Ontological Argument.......Really?

[Outrider]

No. material is merely material. it is merely shaped or allocated by the passage of time.

And those shapings and allocations are the events, and the material that we have is one of the outcomes of prior events, and the material that this material came from was itself the effect of prior causes still.

O.

[Outrider]

The spontaneous decay of carbon-14 into an electron, an anti neutrino and nitrogen-14

Is it uncaused, or do we simply not know the cause? Whilst any individual atom appears to randomly decay, the fact that half-lives are incredibly consistent suggests that there's an underlying mechanism that we haven't yet discovered. In the absence of a mechanism we'd expect to see random decay, but we don't.

O.

[Jack Knave]

Could you get on with it then?

It was done at the start by JeremyP, around post 7, I think. Rather long winded but essentially all the elements were there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And those shapings and allocations are the events, and the material that we have is one of the outcomes of prior events, and the material that this material came from was itself the effect of prior causes still.

O.

Oh so we're not talking about material that we observe in this universe then......so matter in any meaningful sense may not have existed as whatever caused this universe.

[jeremyp]

Is it uncaused, or do we simply not know the cause? Whilst any individual atom appears to randomly decay, the fact that half-lives are incredibly consistent suggests that there's an underlying mechanism that we haven't yet discovered. In the absence of a mechanism we'd expect to see random decay, but we don't.

O.

Half lives are incredibly consistent because of the incredible number of atoms involved. Half lives are a statistical property of a material. All we can say about individual atoms is that, over a certain period of time there is a 50% chance that they will decay, but nothing actually cause a particular atom to decay at a particular time.

In fact, at the level of quantum mechanics, the notion of cause and effect isn't really useful. There are simply events and interactions.

So when Vlad claims that everything in the Universe has a cause, he is actually talking bollocks just like his absurd suggestion that the Universe is inside the Universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Half lives are incredibly consistent because of the incredible number of atoms involved. Half lives are a statistical property of a material. All we can say about individual atoms is that, over a certain period of time there is a 50% chance that they will decay, but nothing actually cause a particular atom to decay at a particular time.

In fact, at the level of quantum mechanics, the notion of cause and effect isn't really useful. There are simply events and interactions.

So when Vlad claims that everything in the Universe has a cause, he is actually talking bollocks just like his absurd suggestion that the Universe is inside the Universe.

youre not really proposing scrapping cause and effect are you Jezzer?

[BeRational]

youre not really proposing scrapping cause and effect are you Jezzer?

I thought at the quantum level there is no cause and effect?

[jeremyp]

youre not really proposing scrapping cause and effect are you Jezzer?

Yes.

At quantum level, there is no cause and effect, there is just interactions between particles. Nothing causes a C14 atom to decay into an electron and an N14 atom, it just does it.

[Outrider]

Oh so we're not talking about material that we observe in this universe then......so matter in any meaningful sense may not have existed as whatever caused this universe.

I've tried to use the term 'material' so as not to imply matter, but I may have erred - matter as we understand it probably wouldn't exist outside of the universe, no. It's reasonable to deduce that something would, but what form it would take is difficult to make a judgment on.

O.

[Outrider]

Half lives are incredibly consistent because of the incredible number of atoms involved. Half lives are a statistical property of a material. All we can say about individual atoms is that, over a certain period of time there is a 50% chance that they will decay, but nothing actually cause a particular atom to decay at a particular time.

Again, we don't know the mechanism but that's not in itself reason to presume there isn't one. If it were random, the half-life for all materials would be the same, but it isn't - some materials decay significantly faster than others, which means there has to be a mechanism involved somewhere.

In fact, at the level of quantum mechanics, the notion of cause and effect isn't really useful. There are simply events and interactions.

There's some interesting - and highly speculative, I'll grant - work being bandied about on the fringes of quantum mechanical research that's showing some promising mathematical results when time is removed from the equations at the quantum level. As I understand it, it doesn't work for all interactions, and it throws up other issues, but it's an intriguing idea that some quantum activity is outside of time: in which case, of course, the idea of cause and effect would need to be heavily modified at the very least.

So when Vlad claims that everything in the Universe has a cause, he is actually talking bollocks just like his absurd suggestion that the Universe is inside the Universe.

To be fair to Vlad, it's my argument in this instance that is predicated on the idea that every effect has a cause, and that it's therefore reasonable to deduce an infinite chain of events stretching back. Even at the quantum level, whilst cause and effect might be co-temporal, they are still interwined.

I haven't intended to give the impression that the universe is in the universe, but inside a broader reality of some description.

O.

[jeremyp]

Again, we don't know the mechanism but that's not in itself reason to presume there isn't one.

Yes it is. Bell's theorem tells us that this is the case, and I believe it has now been verified experimentally.

If it were random, the half-life for all materials would be the same, but it isn't - some materials decay significantly faster than others, which means there has to be a mechanism involved somewhere.

Quantum mechanics can predict the probability of an atom decaying within a certain time frame but it cannot predict when the atom will decay.

To be fair to Vlad,

Why? He doesn't play fair.

it's my argument in this instance that is predicated on the idea that every effect has a cause, and that it's therefore reasonable to deduce an infinite chain of events stretching back. Even at the quantum level, whilst cause and effect might be co-temporal, they are still intertwined.

So let's say that every effect has a cause. In that case, the Universe has a cause and so does the cause of the Universe etc ad infinitum. Vlad, however, wants to bestow a special property on his god that means of all the things that there are, it is the only one without a cause. This is just an arbitrary decision on his part based on the fact that he wants his god to be real and not to have been created in itself.

It is just as legitimate for me to bestow the same property on the Universe. This is just an arbitrary decision on my part based on the fact that I don't believe any God is real. Looked at that way, Vlad's viewpoint and my viewpoint are very similar, but I have the advantage in that, most of us agree that the Universe probably exists.

I haven't intended to give the impression that the universe is in the universe, but inside a broader reality of some description.

No, it was Vlad who claimed that. It's totally absurd and a measure of his desperation.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to pick up from jeremyp's post, even were we to ignore any quantum effects, I don't think the cosmological argument reneging to work. The statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause, is (a) only inductively true and should not be taken as an absolute and was already in my view comprehensively challenged by Hume in terms of cause and effect, (b) is specifically materialist and built on materialist methodology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

...is specifically materialist and built on materialist methodology.

* That being the only methodology available.

[Outrider]

Yes it is. Bell's theorem tells us that this is the case, and I believe it has now been verified experimentally. Quantum mechanics can predict the probability of an atom decaying within a certain time frame but it cannot predict when the atom will decay.

Bell's Theorem, though, has two possible interpretation in its impact, though, and one of those is an absolutely determined universe which is what we're predicting.

To be fair to Vlad

Why? He doesn't play fair.

Maybe not, but I don't set my standards by other people's lack of them

So let's say that every effect has a cause. In that case, the Universe has a cause and so does the cause of the Universe etc ad infinitum. Vlad, however, wants to bestow a special property on his god that means of all the things that there are, it is the only one without a cause. This is just an arbitrary decision on his part based on the fact that he wants his god to be real and not to have been created in itself.

Exactly my point. The apparent randomness - and/or possible timelessness - of quantum interactions undermines that absolute chain of cause and effect and gives a 'gap' into which gods can be liberally inserted.

O.

[jeremyp]

NS,

* That being the only methodology available.

No. Hope and Vlad have a methodology for the non materialistic, but it is a secret and we are not allowed to know what it is. But it definitely does exist and Hope has posted about it here and elsewhere along with others , always just before the last purge.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

No. Hope and Vlad have a methodology for the non materialistic, but it is a secret and we are not allowed to know what it is. But it definitely does exist and Hope has posted about it here and elsewhere along with others , always just before the last purge.

Do they? Hope claims to have answered the question but mysteriously suddenly finds he has to talk to someone on the other side of the room whenever he's asked where exactly he did it, but Vlud I think just ignores the problem in the hope it'll go away or we'll all forget that his "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" isn't a method of any sort.

Incidentally, as various theists here have claimed the ontological argument in support have any of them actually manage to explain why given its well-trodden lineage of rebuttal? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremyp,

Do they? Hope claims to have answered the question but mysteriously suddenly finds he has to talk to someone on the other side of the room whenever he's asked where exactly he did it, but Vlud I think just ignores the problem in the hope it'll go away or we'll all forget that his "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" isn't a method of any sort.

Incidentally, as various theists here have claimed the ontological argument in support have any of them actually manage to explain why given its well-trodden lineage of rebuttal?

I Think the point is Hillside is that the methodology doesn't seem to work around the Big Bang nor as an explanatory for the universe. Russell knows this Dawkins knows this too but for them the issue is a "move swiftly on" scenario. It is ok for methodological materialism to fail at the point of origin it has done it's duty ................to push it further is to polish the turd of philosophical materialism.

If you don't think so. What is the methodology for establishing the origins of the universe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bell's Theorem, though, has two possible interpretation in its impact, though, and one of those is an absolutely determined universe which is what we're predicting.
Why? He doesn't play fair. Maybe not, but I don't set my standards by other people's lack of them

Exactly my point. The apparent randomness - and/or possible timelessness - of quantum interactions undermines that absolute chain of cause and effect and gives a 'gap' into which gods can be liberally inserted.

O.

Unfortunately any natural explanation leaves room for God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

I Think the point is Hillside is that the methodology doesn't seem to work around the Big Bang nor as an explanatory for the universe. Russell knows this Dawkins knows this too but for them the issue is a "move swiftly on" scenario. It is ok for methodological materialism to fail at the point of origin it has done it's duty ................to push it further is to polish the turd of philosophical materialism.

If you don't think so. What is the methodology for establishing the origins of the universe?

You're still confused. No-one says methodological materialism has all the answers, nor even that conceptually it necessarily ever could. What is being said though that is that - for now at least - it's the only game in town because there is no other method on the table.

Oh, and you might want to trouble yourself with establishing that the universe even did "originate" at all before attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity: "I don't see how materialism could answer that, therefore - um - whatever pops into my head must be the right answer" etc. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud,

You're still confused. No-one says methodological materialism has all the answers, nor even that conceptually it necessarily ever could. What is being said though that is that - for now at least - it's the only game in town because there is no other method on the table.

Oh, and you might want to trouble yourself with establishing that the universe even did "originate" at all before attempting yet another argument from personal incredulity: "I don't see how materialism could answer that, therefore - um - whatever pops into my head must be the right answer" etc.

Materialism the only game in town.......maybe. But the question of the origin of the universe means this is not the only Town. If you think materialism is the only game in this town......use the method to establish the origin of the universe.

I am afraid materialism needs to be presented with the universe like a fat ponce in a subsidised canteen.

[Outrider]

Unfortunately any natural explanation leaves room for God.

I'm not aware that I've suggested otherwise, it certainly wasn't my intention. What I set out to do was demonstrate just one reason why the Ontological argument fails to be a proof of any sort of god, let alone a specific one. The fact that there could be an entirely natural explanation for the universe and/or the broader reality in which it sits does that more than adequately.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

Unfortunately any natural explanation leaves room for God.

Yes and no. Axiomatically materialism can concern itself only with the material. If you want to hypothesise the non-material, you have all your work ahead of you still to show by a method of some sort that it exists, and only then could you make a case for one manifestation of it being your god.

Good luck with it though!

[Outrider]

I Think the point is Hillside is that the methodology doesn't seem to work around the Big Bang nor as an explanatory for the universe.

Hypothetically, it works fine. That needs verifying with data, of course.

Russell knows this Dawkins knows this too but for them the issue is a "move swiftly on" scenario.

Not really. For them the lack of a definitive explanation for the universe results in 'I don't know' rather than 'therefore God'.

It is ok for methodological materialism to fail at the point of origin it has done it's duty ................to push it further is to polish the turd of philosophical materialism.

And you were doing so well, I thought you'd kicked that habit, but here you are plumbing its depths again.

If you don't think so. What is the methodology for establishing the origins of the universe?

No idea, yet, we're still working on adequately demonstrating what we think happened in the Big Bang, let alone what goes  'before' it, with whatever the concept of 'before' might entail. How does the lack of a current test protocol in what is a provisional and expanding body of knowledge undermine the case? Why does 'I don't know what's at the far edge' somehow invalidate everything in between?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

Materialism the only game in town.......maybe.

Don't be upset - so far as I'm aware no-one else either has managed to produce a method for distinguishing his claims about a god from just guessing. Until someone comes up with a method to do that though, then yes - materialism remains the only methodological game in town.

But the question of the origin of the universe means this is not the only Town. If you think materialism is the only game in this town......use the method to establish the origin of the universe.

Again, you have still to establish that "the universe" needs to have had an "origin". What's the point even in attempting another argument from personal incredulity when you can't establish in the first place that the question is a meaningful one?

I am afraid materialism needs to be presented with the universe like a fat ponce in a subsidised canteen.

Don't be afraid - embarrassed will do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud,

Don't be upset - so far as I'm aware no-one else either has managed to produce a method for distinguishing his claims about a god from just guessing. Until someone comes up with a method to do that though, then yes - materialism remains the only methodological game in town.

Again, you have still to establish that "the universe" needs to have had an "origin". What's the point even in attempting another argument from personal incredulity when you can't establish in the first place that the question is a meaningful one?

Don't be afraid - embarrassed will do.

Yes ,yes,Yes Hillside but i'm afraid your posts constitute the sad bleatings of a traditional materialist who is shit scared of the origins of the universe.

Unfortunately we do not have to go back to origins for the laws of physics to break down so yes, it looks as though the universe does have an origin.

This is not the place for the faint hearted stalwart materialist Hillside. This is a place for those willing to think the unthinkable. Move aside Hillside Outrider and Jeremy P are the new kids on the block.