Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
I'm guessing that is the only possible conclusion, given your postulates.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Violates postulate 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is the case, it means one (or more!) of your postulates is false, but it does not tell you which one. Worse: infinite regresses are possible was not one of your postulates; so you will never be able to show that statement is false with this line of attack (proof by contradiction). It's a dead end.
**RE: why do you guys use earthly science as a basis for accepting or entertaining the idea of a source?
___________________________________________________________________________________
I use them to try to prove any/all "BELIEF"-based assertion(s) as ignorant.
Any/all laws governing existence must duly regard/respect whatever the source/cause was/is. Therefor, one can "infer" the source if the inference is from a 'known' point. I infer from the 7 days of creation that there is an axiom(s) that guides all of existence. Consider:
THE RELATIVE INTRA-INFERENCE POSTULATE(S) (TRIIP)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Let any arbitrary universe designated as 'that I am' exist.
Let any arbitrary (known or unknown (to itself)) 'I am' exist in/of it.
'I am' therefor exists in/of 'that I am'.
1. If 'I am' is *unknown* unto itself, it can not infer 'that I am' as *any* unknown can not be inferred by another unknown*.
2. If 'I am is *known* unto itself, it possibly can infer 'that i am' accordingly to the degree(s) to which it 'knows' (of) itself.
3. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO INFER THE EXISTENCE OF *ANY* GOD(S) AND/OR DEITIES LESS KNOWLEDGE OF 'I AM'. <-axiom
Now, let 'that I am' be comprised of any/all imaginable DICHOTOMOUS DIPOLE(S):
god/satan, good/evil, right/wrong, light/dark, truth/falsity, pure/impure etc.
4. Belief-based ignorance(s) due to fear(s) certainly exists.
5. Knowledge of what *NOT* to "believe" certainly exists.
6. INTRA-INFERENCE: THERE IS A PRIMORDIAL ANTITHETICALLY DICHOTOMOUS DIPOLE OF KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE (alpha/omega of 'I am').
7. ANY/ALL BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE(S) CAN DEFINITELY BE TRIED INDEFINITELY BY KNOWLEDGE.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
These are near-about the 7 days of creation (therefor possibly near-about axiomatic):
1. DARK to LIGHT (P7: (un)consciousness)
2. ABOVE/BELOW (P6: Primordial Antithetically Dichotomous Dipole)
3. LIFE (P5: Knowledge) <-*FIRST FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE/IGNORANCE PRINCIPLE OF 'I AM' (FFK/I)
4. FEAR (P4: Ignorance) <-*FIRST FUNDAMENTAL KNOWLEDGE/IGNORANCE PRINCIPLE OF 'I AM' (FFK/I)
5. ANIMAL Nature (P3: Enmity) <-*BELIEF-BASED IGNORANCE
6. HUMAN Nature (P2: Vanity) <-* KNOWLEDGE-BASED CONSCIENCE
7. ...???...
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"EARTHLY SCIENCE"
Inquiry: what possibly is/are the first fundamental knowledge(s)/ignorance(s) (FFK/I)?
"I think not, less I know I am willing to think."
"I believe *not* less I know I am willing to believe."
"I BELIEVE 'I am' willing..." <-**FFK/I* NECESSARILY IGNORANT (ie. not known)
"I KNOW 'I am' willing..." <-**FFK/I NECESSARILY ACKNOWLEDGED (ie. 'known')
viz. **BELIEF** (ie. FIRST IGNORANCE(S) of 'I am' begets any/all IGNORANCE).
____________________________________________
FALL: **BELIEVE** TO KNOW GOOD/EVIL
infers
RISE: **KNOW** GOOD/EVIL begs inquiry: HOW?
***********************************************************
All-KNOWING is by way of TRYING all BELIEF, but
not all BELIEF is by way of TRYING to KNOW.
***********************************************************
and infers:
UNBELIEVING is by way of KNOWING, but
not all KNOWING is by way of UNBELIEVING.
and demands that:
"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."
-Philosowaffle
be designated ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!!
and
UNBELIEVING > BELIEVING
RENDERING:
ANY/ALL "BELIEF"-BASED THEOLOGY
AS IGNORANT AS ANY/ALL IGNORANCE(S) MAY PERMIT
BY WAY OF WAGING WAR AGAINST "UNBELIEVERS". <-* FISA BRINGS DOWN THE HOUSE 'OSWINE
Confirmed by:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
But of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD AND EVIL,
thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die.------------------------------
GENESIS 2:17
3Q for "BELIEVING" THEISTS
including the house 'oswine shills here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Does not so-called "satan"
**REQUIRE** "BELIEF" would that
"BELIEVERS" "BELIEVE":
...themselves to be something they are not? (ie. "I believe I am...FFK/I)
...satan is god...
...EVIL is GOOD...
...wrong is right...
...infidelity is fidelity...
...WAR is PEACE...
...ignorance ad absurdum AD INFINITUM...
...?
(expression of being BOUND (to "believe"?)
in an ongoing (ie. indefinite) state: SHAYTAN?)
House of Islam ('s wine) implosion: imminent
(real knowledge ALWAYS defeats ignorance)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest "
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
If GOD exists, and is all-KNOWING,
would this not include KNOWING-all
*not* to "BELIEVE" like:
i. god writes books
ii. god uses men
iii. a polygamous pedophile infidel man is the GREATEST
example for ALL of HUMANITY!
iv. WAR is PEACE
v. ABUSE is MERCY
etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"thereof thou shalt surely die."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
WHO ARE THEY WHO ARE SO WILLING TO "BELIEVE"???
I am A Gnostic Agnostic
What I know I know
What I do not know, I do not know:
I know pigs squeal and whine
I know sheep tend to herd
I know goats climb mountains, but so far
I DO NOT KNOW HOW "BELIEVERS" ARE SO WILLING TO "BELIEVE"!
Let there be real peace.
They have no "real" power.
It's perfectly proper to reject assertions about such an entity, when those assertions are associated with consequences that are ridiculous in the light of scientific knowledge, or involve logical contradictions.
Furthermore, there are other elementary principles at work here. The first being that assertions do not equal fact, and attempting to present them as such is a violation of the proper rules of discourse. The second being that any entity about which we only have assertions and no data, can be safely disregarded, because such entities are indistinguishable from non-existent entities. Another issue centres upon the fact, that most of the assertions presented about a purported god-type entity, arise from mythologies, and adherence thereto on the part of supernaturalists, and mythologies are notoriously unreliable. The unreliability of mythologies arises from [1] the presence therein of assertions that are untestable even in principle, let alone in practice, and [2] the presence therein of assertions about the universe and its operation that are not merely plain, flat, wrong in the light of scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. As a corollary of those two fatal features of mythologies, their provenance as a purported source of "knowledge" is pretty much worthless.
Indeed, one of the issues I've addressed here previously, centres upon that annoying tendency of supernaturalists to refuse point blank to consider any candidate for the "god role" other than the one contained in their favourite mythologies. I covered this in some detail here, and in the process, probably became the first person ever on these forums to consider the possibility of a non-mythological candidate for the "god role".
Of course, a non-mythological candidate for the "god role", one that operates in accordance with known physics, or provides consistent and comprehensible extensions to known physics, will be rejected outright by supernaturalists, because such a candidate won't provide them with the infantile comforts they seek. Not least, because the concerns of any non-mythological god-type entity of this sort, will almost certainly have no connection at all to the concerns of the fatuous mythological gods. A god consonant with modern scientific knowledge, will almost certainly have concerns more akin to that of an experimental cosmologist, than the assorted narcissists and celestial dictators contained in human mythologies, and for that reason alone will provide supernaturalists with no satisfaction whatsoever. Instead, supernaturalists want a god that embodies their own inner, and frequently, darkest, desires - a god that subjects the favourite hate targets of the supernaturalists in question to eternal sadistic torture, and preens the egos of the supernaturalists in question. Right wing evangelicals in the US Bible Belt are merely the most floridly pathological in this regard, who want their god to be a cosmic Donald Trump.
Finally, another elementary principle at work here, pretty much tosses all the mythological candidates into the bin for another reason. Namely, that when scientists establish that testable natural processes are sufficient to account for and explain a given class of entities and interactions, supernatural entities become superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. This has already happened for vast classes of entities and interactions, including classes that the authors of mythologies knew nothing about, were incapable of even fantasising about, but which scientists have placed within usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The few, increasingly vanishingly small gaps remaining that are the subject of active research, offer no hope of a reversal of precedent, and appeal thereto is futile.
Moving on ...
And with that statement, you've just demonstrated your wholesale ignorance of scientific knowledge. I'll just let you have fun seeing how it's done properly.
Moving on again ...
You appear to be unaware that quantum mechanics has pretty much destroyed classical causation. Indeed, said destruction of classical causation, is one of the reasons a particle physicist's job is sometimes extremely hard. See, for example, the hunt for the Higgs Boson.
Plus, the whole "first cause" garbage presumes in advance, the existence of an entity that violates the initial premise of the argument. That you appear not to understand this elementary concept, speaks volumes at this juncture. Even elementary students of philosophy understand this. Far from being a "proof" of an imaginary magic man, it's an exercise in "black is white" rhetorical gymnastics, and has nothing to do with any proper, rigorous application of the principles of logic. Though I don't find myself in the least surprised to see this sort of nonsense emanating from pedlars of apologetics, most of whom would not recognise rigour if it backed an M! Abrams main battle tank into their ribcages.
@Calilasseia
RE: "Can you handle the Ricci calculus in 26 dimensions? No? Neither can most of the posters here which is why we leave the requisite answers to those who can."
I am limiting the use of tools you probably can't understand for pure Logic for the sake of members here screaming at me to go win a Nobel Prize. I know there is no Nobel Prize for logic, therefore, I am comfortable with this approach.
1. It is impossible to prove God with science, math or logic.
2. I am not proving God to you.
I am simply establishing the fact that using our present understanding of logic, a first cause exists. It only leads to a necessary consequence that the first cause is either a Thing or a Being.
Just a question:
Let's assume that God the creator exists, He must have been existing prior to the universe. How do you know that natural laws as we know it is valid before the creation of the universe? Deduce from your answer how logical it is to depend on current physical laws in proving and negating God.
@reedemption
"I am simply establishing the fact that using our present understanding of logic, a first cause exists. It only leads to a necessary consequence that the first cause is either a Thing or a Being."
That is a false dilemma. You are postulating just two options, while there may be more.
Why just a thing or entity instead of including a process? The evolution of energy after the big bang, and the conversion of energy into matter was also a process. And since those processes are connected to the creation of the universe, by what logic can we firmly discount processes and narrow the search down to just a thing or being?
I just added one more subject to the (postulated) first cause. There may be more, and we must be cautious we do not fall into a false dilemma. Reedemption, let me know when you have discounted every other option, and please list them. And although it may sound ridiculous, do not casually discount invisible farting unicorns.
@Reedemption: RE: "I am simply establishing the fact that using our present understanding of logic, a first cause exists. " And we have told you over and over and over and over, scientists are still debating the topic and there is no FUCKING WAY IN THE WORLD YOU CAN KNOW THIS. You have established nothing but your own ignorance.
RE: Let's assume god the creator exists ---- OKay Done.
Re: He must have existed prior to the universe ----- WHAT THE FUCK FOR? Why couldn't he come along later. Why couldn't he be a manifestation of the universe and co develop? Was there a before? Apparently our version of time came about with the big bang. If there was no time before the universe God could never have had a thought or performed an action. How does god do things without space or time? What if God did not come about until man invented him? A much more likely story, since a god that wold have created the earth only to destroy it seven or more times before the appearance of man would have been a fucking idiot.
How does your god exist before existence? Please explain.
Nonsense, you've established nothing of the sort. You've asserted it repeatedly, using known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam, and begging the question fallacies.
Please don't keep lying, its tedious, and painful to watch.
Ho hum, let's not assume that, and let's not pretend you haven't been making this unevidenced assumption from the start...its in your profile ffs, and you've already admitted you can't demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for it.
Hahahahahaha, fucking hilarious, do you even know what a begging the question fallacy is? You can't simply assume things about the deity you're arguing for in those arguments, dear oh dear. Never mind mathematical proof, try grasping the fact that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains a known logical fallacy.
By your own admission you start with the pure assumption that a deity exists, then immediately make a completely unevidenced assertion about its nature, and best of all these assumptions are a god of the gaps polemic to pretend you know something the entire scientific world does not, fucking hilarious fair play, no matter how often I see this nonsense it reduces me to a fit of the giggles.
Can you really be basing your entire worldview on such rapid rhetoric?
Saving the funniest until last I see. The word creation in three is another begging the question fallacy, you can't simply assume what you're arguing for in your argument. No atheist has made any claims to know anything prior to the big bang, so that's a straw man fallacy. You however have implied exactly this with your premise 1 in the KCA, as you cited cause and effect and then applied it to a non temporal or pre big bang scenario. You end yet again with a straw man fallacy, and yet another appeal to ignorance fallacy. No one needs to negate a deity you can demonstrate no evidence for, and which is indistinguishable from non-existent or fictitious but unfalsifiable myths.
Seriously do you think the atheists here tossed a coin to decide if they believe in a deity or not? Theists like yourself come here filled with hubris and grandiose claims for the existence of their sky fairy, and every time produce the exact same tired old risible fatuous rhetoric.
@Calilasseia
RE: "You appear to be unaware that quantum mechanics has pretty much destroyed classical causation."
Clearly, it looks like u COPY-PASTE without bothering to comprehend what you just lifted. In classical physics, an effect cannot occur before its cause. In Einstein's theory of special relativity, causality means that an effect cannot occur from a cause that is not in the back (past) light cone of that event. Similarly, a cause cannot have an effect outside its front (future) light cone. Look up causality on Wikipedia. In simple terms, what it means is that in quantum mechanics, it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one.
No. Quantum physics does not disprove causality, which is not the same thing as determinism. There is no experiment that disproves the principle of causality you know. Let's have it.
@reed
Ohhh FAAAAARK... INCOMING! *grabs TM and Talyyyn and throws them into slit trench while enticing Cog into bomb shelter with a porn subscription and over ripe banana, crouches waiting for annihilation event*
@Cali: WAIT!!!! Take a deep breath...... Understand that reedemption is just a poe who is trying to get you to over-react. That is what he lives for. He would not know a cut and paste job if it bit him in the ass. Eloquence in vocabulary usage is not something he actually comprehends.
Ahemmmmm... Causality debunked. Posted by skakos in Cause, Chaos and Order, Humans, Nature, Physics, Quantum Mechanics
THIS IS A CUT AND PASTE JOB!
Researchers at the University of Vienna and the Austrian Academy of Sciences develop a new theoretical framework to describe how causal structures in quantum mechanics transform. They analyze under which conditions quantum mechanics allows the causal structure of the world to become “fuzzy.” In this case, a fixed order of events is not possible. The results were published in the journal Physical Review X.
The idea that events occur one after the other in a fixed causal order is part of our intuitive picture of the physical world. Imagine that Alice can send a message to Bob via a wire that connects them. Alice decides to have a barbecue and can invite Bob via the wire connection. If he gets invited, Bob decides to prepare some Ćevapčići to bring along. This is an example where the event in which Alice decides to invite Bob to the barbecue influences the event in which Bob decides to prepare food. Such an order of events characterizes a definite causal structure. However, research in the foundations of quantum mechanics suggests that, at the quantum level, causal structures may be “indefinite”. In an indefinite causal structure there might not be a fixed order in which events happen, i.e. whether Alice influences Bob or Bob influences Alice might not be defined.
https://harmoniaphilosophica.com/2019/06/03/%EF%BB%BFcausality-debunked/
@reedemption
SERIOUSLY DUDE, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STOP TALKING IN ABSOLUTES AND PRETEND YOU KNOW HOW TO DO A GOOGLE SEARCH. JUST PUT THE WORDS "CAUSALITY DEBUNKED, RESEARCH" INTO YOUR BROWSER AND YOUR COMPUTER WILL DO THE REST. AFTER THAT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS HAVE SOMEONE READ THE ARTICLES TO YOU.
@reedemption:
"quantum switch is just one example of an indefinite causal structure, in which it is not defined whether event A is a cause or an effect of event B, or whether the two are independent."
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20180328a/full/
HERE ARE TWO EXPERIMENTS THAT DISPROVE CAUSALITY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS. THERE ARE MANY MORE......
Retrocausality or Backwards causation is a concept of cause and effect where the effect precedes its cause in time, so that a later event in time affects an earlier event.[1][2] In quantum physics, the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level, so time-symmetric systems can be viewed as causal or retro-causal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
ANYONE WITH A 6TH GRADE EDUCATION CAN FIND THESE STUDIES.
TELL YOU WHAT, YOU SEND ME A PM BEFORE YOUR NEXT POST AND I WILL SAVE YOU SOME EMBARRASSMENT.
I CAN POINT YOU TO A VIDEO THAT WILL DEBUNK WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY BEFORE YOU SAY IT.
The New Science of Cause and Effect
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AMCcYnAsdQ&t=84s
@Calilasseia
@Nyarlathotep
Again, put bias aside
POSTULATES
1. Every effect has a cause
2. Every cause has an effect
3. Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCE
Either,
a) Causes or effects don't exist
b) Infinite regress of cause and effect is possible
c) We have a conflicting logic
Options a, b contradict our normal experience
Option c implies conflicting logic
Follow the rabbit hole!
@reedemption
Oh I agree, you have formed a contradiction with those postulates! As I already discussed, that means one (or more) of the postulates is false:
But any of those 3 being false seems fatal to your arguments: you've been insisting they are true! It seems you have shot yourself in the foot.
Oh my, it appears he has shot both of his legs off and has nothing to stand on.
@David Killens
I'm guessing postulate 3 should have read: An infinite regress of cause and effect is possible.
That way when (or if) he reached a contradiction, it would be tempting to go back and claim that postulate 3 (my new version of 3) must be false. Thereby reaching the conclusion I think he wanted to reach: An infinite regress of cause and effect is NOT possible. But even that would have problems since there are other ways of resolving the contradiction, namely that postulate 1 or 2 are false. But at least it would be a hell of a lot better than what was actually posted.
1. This is only true for the ones we currently understand, your hubris is again quite hilarious.
2 IN EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE we currently understandcthose causes are natural phenomena. Not only has a supernatural cause never been evidenced, you can't demonstrate any evidence beyond hearsay and rhetoric dressed up as logic that such an event is even possible.
reedemption "Infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible"
Whoever claimed otherwise? Another straw man fallacy, priming yet another imminent god of the gaps appeal to ignorance fallacy from you, no doubt, to insert your fantasy of a sky fairy using magic.
I'll stick with not knowing thanks....
Are you in your early twenties or late teens by any chance? I only your strident hubris suggest you are.
@Randomhero1982
There are many types and kinds of gods in the world, no doubt. Just like there are different kinds of money. The fact that over 195 different kinds of currencies in the world but only one is legal tender in your country. Each of these currencies have several counterfeits but this fact doesn't make the US Dollar fake. So also with the gods in the world. The existence of different or counterfeit gods is not a good reason for disbelief.
Re: "....The existence of different or counterfeit gods is not a good reason for disbelief."
There are many types and kinds of Invisible Rainbow Farting Unicorns in the world, no doubt. The fact that over 195 different kinds of currencies in the world but only one is legal tender in your country. Each of these currencies have several counterfeits but this fact doesn't make the US Dollar fake. So also with the Invisible Rainbow Farting Unicorns in the world. The existence of different or counterfeit Invisible Rainbow Farting Unicorns is not a good reason for disbelief.
Re: Reed & Josh
Hmmmm.... Something that I just noticed. Based on the past few posts, I wonder which of them has his hand up the ass of the other. Granted, it is entirely possible I just have an over-active imagination. Still.... *shrugging shoulders*....
It is if no one can offer any objective evidence that the one they've chosen is any different from any of the others. As of course you have admitted is the case in a post above, only competing unevidenced claims for personal experience can be offered.
Your money analogy is unbelievably facile. It's also hilarious of course as money doesn't actually exist, it's just something created to sustain economics and trade. Odd you wouldn't know this, but a hundred dollar bill has no more intrinsic value that a sheet of toilet paper.
You're hilarious fair play....
"@Calilasseia
@David Killens
@cranky47
Don't you think it's equally ridiculous to disprove God using logic, physics, chemistry etc? With these sciences, the best we can do in establishing facts is to project our present realities into the past or future so as to be able to make a meaning of our present realities"
MY Atheism is simply a lack of belief DUE TO A LACK OF PROOF.
My philosophical stance has been the same for about 40 years ;
God cannot be argued into or out of existence:. That any claim about God is unfalsifiable. By that I mean it cannot be prove or disproved.
I take my stance from Betrand Russell because it was from him I found the following; That a thing has not been proved to be true does not make it false. That a thing has not been proved to be false does not make it true. (look up "Russell's Teapot" and argument n from ignorance) )
Logic is not a reliable tool for obtaining truth. A valid logical inference may be false, and often is with syllogisms. A logical inference is true IF AND ONLY IF THE PREMISE IS TRUE.
As for your claim involving advanced physics, .I''m agnostic due to my own ignorance.
I was taught and long accepted the claim that nothing can come from nothing and that for every cause cause there is an effect .
Physicist Laurence Krauss today argues the Universe came from nothing. An astro physicist I know personally as well as Stephen Hawking argue that there WAS no 'before" ,before the big bang .
I simply do not have the training or the knowledge to assess those claims. So far, I'm unconvinced that anyone on this forum does either. That means I think the claims of Krauss and Hawkins are likely to be true because of their specialist expertise. . BUT, I'm unable to claim to know. Hence I remain agnostic on this issue.
@Nyarlathotep
Taking the option where an infinite regress is possible will resolve the logic problem but contradict normal reality. The reality is that infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible.
Also, elaborate on how my 1st and 2nd postulates could be wrong and even if they are wrong, don't they represent reality?
You keep telling us that, and heck, it might even be right! But I'm not just going to accept your opinion on the matter.
-------------------------------------
Oh I'm much more skeptical of number 1. TheBlindWatchmaker already gave a real world example that casts some suspicion on that postulate.
I'll ask again,
How about when a photon in a super position of horizontal and vertical polarization is directed towards a filter that allows only vertical light to pass through, does the photon pass through or is the photon reflected?
There are no apparent hidden variables, so the outcome is a random choice.
Or how about Norton's dome, which is a perfectly fine classical Newtonian system, yet it has indeterminacy.
You have not proven your postulates as @Nyarlathotep has mentioned on many occasions.
@reedemption
Have you submitted your claims for peer review to properly validate your conclusions?
Be a dear and link the worthy peer reviewed scientific journal that published your conclusions....
@Cognostic
@TheBlindWatchmaker
@Nyarlathotep
Causality is not the same as determinism. Go back to the postulates and follow the rabbit hole
Do you accept "probability" as being the cause of something? Or rephrased: can "probability" be a cause?
Your postulates are at best dubious and at worst, completely wrong.
1. Not true, I gave you a valid real world example i.e. photons in a super position.
Furthermore, you are privileging your status as observer, so even more wrong.
At the local level, yes. It would appear all causes have effects and all effects have causes.
However, at the fundamental level, this is evidenced to be wrong.
Also, not again, that at the fundamental level, causes and effects can occur simultaneously.
In closing, the only thing required to reject your logical argument, is to reject a premise.
We reject the very first premise, until you can demonstrate to the contrary that photons that are in a super-position of horizonal and vertical polarization and are directed toward a light filter that allows vertical light to pass through, are not random and without cause.
Not only is your postulate simply rejected, but we go as step further in giving you evidence to support this rationale.
It would be wonderful, if theists did likewise.
Pages