Why not believe in Thor or Leprechauns?

[BeRational]

I dont think the theory of quantum mechanics requires an observer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I dont think the theory of quantum mechanics requires an observer.

As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.

Wasn’t it Heisenberg who said observation affects the condition of a particle.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313-800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end/

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You begin with listing a well-worn collection of examples of contingency, and then immediately move on to religious assertion "God does none of these things" (considering you accused bluehillside below of "mistaking belief for knowledge", your hypocrisy is astounding).
The bible does indeed talk of God being the same today yesterday and tomorrow (specifically in Hebrews 13:8, it refers to Christ in these terms). However, the bible says many things about God, and gives many images of him/it, and taking a quote or two and making it refer to the whole does not make an argument. You go on to say that the NT states that Jesus is both man and God - well maybe most of the writers of the NT came to believe this, but these were almost certainly beliefs made up after the event (it is certainly prevalent in John, but even there you have the phrase "My Father is greater than I"). All these various theological positions were eventually just hammered out in intellectual argument and presented as dogma. Which is what you continue to do.
You then move on to matters of subjective experience - always dangerous ground in trying to convince your opponents. I wouldn't be as dismissive as Russell, who rejected such an approach in one sentence. Moreover, you presume to speak for all Christians. I would suggest that the experience of most "Christians" (apart from certain hysterical evangelicals) is very far from the kind of intimate certainties about Christ's nature that you imply. Even such worthies as Mother Theresa of Calcutta and San Juan de la Cruz had no so such cosy relationship with the deity in their lives (Mother Theresa confessed that God seemed very distant most of her life, and San Juan de la Cruz only ended his Dark Night by a supposed mystical experience where he was "transformed into God". Hmmmm). And of course most "Christians" go along with the dogma of their church because that's what they've been brought up to believe, and religious belief helps sort out the usual trials of weddings and funerals etc.

I suppose the problems for Christianity began when it inherited so much Greek thought and grafted it onto Judaism. The changeless god idea has more in common with Aristotle, on whom Aquinas was definitely parasitic, and whose ideas you've obviously imbibed. And then there are Platonic ideas filtering through Wisdom literature and John's gospel etc. etc.

I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with the God of Abraham Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.”and we call this God”.

Today we are agnostic culturally but it is largely down to politeness and an automatic and on going suspension of judgment.

Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there. Add to this an atheism particularly of the not wanting god variety and you have an anti philosophical push against the principle of sufficient reason, the necessary entity and support for the dubious brute fact, the contingency of everything and infinite regress.

Regards Aquinus and Aristotle, the similarities just reflect what happens when you have to reduce abrahamic religion to philosophy.

There are also different meanings of changeless and Aquinus derives his from the context of the argument from contingency and we are likely to draw ours from our Newtonian conceptions but devoid of Newton’s motivations.

[Stranger]

As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.

Very few people think human observation has anything to do with quantum mechanics. It's irrelevant anyway because you haven't shown that a necessary entity must exist or what its properties might be, i.e. how you have arrived at these apparently arbitrary things about it, like not changing, that couldn't apply to a Christian version of god anyway.

I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with philosophy. Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.

So where is that argument, then? Is it as comical as the nonsense Feser came up with?

Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests...

Drivel.

...and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.

Are you really too muddleheaded to grasp what has been going on here with regard to the burden of proof?

Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: you are trying to make an argument about something we don't know, and you have failed to take into account possibilities that you prefer to ignore. Nobody else is trying to support a particular conclusion.

And to remind you, you still haven't made it past step one of making a sound argument that there must be something necessary, and how that is even a logically coherent concept in the way you mean here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Today we are agnostic culturally but it is largely down to politeness and an automatic and on going suspension of judgment.

I disagree - I think we have moved to being a more evidence based, rather than faith based, society. So where once people might rush to judgement in the absence of evidence increasingly we are now prepared to accept that we currently don't know in circumstances where there is insufficient current evidence in order to sustain a conclusion.

This, in my mind, is eminently sensible as the person who rushes to judgement on a matter regardless of an evidence base to support that judgement is a fool.

That said there are circumstance where we must take decisions even if the available evidence isn't overwhelming. Under these circumstance we, of course, redouble our efforts to gain evidence but if decisions are needed we use the best available evidence and a risk based approach.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests ...

Hmm, as a professional scientist I'm not sure I recognise that claim at all. I think the public have a level of respect and trust for scientists, and more importantly scientific evidence but that isn't either strange nor deference. I note the implication in your words that there should be deference to priests (and weird that people might see scientists in that same deferential light), but there is news for you - except in the world of religious adherents there is limited respect for nor deference to priests within the general public, which isn't surprising as respect needs to be earned not demanded.

... and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.

That shows just how little you understand science. As scientists we draw conclusions (best explanation) based on evidence. Where there is really strong evidence those conclusions (we call them theories) are really strong, albeit as scientists if or when additional evidence comes to light that changes that best explanation we will change our minds too. But there are plenty of other circumstances where we currently don't have the evidence base to support a strong conclusion and we are happy to accept that currently we just don't know - we don't rush to judgement but will continue to beaver away to find more evidence which may in due course allow us to become more certain in our conclusions.

That's how science works Vlad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You really have got your twaddle-o-meter dialled up to 11 today haven’t you…

I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with the God of Abraham Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.”and we call this God”.

Aquinas’s argument has long since been falsified, oftentimes here in fact. That you ignore the falsifications you're given doesn’t make them go away. 

Today we are agnostic culturally but it is largely down to politeness and an automatic and on going suspension of judgment.

Gibberish. It’s because more people do apply judgement than used to be the case that we’re much less a theocratic society than we once were. Depressingly though, lots of other countries are theocracies, with attendant institutionalised misogyny, human rights abuses, poor educational levels etc. 

Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests…

And your evidence for that unqualified claim would be what exactly? Broadly people defer to science, not scientists – and for the good reason that it’s most reliable means we’ve yet found to understand the phenomena we experience and observe.

…and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.

Naturally you have an example to back up that claim right? Yet again – people here don’t argue that something is on the basis of what might be (that’s your territory remember?); rather they merely say that you cannot discount the possible to justify your various claims and assertions.   

Add to this an atheism particularly of the not wanting god variety and you have an anti philosophical push against the principle of sufficient reason, the necessary entity and support for the dubious brute fact, the contingency of everything and infinite regress.

You’ve a had all of the various mistakes here corrected many items already, and ignored or straw manned those corrections. What then would be the point of doing it again? Suffice it to say that the only atheism you’ve encountered here is coherent, logically cogent and philosophically supported. That’s why you can never lay a glove on it, so resort instead to your various dodges. 

Regards Aquinus and Aristotle, the similarities just reflect what happens when you have to reduce abrahamic religion to philosophy.

What would you propose instead – just guessing (or, as you call it, “faith”)?

There are also different meanings of changeless and Aquinus derives his from the context of the argument from contingency and we are likely to draw ours from our Newtonian conceptions but devoid of Newton’s motivations.

Gibberish.

So anyway, is there any chance that you will finally try at least to address the arguments you’ve actually been given here that undo you? How about starting with your constant shifting of the burden of proof for example?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hmm, as a professional scientist I'm not sure I recognise that claim at all. I think the public have a level of respect and trust for scientists, and more importantly scientific evidence but that isn't either strange nor deference. I note the implication in your words that there should be deference to priests (and weird that people might see scientists in that same deferential light), but there is news for you - except in the world of religious adherents there is limited respect for nor deference to priests within the general public, which isn't surprising as respect needs to be earned not demanded.
That shows just how little you understand science. As scientists we draw conclusions (best explanation) based on evidence. Where there is really strong evidence those conclusions (we call them theories) are really strong, albeit as scientists if or when additional evidence comes to light that changes that best explanation we will change our minds too. But there are plenty of other circumstances where we currently don't have the evidence base to support a strong conclusion and we are happy to accept that currently we just don't know - we don't rush to judgement but will continue to beaver away to find more evidence which may in due course allow us to become more certain in our conclusions.

That's how science works Vlad.

Scientists or vicars Davey? Who is perceived as more authoritative even over matters in which they have no training.

In terms of the scientific priesthood I think we all know the structure and establishment of that. Einstein, Darwin and Feynman have papal status with Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett ,Stegner et Coe. below which I suppose puts you at the level of monk.

Science I’m not discussing science but scientism.

[ProfessorDavey]

Scientists or vicars Davey? Who is perceived as more authoritative even over matters in which they have no training.

Scientists are far more trusted by the public than priests - and indeed all the most trusted professions by the public use evidence to support their professional judgements (doctors, nurses, professors, judges, engineering, scientists), which means that they professionally (it is part of their professional ethical codes) do not stray beyond their training and expertise. Priests and vicars on the other hand do not base their views on evidence and regularly stray into making judgements on matters that they have no expertise on, nor training in. This is probably why they are far less trusted by the public.

In terms of the scientific priesthood I think we all know the structure and establishment of that. Einstein, Darwin and Feynman have papal status

Probably true, although there is no comparison between their evidence based approach and the unevidenced faith based approach of a pope. 

with Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett ,Stegner et Coe.

Nope - these people are largely prominent for their activities outside of science, so they aren't really in that scientific echelon. The next group down would be a whole raft of nobel prize winners.

below which I suppose puts you at the level of monk.

Science I’m not discussing science but scientism.

Nope - you specifically were talking about scientists and therefore science. Your notion of scientism is irrelevant - I doubt any of the scientists I know would class themselves as being adherents of scientism, indeed they'd probably have no idea what you are talking about. They are professional scientists, because they use science to answer questions and solve problems.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You really have got your twaddle-o-meter dialled up to 11 today haven’t you…

Aquinas’s argument has long since been falsified, oftentimes here in fact. That you ignore the falsifications you're given doesn’t make them go away. 

Gibberish. It’s because more people do apply judgement than used to be the case that we’re much less a theocratic society than we once were. Depressingly though, lots of other countries are theocracies, with attendant institutionalised misogyny, human rights abuses, poor educational levels etc. 

And your evidence for that unqualified claim would be what exactly? Broadly people defer to science, not scientists – and for the good reason that it’s most reliable means we’ve yet found to understand the phenomena we experience and observe.

Naturally you have an example to back up that claim right? Yet again – people here don’t argue that something is on the basis of what might be (that’s your territory remember?); rather they merely say that you cannot discount the possible to justify your various claims and assertions.   

You’ve a had all of the various mistakes here corrected many items already, and ignored or straw manned those corrections. What then would be the point of doing it again? Suffice it to say that the only atheism you’ve encountered here is coherent, logically cogent and philosophically supported. That’s why you can never lay a glove on it, so resort instead to your various dodges. 

What would you propose instead – just guessing (or, as you call it, “faith”)?

Gibberish.

So anyway, is there any chance that you will finally try at least to address the arguments you’ve actually been given here that undo you? How about starting with your constant shifting of the burden of proof for example?   

That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.

[Stranger]

That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.

If you actually addressed the problems that have been pointed out with it instead just making assertions and endless attempts to try to shift the burden of proof, your posts might not be such a joke.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.

As you consistently just ignore or straw man the falsifications you're given, how would you know?

[ProfessorDavey]

Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett ,Stegner et Coe.

Really - the only person on that list that I would say I knew who they were without googling is Dawkins - and although he is was a pretty prominent scientist (although nothing like top draw Nobel prize winning) he is most prominent for his work outside of science.

Krauss - as far as I can see in terms of his scientific standing he is a pretty standard middling prof, with leadership experience, e.g. departmental head - sounds a lot like me, albeit I'd don't have his non science controversialist strand.

Dennett - is he even a scientist - I don't think he is.

Stegner - who - never heard of him, and googling doesn't help. Who is he.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Stegner - who - never heard of him, and googling doesn't help. Who is he.

I assume he was trying to reference Victor Stenger. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

I assume he was trying to reference Victor Stenger.

Still never heard of him - will look him up. Is he a prominent scientist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Still never heard of him - will look him up. Is he a prominent scientist?

He is (or rather was) one of the roster of bogeymen Vlad routinely trots out when he’s trying to ad hom scientists who have also written on a/theism. He’s on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

[Gordon]

Vlad

I think that you should respond to the point raised in Nearly Sane's #598 - you may have missed it of course, so just in case you did I thought I'd bring it to your attention.

[BeRational]

As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.

Wasn’t it Heisenberg who said observation affects the condition of a particle.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313-800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end/

It does not need a mind to observe it as far as my understanding goes. The more particles there are it then that will count as an observation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prof,

He is (or rather was) one of the roster of bogeymen Vlad routinely trots out when he’s trying to ad hom scientists who have also written on a/theism. He’s on Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

So is he actually eminent as a leading scientist, or just high profile on the basis of his views on religion etc.

It strikes me that Vlad trying to imply that the second tier of top notch scientists are all people basically predominantly famous for work other than their scientific work is akin to suggesting that the Rev Richard Coles is one of the countries leading theologians, because he is always on the tv and radio doing things entirely unrelated to his position as a CofE vicar.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingent

Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.

And since he was observable then god is contingent, according to your logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And since he was observable then god is contingent, according to your logic.

His material humanity which came into existence was contingent and materially and empirically observable. His divinity is not material or contingent. Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.

Oh dear - back on the old unilinear time stuff - so working with your rather simplistic view of time:

Does time exist before god OR

Does god exist before time

The former means god is contingent, the latter makes no sense as there cannot be a before

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.

“Other faculties” eh? What “faculties” would they be then – how for example would you determine whether something had been “revealed” rather than imagined? 

[Nearly Sane]

His material humanity which came into existence was contingent and materially and empirically observable. His divinity is not material or contingent. Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.

Special pleading. Was Jesus god? Was Jesus observable. If the answer to both those is yes, then stating as you did that anything observable is contingent, makes god contingent.