Interview with Rick Gervais on Atheism and religions

[Walt Zingmatilder]

According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.

I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.

What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.

[Nearly Sane]

According to what I've read in popular accounts of modern physics, cause, effect, contingency, necessity etc. all disappear at the quantum level, where things pop into and out of existence with no prior cause, the cause and effect that we see at the everyday level being statistical, not absolute. Furthermore, the big bang, in its ultimate origin, was a quantum event. Therefore, may it not be that the universe just popped into existence for no reason? I dare say I've completely misunderstood the science, so I post under correction.

My take is that the science is based around a set of assumptions. Maybe everything at a quantum level does obey cause and effect bit we don't have the tools to establish that. Maybe nothing on a day to day level is based on cause and effect bit we just use assumptions and tools that lead us to think that. Maybe 2 things that look exactly the same, 1 is based on cause and effect, the other isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

I wonder if the appearance AND disappearance is significant here. Of course. Something which exists and then doesn't isn't rare in the universe since that is the condition of everything we see and we call these temporary things contingent things.

What that does to the idea that we can't say that anything is contingent you'd better ask Nearly Sane.

If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we can establish no apparent cause on what basis would we call it contingent?

on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.

[Nearly Sane]

on them not being self sustaining and that their state in existence is affected by observation.

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you

Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't show cause which you would need to do for it being contingent. I don't think you're clear on what you mean by 'self sustaining', or why it's a requirement for something not be contingent. Just another assertion from you

Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing

[Nearly Sane]

Would you say the that this observation forces us to abandon the principle of sufficient reason?

I would say it's an assumption itself, and not a proven absolute that you can base an argument on.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry I'm still working on nothing comes from nothing I didn't know that it's been discovered there is an actual nothing

This reads as a complete non sequitur to my post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's possible that nothing is contingent. Note that doesn't mean that there is anything that is necessary.

Nothing necessary is a common belief but nothing contingent. That needs some explanation if only on the basis of your burden of proof for the positive statement.

[Nearly Sane]

Nothing necessary is a common belief but nothing contingent. That needs some explanation if only on the basis of your burden of proof for the positive statement.

It's not my belief, nor was it a positive statement that it's true that nothing is contingent, that's why I phrased it as it being possible.  It's just looking at it philosophically. If for example one was a pantheist then everything might be argued to be necessary. A lot of Eastern philosophy in terms of interconnectedness would look on contingency and necessary as a false dichotomy.

And that something is a common belief gives it no extrs validity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not my belief, nor was it a positive statement that it's true that nothing is contingent, that's why I phrased it as it being possible.  It's just looking at it philosophically. If for example one was a pantheist then everything might be argued to be necessary. A lot of Eastern philosophy in terms of interconnectedness would look on contingency and necessary as a false dichotomy.

And that something is a common belief gives it no extrs validity.

I'm not a big extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence man. But if ever a proposal merited it this is the case. To be told that something we watched and videod being manufactured might not have been certainly invites a request for explanation.

I may be Humedodging but blaming me for not getting him on certain points sounds a bit courtiers reply. Though I'm not big on them either.

Popping out of nowhere. I am a christian so I accommodate creatio ex nihilo. Black swans are fine until the suggestion that  there might be black swans that look like grey elephantsą

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not a big extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence man. But if ever a proposal merited it this is the case. To be told that something we watched and videod being manufactured might not have been certainly invites a request for explanation.

I may be Humedodging but blaming me for not getting him on certain points sounds a bit courtiers reply. Though I'm not big on them either.

Popping out of nowhere. I am a christian so I accommodate creatio ex nihilo. Black swans are fine until the suggestion that  there might be black swans that look like grey elephantsą

Pretty much all of this reads as a non sequitur. It also reads like you haven't read my post but are filling in lots of stuff I didn't write. None of the post you are replying to is about Hume which is why I mentioned pantheism, and Eastern philosophy. It's not about things not being made but that everything is a single thing that cannot be any other way.

And again, it's not me making a claim that this is true, or that it's my belief so it would be useful if you didn't repeat that error in the discussion.

I still have no idea what you think creation out of nothing has to do with this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Back to Gervais' "theory of religion".
God and hell are warnings like "beware of the wolf" or "fire".
Hell fire wasn't a feature in early Judaism.
Hell as a consequence doesn't seem like a thing that would capture a young imagination. It might chime in a medieval environment but not in the formative period of any religion I am aware of. A later development which may capture adult minds perhaps.

[Nearly Sane]

Back to Gervais' "theory of religion".
God and hell are warnings like "beware of the wolf" or "fire".
Hell fire wasn't a feature in early Judaism.
Hell as a consequence doesn't seem like a thing that would capture a young imagination. It might chime in a medieval environment but not in the formative period of any religion I am aware of. A later development which may capture adult minds perhaps.

Monotheism wasn't a feature of early Judaism. Are you suggesting your god was a bit crap at branding to start with, and didn't have the marketing mix quite right?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Monotheism wasn't a feature of early Judaism. Are you suggesting your god was a bit crap at branding to start with, and didn't have the marketing mix quite right?

No, I'm suggesting Gervais is a bit crap.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I'm suggesting Gervais is a bit crap.

Aren't we all?