terms that you don't understand, you are special pleading because you are saying we can ignore the rules in this one area,
2:00 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
There are several interpretations that fit the data. Even if quantum events are uncaused, would the conditions that make those events possible also be quantum and uncaused?
- As far as any of us know, quantum events can happen in the absence of any conditions at all.
that's totally theoretical.Quantum effect still hp pane with frame works governed by cause and effect, there's no reason to assume we can just ignores cause for universe,
2:04 PM Delete
Misleading because particles are nothing but mathematical constructs, more to the point no one really what they are.Vacuum flux is quantum particles.
ReplyDelete- Thank you, Doctor Hinman, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
you really don't understand the notion of cause do you?you really need to take a class in Hume
- Thank you again Doctor, but philosophy aside, there is no notion of causation in quantum mechanics.
stop dropping terms that you don't understand, you are special pleading because you are saying we can ignore the rules in this one area
- I'm saying you use special pleading in your arguments because I know what it means, and that's what you do.
that's totally theoretical.Quantum effect still hp pane with frame works governed by cause and effect, there's no reason to assume we can just ignores cause for universe
- So Doctor, please tell us what these causal frameworks are.
Oh, I almost forgot. You don't have to substantiate any claim you make because you just pretend know it all, and you can just talk down to everyone, hoping you can fool people into thinking you're something other than an empty barrel without a clue.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteMisleading because particles are nothing but mathematical constructs, more to the point no one really what they are.Vacuum flux is quantum particles.
- Thank you, Doctor Hinman, but you really don't know what you're talking about.
ye I do know what I talking about because I actually read,for my docs on that:
Read This Link
you really don't understand the notion of cause do you?you really need to take a class in Hume
- Thank you again Doctor, but philosophy aside, there is no notion of causation in quantum mechanics.
that's beside the point, The same reasons that lead us to talk about cause in any aspect of life mandate that we think about it in realization to the origin of the universe,,
stop dropping terms that you don't understand, you are special pleading because you are saying we can ignore the rules in this one area
- I'm saying you use special pleading in your arguments because I know what it means, and that's what you do.
then tell me why my argument was special pleading
that's totally theoretical.Quantum effect still hp pane with frame works governed by cause and effect, there's no reason to assume we can just ignores cause for universe
- So Doctor, please tell us what these causal frameworks are.
okk Dr skepie show me this Ph,D you claim to have. what is it in now fixing fans?
STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx
ReplyDelete"This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.
So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?4"
that fist part establishes that point are just theoretical,that is particles are the points, strimg theory is assuming we can look them from another angle or "sidesways"so to peak o that;s proof they are just theoretical,they are not little balls, they are "charge:utnooneknows what that really means,
STFC ibid, op cit.
ReplyDelete"We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions."
Suppose God is "being itself".
ReplyDeleteSuppose God is absolutely simple.
Suppose PSR is true.
I think this creates a problem.
The concept of being itself, especially coupled with divine simplicity, seems to me bland and generic. Suppose we take on the Leibnizian question of why this world exists rather than any of the other possible worlds that could have existed instead, we cannot answer "because being itself".
It seems to me at least one of the three claims needs to be rejected.
Joe, you can quote from a lot of science articles you find on the internet, but it doesn't mean you know what they're saying. What does the geometry of particles have to do with the issues we've been discussing? NOTHING. It just goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. You quoted from Steinhardt about the reason for inflation theory, saying that it was just to get God out of science, when he wasn't saying that at all. You quote from particle physicists who are challenging the folk understanding of what particles really are, and you take it to mean that "particles are nothing but mathematical constructs". That's stupid. Physical matter is real, even if it's nature isn't what you might think it is.
ReplyDeleteThe point is, you find all this stuff on the internet, you interpret it incorrectly and quote it liberally without having any idea what it means, and then you go around acting like some kind of expert in physics. You would be much better off keeping your mouth shut.
Eric Sotnak said...
ReplyDeleteSuppose God is "being itself".
Suppose God is absolutely simple.
Suppose PSR is true.
I think this creates a problem.
The concept of being itself, especially coupled with divine simplicity, seems to me bland and generic. Suppose we take on the Leibnizian question of why this world exists rather than any of the other possible worlds that could have existed instead, we cannot answer "because being itself".
First of all I doubt we can answer such a question anyway, it probably unanswerable would have to be God to under God choices. Secondly I'm not sure we need to answer it. what does not answering it mean? Does it mean there' no God? I don't think so. Thirdly, I think that question implies determinism. In a world of Free will the world we have i as much our doing as God's.If that is the case we can answer it because we if we have free will it's because God values freedom.
It seems to me at least one of the three claims needs to be rejected.
First of call live rejected the entire philosophical framework of the question,
Secondly,2 and 3 are going to need so e serious clarification before we talk about them.
5:59 AM Delete
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteJoe, you can quote from a lot of science articles you find on the internet, but it doesn't mean you know what they're saying. What does the geometry of particles have to do with the issues we've been discussing? NOTHING.
that just a bullshit excuse to ignore the fact I just disproved your argumet., It has a great deal to do with it because those show clearly that the idea of a particle is a construct not an an empirical datum, it is something invented to make the system work it is not empirically proven. I am sure it does reprint something real but we don't know that enough to use it as an excuse to rule out God. When you say my thing (Vacuum flux)is a construct that is meaningless because particles themselves are constricts.
It just goes to show that you have no idea what you're talking about. You quoted from Steinhardt about the reason for inflation theory, saying that it was just to get God out of science, when he wasn't saying that at all.
you have been beaten on that issue I already shown it does not matter,
You quote from particle physicists who are challenging the folk understanding of what particles really are, and you take it to mean that "particles are nothing but mathematical constructs". That's stupid. Physical matter is real, even if it's nature isn't what you might think it is.
I've told you before we are tuning over a new leaf here we are not all calling names. I think you if you have any honesty foreknowledge you will know already that what I say is true you not letting yourself understand for personal hatred. The Humean position accepts that the fitness of math to theory in physics is not based upon centrality empirical evidence but upon the theological assumption borne out over time until that time they are considered strong but not empirical. But that is a fancy way of saying they are not proven they are constructs and particle are not little balls.
The point is, you find all this stuff on the internet, you interpret it incorrectly and quote it liberally without having any idea what it means, and then you go around acting like some kind of expert in physics. You would be much better off keeping your mouth shut.
ok big Dr science man published in all the top journals Phd from science worship university why don't you tell me what particles are made of?
've forgotten more
ReplyDeleteThan you'll ever know about him
You think you know the smile on his lips
The thrill at the touch of his fingertips
But I've forgotten more
Than you'll ever know about science
You think you'll find a heaven of bliss
In each caress each tender calculas
But I've forgotten more
Than you'll ever know about science
You stole his love from me one day
You didn't care how you hurt me
But you can never steal away
Memories of what used to be
You think science yours to have and to hold
Someday you'll learn when his love grows cold
That I've forgotten more
Than you'll ever know about science
I've forgotten more about since
ReplyDeletejust replace "her" with "science"
ok big Dr science man published in all the top journals Phd from science worship university why don't you tell me what particles are made of?
ReplyDelete- It's not a question of what particles are made of. It a question of physical existence. Particles are real physical things whose geometry can be described by math. Vacuum flux is nothing but an equation on a piece of paper. Do you get the difference? One is an object that exists in space. The other is only a mathematical construct that doesn't have physical existence. It has no substance.
skep, I think to say, "X has real physical existence b we don't know what it's made of" could be dubious?
ReplyDeleteThe definition of 'real physical existence' might need clarifying here?
skep, I think to say, "X has real physical existence b we don't know what it's made of" could be dubious?
ReplyDeleteThe definition of 'real physical existence' might need clarifying here?
- What do you want to hear? The most fundamental particles (quarks and leptons) are "made of" some kind if stuff? They're not made of any lower level substance, as far as we can tell.
But they are something that can be felt. They interact with other things and have some kind of impact on those things. They are detectable. The point I was making is that the so-called quantum vacuum is not a physical object in the sense of being a thing that exists in the world. It is literally nothing. And quantum fluctuations in this vacuum are mathematical equations, analogous to "laws" of physics. They simply describe quantum events, like the inverse square law describes gravity as a function of the distance from an object. There are no objects floating around in space that you can call a "law", nor are there any that you can call a quantum fluctuation.
Seems like particles are "events", something that can be felt, discerned, inferred somehow, but not explained? Is that what you mean?
ReplyDeleteThat's more or less what Joe said, however....that "particles" themselves are only constructs too?
How exactly do you distinguish a difference in kind here between fluctuating fields and the geometrically-defined "particles" that arise from them? "Having a geometry" doesn't automatically make a thing "real" all by itself since geometry itself is yet another form of mathematical abstraction...
ReplyDeleteI've forgotten more about since (sic)
just replace "her" with "science"
Hey, I've got a coptright on that tactic! - ie arguing from song lyrics!
Seems like particles are "events", something that can be felt, discerned, inferred somehow, but not explained? Is that what you mean?
ReplyDeleteThat's more or less what Joe said, however....that "particles" themselves are only constructs too?
- Well Joe's wrong. Electrons are not "events". They are things. They interact with other things, and when they do, that's what we call an event. One particle bumping into another particle is an event. We use mathematics to describe how these particles move, and their geometrical properties, but the things themselves are not just mathematical constructs. They are physical things.
How exactly do you distinguish a difference in kind here between fluctuating fields and the geometrically-defined "particles" that arise from them? "Having a geometry" doesn't automatically make a thing "real" all by itself since geometry itself is yet another form of mathematical abstraction...
- How do I distinguish? It's simple. A particle is a thing that exists apart from any conception or description of it. A quantum field is not a thing in that sense. It is a concept or description that is used to predict the behavior of things. Unfortunately, the term "quantum field", like "quantum fluctuation" is a metaphorical misnomer that gives people the impression that it refers to some kind of physical entity. That's wrong. It is purely mathematical, and without people thinking of these concepts, they don't exist at all.
Physical thing - exists independently of mind
Conceptual thing - has no existence apart from the mind that conceives it
Quantum fields and quantum fluctuations are conceptual things.
It's not a question of what particles are made of. It a question of physical existence.Particles are real physical things whose geometry can be described by math. Vacuum flux is nothing but an equation on a piece of paper.
ReplyDeleteI aid they are physical things, our idea of them is theoretocalk
Do you get the difference? One is an object that exists in space. The other is only a mathematical construct that doesn't have physical existence. It has no substance.
we don't know anything aout them we know there is something there we do't know what it is so we make up a construct,
scientists say the thing called vacuum flux is real,you tried to imply that VF is not real and scientists say it is,
But they are something that can be felt. They interact with other things and have some kind of impact on those things. They are detectable. The point I was making is that the so-called quantum vacuum is not a physical object in the sense of being a thing that exists in the world. It is literally nothing. And quantum fluctuations in this vacuum are mathematical equations, analogous to "laws" of physics. They simply describe quantum events, like the inverse square law describes gravity as a function of the distance from an object. There are no objects floating around in space that you can call a "law", nor are there any that you can call a quantum fluctuation.
ReplyDeletethat's still theoretical, do you the difference? when You try to blow off vaccum fluxas just because "it's just a construct" because we don't enough about it but you accept Qm partiocles becasuie youneed those to say we dont need God pretty iffy
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteSeems like particles are "events", something that can be felt, discerned, inferred somehow, but not explained? Is that what you mean?
That's more or less what Joe said, however....that "particles" themselves are only constructs too?
- Well Joe's wrong. Electrons are not "events". They are things.
you are just contradicting yourself. You ay VF is only theoretical but particles are real (even though we don't know what they are we know they are not events) yet VF is jut more parolees,so you are just contradicting yourself,
"It a question of physical existence.Particles are real physical things whose geometry can be described by math. Vacuum flux is nothing but an equation on a piece of paper." that i what particle are because you don't know what they are, you can't tell without jut resting to names all you are sayings they made of more particle,
They interact with other things, and when they do, that's what we call an event. One particle bumping into another particle is an event. We use mathematics to describe how these particles move, and their geometrical properties, but the things themselves are not just mathematical constructs. They are physical things.
that' when we start talking about causes so when we starting talk jig about the origin of the universe that's when causes come into it, and you try assert they pop into existence out of nothing for no reason you base that upon the lack of cause but it doesn't apply because that' where causesscomein,
the point of the OP was that God can't be a brute fact and this breaks the major log jam between two opposing origin sorties both of which lack origins. atheist ideology can't allow that story to get out so he ha to pull i off the OP and on to the ever important topic, Skpie is worthy to be right because he knows science.
ReplyDeleteJesus loves you even if you don't know science,
Ortega y Gasset on science and its limits
ReplyDelete“Scientific truth is characterized by its precision and the certainty of its predictions. But science achieves these admirable qualities at the cost of remaining on the level of secondary concerns, leaving ultimate and decisive questions untouched.”
scientists say the thing called vacuum flux is real,you tried to imply that VF is not real and scientists say it is
ReplyDelete- First, you are confusing vacuum flux with quantum vacuum. The debate is whether the quantum vacuum is something or nothing. It is purely philosophical. Because many people (including SOME scientists) believe the philosophical edict that says from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, the quantum vacuum must be something. OK, fine. If you want to call it something, go right ahead. But that doesn't change the reality that is consists of nothing at all.
that's still theoretical, do you the difference? when You try to blow off vaccum fluxas just because "it's just a construct" because we don't enough about it but you accept Qm partiocles becasuie youneed those to say we dont need God pretty iffy
- The "iffy" thing is your idiotic belief that scientists invent their theories just as a way of shutting God out of the picture. No. They develop theories to describe what is observed, and then they inevitably see that with a satisfactory natural theory, there's no need for God to explain things.
you are just contradicting yourself. You ay VF is only theoretical but particles are real (even though we don't know what they are we know they are not events) yet VF is jut more parolees,so you are just contradicting yourself
- Joe, I didn't say anything about something being "only theoretical". That's your own interpretation, because you don't understand any of this stuff. If you want to try to understand it, put on your thinking cap, shut your mouth, and LISTEN.
Ortega y Gasset on science and its limits ...
- Oh wonderful. Yet another theist says science can't tell us anything about God. If you agree, then please stop touting your "trace of God" as empirical evidence for God backed by 200 scientific studies.
m-skeptical said...
ReplyDeletescientists say the thing called vacuum flux is real,you tried to imply that VF is not real and scientists say it is
- First, you are confusing vacuum flux with quantum vacuum. The debate is whether the quantum vacuum is something or nothing. It is purely philosophical. Because many people (including SOME scientists) believe the philosophical edict that says from nothing nothing comes. Therefore, the quantum vacuum must be something. OK, fine. If you want to call it something, go right ahead. But that doesn't change the reality that is consists of nothing at all.
stop impossibly your misunderstandings on me my evidence talks about VF not QV so can it. Vacuum flux is what particle emerge from that's what you have to account for in saying something from nothing,
that's still theoretical, do you the difference? when You try to blow off vaccum fluxas just because "it's just a construct" because we don't enough about it but you accept Qm partiocles becasuie youneed those to say we dont need God pretty iffy
- The "iffy" thing is your idiotic belief that scientists invent their theories just as a way of shutting God out of the picture.
hey I did not say that you are putting words in my mouth because you can't deal with the real points I've made. But actually two real physicists not pretend one's like you real one's have aside this. Borrower and Tippler wrote an article about it many years ago. Martian Rees has openly moaned about the fact that God looks pretty damn real in the fine tuning data,but it; too extreme to say they invent their theories that way,
No. They develop theories to describe what is observed, and then they inevitably see that with a satisfactory natural theory, there's no need for God to explain things.
Of course trey are gods, they don't make mistakes, they don't have human motivations they are brave and true and always right,
you are just contradicting yourself. You ay VF is only theoretical but particles are real (even though we don't know what they are we know they are not events) yet VF is jut more parolees,so you are just contradicting yourself
- Joe, I didn't say anything about something being "only theoretical". That's your own interpretation, because you don't understand any of this stuff. If you want to try to understand it, put on your thinking cap, shut your mouth, and LISTEN.
you did too liar, you said vacuum flux is theoretical construct,
Ortega y Gasset on science and its limits ...
- Oh wonderful. Yet another theist says science can't tell us anything about God. If you agree, then please stop touting your "trace of God" as empirical evidence for God backed by 200 scientific studies.
you ignoramus he;s not a theist YOU DON;T KNOW WHO E IS!!!!!!
There is nothing more ignorant than a un read know nothing who labels some great philosopher such as Kuhn or Popper or Ortega y Gasset a theist because tetchy are critical of modernist science worship. Beverly hillbillies ignorant.
ReplyDeleteskep here is Stanford Clarice on Ortega
ReplyDeleteQuote"José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955) was a prolific and distinguished philosopher of Spain in the twentieth century. In the course of his career as philosopher, social theorist, essayist, cultural and aesthetic critic, educator, politician and editor of the influential journal, Revista de Occidente, he has written on a broad range of themes and issues. Among his many books are: Meditations on Quixote (1914), Invertebrate Spain (1921), The Theme of Our Time (1923), Ideas on the Novel (1924), The Dehumanization of Art (1925), What is Philosophy? (1929), The Revolt of the Masses (1930), En Torno a Galileo (1933), History as a System (1934), Man and People (1939–40), The Origin of Philosophy (1943), The Idea of Principle in Leibnitz and the Evolution of Deductive Theory (1948). In addition to these books, and others, there are hundreds of essays, newspaper and magazine articles, the most important of which are collected in twelve volumes, several of which have been translated into English, French and German. His major writings reveal an intellectual development that traversed the life-world experiences articulated in the perspectives of phenomenology, historicism, and existentialism.
Ortega's perception of human life as fundamental reality and as a “happening,” his analysis of the ontological distinction between “being” and “authentic being,” his description of the intersubjective interaction of the “I” and “Others” in the social world, his concepts of the “generation,” and of “contemporaries” and “co-evals,” and his ideas of “perspectivism,” “vital” and “historical reason,” combine to broaden and to advance his philosophy of human social and historical realities. Through these intellectual orientations, Ortega became concerned with the epistemological status of historical knowledge, and approached the problem of critical philosophy of history as constituting the interpenetration of the philosophical and historical attitudes. Critical philosophy of history thus refers to the position that characterizes the world we know and in which we act as a product of human activity and mind. Accordingly, Ortega represented the “modern” reflective thinker who approached history from philosophy, and whose theories of history as a source of human knowledge have epitomized the tendency to connect concepts of historical temporality and mind. He challenged positivistic approaches to history and contributed an important aspect to the modern concept of history: the tenet that there is a connectedness and a meaning in human history which emanates from a principle of continuity inherent in individual human lives. [END QUOTE]
Kuhn
Popper
Ortega
see the Pattern? the most brilliant intellects question science they don't worship it
stop impossibly your misunderstandings on me my evidence talks about VF not QV so can it. Vacuum flux is what particle emerge from that's what you have to account for in saying something from nothing
ReplyDelete- Nope. Particles come from the vacuum. Fluctuations are mathematical perturbations in the "quantum field".
hey I did not say that you are putting words in my mouth because you can't deal with the real points I've made
- Yes, you did say it. I quote Hinman: "Multiverse should be shaved with Occam's razor. We don't need it to explain reality, it's only advanced to keep from having to turn to God."
Of course trey [scientists] are gods, they don't make mistakes, they don't have human motivations they are brave and true and always right,
- That description would be much more apt for the people you cite in your articles, because you absolutely believe every word they say, and you take their quotes as biblical truth.
you did too liar, you said vacuum flux is theoretical construct
- Quote, please. (I did not say that. I said it was mathematical).
you ignoramus he;s [Ortega y Gasset] not a theist YOU DON;T KNOW WHO E IS!!!!!!
- You are ignorant. He received a theistic education. He turned away from the Catholic church, but not from belief in God. Read this article (translated from Spanish): "Declaring oneself anti-Catholic does not mean being an atheist. If in his first writings Ortega believed that what was held by God had to be someone lacking in intimacy, it is clear that there was an evolution in his thinking about God. As his doctrine about man grows ever more perfectly, he refines his idea of God. "Man has to be saved by the supernatural," he writes in THE TRANSIT OF CHRISTIANITY TO RATIONALISM. This life is not cured except with the other. The only thing that man can do with his own forces is negative-deny himself and deny the world-retract from himself and from things his attention and thus, lightly of earthly weight, be sipped by God "(OC V, 104).
As far as any of us know, quantum events can happen in the absence of any conditions at all.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental principles and laws of quantum mechanics? Relativistic quantum fields?
The concept of being itself, especially coupled with divine simplicity, seems to me bland and generic. Suppose we take on the Leibnizian question of why this world exists rather than any of the other possible worlds that could have existed instead, we cannot answer "because being itself".
ReplyDeleteI've always been a little skeptical of the idea of God as being itself. Seems to make more sense to say God is ON THE ORDER OF being itself and use this idea as a means of nudging people away from the notion of GOd as a big powerful guy. Whitehead thought of God as the principle of concretion; as far as I can understand it, that makes more sense to me.
The fundamental principles and laws of quantum mechanics? Relativistic quantum fields?
ReplyDelete- The laws of physics are not conditions. They simply describe the way things behave. They may or may not narrow the set of possible physical conditions in which things happen. The big bang theory was problematic because it predicted that the universe would only become flat under a specific starting condition. The inflation theory had no such restriction. That's why physicists believe it works better as a scientific theory (and also why theists hate it for supposedly eliminating God). Quantum events happen. They happen under any kind of physical constraints or conditions, even in the absence of physical space. You can't get any more free of physical conditions than that.
So are you conflating "conditions" with "physical conditions"? The laws wouldn't be physical conditions; they condition how physical things behave. Under your own definition of "physical" ( mind-independent truth) the constraints that physical things are under would be "physical." You're contradicting yourself.
ReplyDeleteSo are you conflating "conditions" with "physical conditions"? The laws wouldn't be physical conditions; they condition how physical things behave. Under your own definition of "physical" ( mind-independent truth) the constraints that physical things are under would be "physical." You're contradicting yourself.
ReplyDelete- I think you're doing the conflating. We were talking about physical conditions in the first place.
Let me be a little more clear about physical laws. Laws DO NOT condition how things behave. The behavior of things is just a matter of reality. Laws are purely descriptive of how things behave. But having recognized a physical law, we can see that there may be conditions that apply to the behavior of things. That's just a matter of reality, and it applies regardless of how we formulate our understanding of those laws.
And I did not define physical as "mind-independent truth". I said that physical things are independent of mind. That is to say, they have objective existence. That distinguishes them from things that do not have objective existence, such a mathematical formulations.
Let me be a little more clear about physical laws. Laws DO NOT condition how things behave. The behavior of things is just a matter of reality. Laws are purely descriptive of how things behave. But having recognized a physical law, we can see that there may be conditions that apply to the behavior of things. That's just a matter of reality, and it applies regardless of how we formulate our understanding of those laws.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know for sure that laws do not condition the way things behave? I doubt that anyone knows nearly enough about such things to be able to speak with authority. We just don't know enough. And BTW, I don't think that the idea of conditions on physical things and their behavior necessarily implies theism, before we go down that rabbit hole.
How are you defining the word "physical"? My OPINION is that there is one reality and that "physical" and similar words refer to a kind of understanding applied to that reality. The objects of that understanding are mind-independently real even if the formulations are not.
My OPINION is that there is one reality and that "physical" and similar words refer to a kind of understanding applied to that reality. The objects of that understanding are mind-independently real even if the formulations are not.
ReplyDelete- I don't have any argument with that. The big question is how we understand what that reality is.
How do you know for sure that laws do not condition the way things behave?
- There are two different things at play. One is the reality, and the other is our understanding of that reality. So in my earlier comment, I was talking about our understanding of the reality, which doesn't do anything to dictate what the reality is. If, by the word law, you mean the underlying reality, then yes, there are physical conditions under which certain things can happen.
How are you defining the word "physical"?
- I tried to state it in terms of things that can be detected. Physical things bump into other things, or have some causal effect on things. A mathematical equation doesn't cause anything to happen. It is conceptual, not physical. However, if that equation reflects a physical reality (a law of physics) it describes behavior. In any case, it doesn't cause behavior. Quantum fields are not like electric fields, which are detectable physical things. They are simply equations used to describe the probability of quantum events.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteMy OPINION is that there is one reality and that "physical" and similar words refer to a kind of understanding applied to that reality. The objects of that understanding are mind-independently real even if the formulations are not.
- I don't have any argument with that. The big question is how we understand what that reality is.
How do you know for sure that laws do not condition the way things behave?
- There are two different things at play. One is the reality, and the other is our understanding of that reality. So in my earlier comment, I was talking about our understanding of the reality, which doesn't do anything to dictate what the reality is. If, by the word law, you mean the underlying reality, then yes, there are physical conditions under which certain things can happen.
How are you defining the word "physical"?
- I tried to state it in terms of things that can be detected. Physical things bump into other things, or have some causal effect on things. A mathematical equation doesn't cause anything to happen. It is conceptual, not physical. However, if that equation reflects a physical reality (a law of physics) it describes behavior. In any case, it doesn't cause behavior. Quantum fields are not like electric fields, which are detectable physical things. They are simply equations used to describe the probability of quantum events.
4:36 PM Delete
that all reasonable to a point but about the lat point
yes but in trying to understand what particles are they explicated in terms of fields and charge and away wind up with Quantum particle, particle are made of QM particles yet those are just equaioms, thereisnoreality at thebottom tahtwe really understand,
yes but in trying to understand what particles are they explicated in terms of fields and charge and away wind up with Quantum particle, particle are made of QM particles yet those are just equaioms, thereisnoreality at thebottom tahtwe really understand,
ReplyDelete- No, Joe. Particles are real physical things. They are not made of equations.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteyes but in trying to understand what particles are they explicated in terms of fields and charge and away wind up with Quantum particle, particle are made of QM particles yet those are just equaioms, thereisnoreality at thebottom tahtwe really understand,
- No, Joe. Particles are real physical things. They are not made of equations.
nope you have no proof at all, every thing you said contradicts that, the most you can prove is that they think they are, but have no real proof. They don;t even know what they are
You're right, Joe. I don't have absolute proof of anything, and I don't claim to. Why do you keep bringing this up in virtually EVERY discussion. Do you think you're proving something? As an empiricist, I am satisfied to place a reasonable level of trust in the evidence of the senses. Do I believe that that chair I'm sitting on actually exists? Yes. Do I believe that the universe exists? Yes. Do I believe that matter exists? Yes, I do. Particles exist. They are the building blocks of material things. And they are not equations. They have physical presence. You don't seem to know the difference.
ReplyDeleteim-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Joe. I don't have absolute proof of anything, and I don't claim to. Why do you keep bringing this up in virtually EVERY discussion. Do you think you're proving something?
you know it proves something,one thing it proves is that your argument against my argument is foolish,trying to imply that Vacuum flux is just theoretical does not beat my argument.
As an empiricist, I am satisfied to place a reasonable level of trust in the evidence of the senses. Do I believe that that chair I'm sitting on actually exists? Yes. Do I believe that the universe exists? Yes. Do I believe that matter exists? Yes, I do. Particles exist. They are the building blocks of material things. And they are not equations. They have physical presence. You don't seem to know the difference.
go back to the beginning and see how that came up find the point where you countered my argument by saying Vacuum flux is just theoriteicaland use this to answer yourself,
you argued that things don't have causes at the quantum level,
ReplyDeletethe implication being the universe could just pop up out of nothing for no reason. I said physicists don't really mean nothing they mean vacuum flux you said that'just theoretical as though that kill cause and effect. it does not.
vacuum flux is just more particles, so if particles are real things so is vacuum flux. That means something you have to account for to prove origin so no universe from nothing.
go back to the beginning and see how that came up find the point where you countered my argument by saying Vacuum flux is just theoriteicaland use this to answer yourself,
ReplyDelete- Now go back to what I said, and learn something. Particles are real physical things. They emerge from the vacuum, which is nothing, in a manner consistent with calculations that describe their probability. Those calculations are called wave equations. Te mathematical constructs described by these wave equations are what people call vacuum flux. Vacuum flux isn't a real physical thing, and doesn't emerge from anything. It is just equations that somebody conceived to predict the behavior of the particles that do emerge, which are real things.
But there's another point here that you don't understand that is more significant. Let's just assume for a moment that there is actually something that particles emerge from. It doesn't matter. We were talking about causation. The emergence of those particles is STILL UNCAUSED. That's the nature of quantum behavior. Things happen without a cause.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDeletego back to the beginning and see how that came up find the point where you countered my argument by saying Vacuum flux is just theoriteicaland use this to answer yourself,
- Now go back to what I said, and learn something. Particles are real physical things. They emerge from the vacuum, which is nothing, in a manner consistent with calculations that describe their probability.
No! you just proved you don't know what you are talking about, you want to pretend you know so much about science but you don't, Dr. Odenwald said when physicists say nothing they don't mean real nothing they mean vacuum flux, you want to say particles cone form nonbinding, no they do not they come from more particles, no no one knows where they come from. saying they are real physical things does not mean you know where they come from,
Joe, I already explained this to you. Many scientists are still stuck on a philosophical definition of 'nothing'. To them, the vacuum is not "philosophical nothingness", so it must be something. OK. So philosophically, it's not nothing because something comes from it. But physically, it is still nothing. It has no substance, nothing to detect, nothing to measure. It is nothing. And there are plenty of physicists who agree with me. So the fact that you can find one who disagrees means NOTHING.
ReplyDeleteThose calculations are called wave equations. Te mathematical constructs described by these wave equations are what people call vacuum flux. Vacuum flux isn't a real physical thing, and doesn't emerge from anything. It is just equations that somebody conceived to predict the behavior of the particles that do emerge, which are real things.
ReplyDeletethat is nonsense but let's assume it for the moment, it does not help you win the argent. Nothing about that justifies something from nothing,
But there's another point here that you don't understand that is more significant. Let's just assume for a moment that there is actually something that particles emerge from. It doesn't matter. We were talking about causation. The emergence of those particles is STILL UNCAUSED. That's the nature of quantum behavior. Things happen without a cause.
you don;t understand any of it, the uncased bit is virtual particles,they are not commie from nothing they combine with already existing particle from VF that come virtual then cease to be virtual, virtual parietal, those are what is said to be nothing, both Odenwalkd and Albert show that when they say "nothing" they mean vacuum flux, parties exist they are not from real nothing. Odenwald aid it directly :they do not mean nothing they mean vacuum flux"
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006)
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
"Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded."
Joe, do you understand anything you read? He says particles are real. Now go back and read what I told you, when YOU claimed they are just mathematical. But there's nothing in this quote abut whether the quantum vacuum is real.
ReplyDeletemore things about which you are wrong
ReplyDeleteVacuum flux is real
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=ZLEMWt7HE4SGmQHq7KmoDQ&q=is+vacuum+flux+real%3F&oq=is+vacuum+flux+real%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1l2.3460.22274.0.23400.61.43.17.0.0.0.325.6212.0j34j2j2.39.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..6.54.6400.6..0j35i39k1j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i20i264k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1j0i131i20i264k1.137.AbSInR5lcrY
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire ... It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is "real" in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as ... It follows that the energy and momentum flux in this wave field only becomes significant at extremely short ...
Origin · Implications · History
.
Just keep googling, Joe. You still don't understand any of it. The vacuum energy is part of what comes from the vacuum. Energy is real. Particles are real. The vacuum itself is still NOTHING.
ReplyDeletethe quotes I already put up disprove your Bull shit, you do not understand cosmology,
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe. What you apparently don't understand is that particles are one thing, quantum vacuum means something different, and vacuum flux is different from that, and background energy is different from that. You don't distinguish between things that are physical and things that are conceptual. You can't just substitute one of these things for another. You can't argue that a conceptual thing is real by citing an article that says a physical thing is real. Your arguments are not cogent, because you don't understand the articles you cite. They don't prove what you claim they do.
ReplyDeletem-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteNo, Joe. What you apparently don't understand is that particles are one thing, quantum vacuum means something different, and vacuum flux is different from that, and background energy is different from that.
wrong, I jut quoted the evidence that proves that nonsense wrong.from above
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
[thi says vacuum flux is the same thing as quantum flux the next quote says it; real]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire ... It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is "real" in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as ... It follows that the energy and momentum flux in this wave field only becomes significant at extremely short ...
Origin · Implications · History
Let us straighten out the Bull shit about particles and vaccum flux and what's real. you tried to lose VF as theoretical and keep parties as real that is extreme e stupidity.
ReplyDelete(1) Vacuum flux is just more parties so if parties are real VF has t obe real too,the quote says it is.
(2) both are theoretical because one and real in a sense"
"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire ... It is therefore believed that the vacuum energy is 'real' in the same sense that more familiar conceptual objects such as ... a"
real is in quotation marks because it; all theoretical,in the senses that its not empirical, it;s proven through tests not through direct observation,there i no observation of sub atomic patoicles.
the only thing you saw in the long quote was that particle are real, the quote says they don't pop out of nothing they come out of other particles you just blindly saw that one thing about them being real because all you want to see what backs your misunderstanding,,
quote: "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse."
Wash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical thing. Particles are real physical things. Equations do not have real physical existence. No matter how many times you keep citing things you don't understand, the truth doesn't change. Wash, rinse, repeat.
ReplyDeleteWash, rinse, repeat. Energy is a real physical thing. Particles are real physical things. Equations do not have real physical existence. No matter how many times you keep citing things you don't understand, the truth doesn't change. Wash, rinse, repeat.
ReplyDelete(1) you contradict yourself again: VF is just more particles so if particles are real VF is real,
(2)being real and physical does not mean we know all about it so it can be both theoretical (in a sense) and real,
(3)I never denied that energy is real you did I said we don't know what we are dealing with and all the ideas we have about particles are the based upon the interactions of other particles not direct observation.While I did not say its not real It is not empirical in the true sense you are supposedly an empiricist, you contradict yourself
The problem here, Joe, is that you don't distinguish between mathematics and physical reality. I've tried to explain the difference to you, and you just don't get it. If I think of a mathematical equation that describes the way something works, it doesn't mean that that equation IS physical reality. I honestly don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletenothing I said implies what you said. you have completely missed everything about this post that makes it worth discussion. go eat come oatmeal and think about it again. here's a hint it;s the tie breaker thing,
ReplyDeleteHere's a hint for you. There's no tie to break. "Science works, bitches!"
ReplyDeleteobvious there is one is a fool to deny it but it requires actually being willing to listen. Both sides say the other needs a cause for their final cause but but they don;t neither side can prove it, so obviously that's a tie.
ReplyDeleteNo final cause. No tie. Science wins, hands down.
ReplyDeletescience has no opinion on the matter. There is no science that proves no final cause, but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause. It's no victory for science to echo atheist lies, science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.
ReplyDeleteyou don't know what a tie is. saying there's no God does not make it so. But in the log jam on both sides (because neither will admit the other has a point the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.
... but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause ...
ReplyDelete- Nope. Science has shown us that a cause isn't necessary.
science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.
- First honest thing I've ever heard you say. Nevertheless, despite science being neutral, it gives us no reason whatsoever to think that your God is real.
the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.
- Nope. What you call "reasoning" is nothing more than subjective feelings you have about God. No objective evidence. No objective reasoning.
im-skeptical said...
ReplyDelete... but the logic of causes proves there must be a final cause ...
- Nope. Science has shown us that a cause isn't necessary.
wrong you mistake propaganda for the real science. as I've demonstrated that when physicists say "nothing" they really mean vacuum flux, you have to account for that and you can't.what produces vacuum flux> there is no evidence it can come from nothing,
science is not a subset of atheism. Science is not in opposition to God.
- First honest thing I've ever heard you say. Nevertheless, despite science being neutral, it gives us no reason whatsoever to think that your God is real.
you are ignorant, you refuse to think it through think about the consequences of what you just admitted,
the reasoning position is the tie breaker,that's the theistic one.
- Nope. What you call "reasoning" is nothing more than subjective feelings you have about God. No objective evidence. No objective reasoning.
you obviously can't answer the logic or you would be, you have not answered it you are bidding form it,
Your theory is brute fact it has no why,I supplied a why that attache purpose to y theory, you don't know know what what I'm talking about because you didn't even read the essay,
the connection that establishesthe reasoning infinvoled:
ReplyDelete"To break the tie we just need to distinguish between the two kinds of un-caused nature. The argument is going to turn-on the concept of a BF. The nature of God's un-caused state is not the same as the nature of BF. To be a BF a thing must have no connection to a higher purpose. God can't have a purpose higher than himself but he can have a purpose higher than mere brute facticity. Semantically the two are different, Brute facts have higher purpose, God has asaiety not brute facticity. That it is part of the definition of what God is that he eternal and necessary. It's not part of the definition of the universe that it exists. That's existence as a predicate. On that basis Bertrand Russell ruled out the ontological argument. Existence is not a quality to be defined as part of the object, "I have one of those brick houses it;s the kind that exists." That goes beyond the semantic aspect and it can be understood in terms of the nature of being."
I know you wont follow the issues involved you will say something glib and stupid like:"that's not science, or "that's just feelings" you are you are willing to deal with the logic of the argument,
I know you wont follow the issues involved you will say something glib and stupid like:"that's not science, or "that's just feelings" you are you are willing to deal with the logic of the argument
ReplyDelete- Joe, did you ever consider that your arguments are glib? How does one provide a serious logical response to an argument that doesn't adhere to the norms of logic? You say your God has aseity and necessity and simplicity and all that "by definition", and then you automatically reject any attempt to inject logic into the argument. You're not making a logical argument. You're just defining your God into existence. As far as I'm concerned, that as glib as it gets.
Joe, did you ever consider that your arguments are glib? How does one provide a serious logical response to an argument that doesn't adhere to the norms of logic?
ReplyDeleteNo one else think that dito, you don't know shit about logic, you constantly think in circular reasoning and Rayn isalways getting on you for it,
You say your God has aseity and necessity and simplicity and all that "by definition", and then you automatically reject any attempt to inject logic into the argument.
you don;t intersect logic by merely stating pinon, you are hiding fro logic, you are not dealing wity it
You're not making a logical argument. You're just defining your God into existence. As far as I'm concerned, that as glib as it gets.
you are not using logic just because you utter the word"Logic" in a sentence.
now face reality reality stop hing in your delusional world of God hatred, and deal with the logic of the argent piker!
you don't do that by spouting little insulting remarks
deal with the rationale, I showed a dichotomy between brute fact vs purpose, deal with it.
here is some more reasoning that is directly realted to the dichotomy so deeal with it,
ReplyDelete"God is being itself of the ground of being.[2] The universe is not the ground of being. Even if it has no cause and has always existed the universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being." But before we do deifying the universe there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased. If it was, if we could call it God there would be a God and atheists would be wrong , even if Christians were wrong too. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal [3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4] The rea contest is between a meaningless accident that somehow came to be for no reason with no higher purpose ,which we call "the universe" vs. the ground of being or holy being which eternal, necessary (could not have failed to exist) and eternal cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres. That is not purpose higher than itself but is it;'s own purpose (that the universe doesn't have). "
here is some more reasoning that is directly realted to the dichotomy so deeal with it
ReplyDeleteOK.
1. God is being itself of the ground of being.
- From the outset you have defined 'being' in a way that is inseparable from God. A reasonable person doesn't have to accept your definition, and only a theist would accept that.
2. universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being."
- Nobody calls the universe the "ground of being". Because of the way you have defined the term, it cannot be used without invoking God, and that would be begging the question.
3. there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased.
- Sorry, but science gives good reason to think that the universe is uncaused.
4. If it was, if we could call it God
- Only if we are begging the question. Something that exists without a cause is a brute fact, and that doesn't imply God.
5. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal [3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4]
- Once again, you are ignoring science. This is an issue we have discussed. It doesn't matter if you call it a "quantum vacuum" or something else for ideological reasons - it is still physically nothing, and all the philosophers in the world can't change that reality.
6. The rea contest ... cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres.
- This statement is a simple assertion without justification. Yes, I know that you defined being as essentialy identical with God. But that is begging the question, as I noted earlier. The premise to your argument (stated in item 1) is regurgitated in your conclusion. You can't separate the existence of anything from God, precisely because that's what you assume from the start. You have given no logical justification for this fundamental assumption. You simply assert it as being true. No reasonable person should accept this as a sound argument.
OK.
ReplyDelete1. God is being itself of the ground of being.
- From the outset you have defined 'being' in a way that is inseparable from God. A reasonable person doesn't have to accept your definition, and only a theist would accept that.
You don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that,
2. universe cannot be called the ground of being without attaching to it some higher sense of special nature such that we can think of it ass "holy being."
- Nobody calls the universe the "ground of being". Because of the way you have defined the term, it cannot be used without invoking God, and that would be begging the question.
yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.That is missing the point to say it evokes God. Your hatred for God is so deep and so self rooted you can't even consider the possibility that it evokes God because God is real. why wouldn't it evoke God? That's what the concept of God is about.
3. there is no reason to assume that the universe is eternal or uncased.
- Sorry, but science gives good reason to think that the universe is uncaused.
No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.
4. If it was, if we could call it God
ReplyDelete- Only if we are begging the question. Something that exists without a cause is a brute fact, and that doesn't imply God.
You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so,.
5. We can eliminate that possibility. We know the universe is not eternal
[3] and It did not pop out of nothing.[4]
- Once again, you are ignoring science.
the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that,
This is an issue we have discussed. It doesn't matter if you call it a "quantum vacuum" or something else for ideological reasons - it is still physically nothing, and all the philosophers in the world can't change that reality.
I have two answers: (1)you are contradicting your own arguments, you claim subatomic particles are real physical things and VF is nothing more than a collection of subatomic particles,so VF is real physical thing,it;s obvious. (2) the studies I point to are not talking about that. Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith argues that the Space/time continuum is not eternal,based upon background radiation fro the BB.
[3] Quentin Smith, “The Uncased Beginning of the Universe.” The British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, (1988, Vol., 55, no. 1), 39-57.
[4] Joseph Hinman, "Quantum Particles Do not prove universe from Nothing," The religious a priori, website URL: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/03/quantum-particles-do-not-prove-universe.html
accessed 7/23/16
6. The rea contest ... cohere's within the infinite folds of a core purpose upon which the all existence coheres.
ReplyDelete- This statement is a simple assertion without justification. Yes, I know that you defined being as essentialy identical with God. But that is begging the question,
no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate,
as I noted earlier. The premise to your argument (stated in item 1) is regurgitated in your conclusion.
No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards,
You can't separate the existence of anything from God, precisely because that's what you assume from the start. You have given no logical justification for this fundamental assumption. You simply assert it as being true. No reasonable person should accept this as a sound argument.
No that's false, I Didn't do it in the pace above because it's already been done so many times I have to refer to previous works that discuss it,
Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's.
Here are some previous blog pieces where i discus reasons for understanding God as being itself.
ReplyDeleteBible God and Depth of Being
Bible God and Depth of Being
Introduction to Tillich's ontology
I did same one twice this is the one that should have been no 2
ReplyDeletehere
You don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that
ReplyDelete- I repeated YOUR definition verbatim. YOU defined God as "being itself".
yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.
- I've never heard it. Not even once. Do you have any quotes?
That is missing the point to say it evokes God.
- It was the definition you gave. How is it missing the point? It goes straight to the conclusion of your argument.
No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.
- My statement was about causation, not about the temporal aspect of the universe. If you are claiming that anything that has a beginning in time must be caused, there are two problems with that. 1: The universe does not have a beginning in time. Rather, time begins with the universe. 2: There are still things that begin in time, but are uncaused.
You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so
- Joe, I'm not making the argument. I'm responding to yours. I said YOUR argument is begging the question, and I explained exactly why.
the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that
- You can cite studies and papers, and quote scientists, and still ignore what they say.
I have two answers: ...
- None of that addresses the problem I was discussing, which was your claim that the universe "did not pop out of nothing".
no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate
- You defined God as being itself. If A = B, then B = A. Identity is reflexive. You can't get it backwards.
No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards
- Whatever. But you still didn't address the core issue that you are begging the question.
Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's
- I am addressing what YOU said at 1:29 AM, not what Augustine said in 300 AD.
m-skeptical said...
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what Tillich's definition is. Tillich defines being as actuality, I think any reasonable person would accept that
- I repeated YOUR definition verbatim. YOU defined God as "being itself".
That is so silly, you are doing it backwards,you said my definition of BEING was constructed to reflect my view of God. now you are harping on the definition of God, but since you are not qualified to discusses theology you need to learn more before I take your nonsense cellulose,,...God is the transcendental signified, that is being itself because it;s the ultimate basis of reality.
yes they do ,that;s a standard atheist ploy.
- I've never heard it. Not even once. Do you have any quotes?
one more stray bit of qualia in a vast cean
That is missing the point to say it evokes God.
- It was the definition you gave. How is it missing the point? It goes straight to the conclusion of your argument.
No the point is not that I believe in God the point is the tie breaker at the point where both sides claim uncased origins,saying"IO dot believe in God so it's not a tie: is not an answer, you will turn around and argue the uncased nature of the universe at the next God argument thus evoking the tie as a meas of frustrating a God argument, having donged the issue here that there is a tie breaker,
No quite the contrary, The standard model is famous for saying time has a beginning with the universe.
- My statement was about causation, not about the temporal aspect of the universe. If you are claiming that anything that has a beginning in time must be caused, there are two problems with that. 1: The universe does not have a beginning in time. Rather, time begins with the universe. 2: There are still things that begin in time, but are uncaused.
No it has a beginning with time I just said that, that means it's not eternal if you claim there are other universes that are eternal you must prove that,
You are trying to impose your view by stipulation. you are begging the question. you are using your positioning as proof that you are right; you have to establish the assumptions you are asserting you hae not done so
- Joe, I'm not making the argument. I'm responding to yours. I said YOUR argument is begging the question, and I explained exactly why.
no you are not, you said nothing about the specific I put in front of your face, you are arguing peripheral issues,ie you don't believe in God or the ethereal multiverwes,but you said nothing about brute facts or the claim that purpose is the tie breaker
the foot notes I marked there refer to science, that's from scientific studies that I say that
- You can cite studies and papers, and quote scientists, and still ignore what they say.
non sequitur, that doesn't prove I'm ignoring the, read the Clarice,
I have two answers: ...
- None of that addresses the problem I was discussing, which was your claim that the universe "did not pop out of nothing".
no that's a technique you employed to hide from the issues and make it look like you are saying something, that's not even part of the armament, it has nothing to do with the point. In terms of non formal fallacies it's what we call a red herring, get the reading onto a false trail you lay down, you imposed the issue of universe from nothing.It's necessary to mention to set up the tie but it's not the point of the article,
You have dealt with nothing,
no you just have it backwards, God is the term we use to talk about being, we don't make up a definition of being to fit God,we use the term God to describe being then we make metaphors about it to illustrate
ReplyDelete- You defined God as being itself. If A = B, then B = A. Identity is reflexive. You can't get it backwards.
this is really just another version of saying I don't believe in God and expecting that to win the argument. You trying to shift the issue to argument about you don't believe in 'God so I have the burden of proof and it's a repeat of the only thing atheists can think abouit,hate God,God big mean me no like. Your accusation that I'm tailoring the idea of being to fit my idea of God loses and it's not to the point,
you are not going to get out of reading those articles, they demonstrate the justification for linking God with being itself,
No i jut showed your reasoning i backwards
- Whatever. But you still didn't address the core issue that you are begging the question.
It's not my core issue,it's your red herring,Only tangentially related to the article,
Let's remember how this is the work of established theologians going as far back as St. Augustine in the 300's
- I am addressing what YOU said at 1:29 AM, not what Augustine said in 300 AD
whatI saidis what Agugie said
I doubt anyone is reading this. you are really struggling to avoid dealing with the issues of the article. I'll give you one more chance to say something about the issues then I'm closing the thread.
ReplyDelete