Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[Cathar1950]

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution?

What makes you think you have looked at every known possibility? This to me has been the best complaint against an atheist position when they say there is no God. They have not looked everywhere or thought of ever possibility. Granted they have a lack of evidence to support the reality of God but the have not looked everywhere and they still seem open if evidence was presented to them or even a working definition of God was available that made any sense or was coherent.

The only conclusion one could draw I think is that they are psychologically motivated against strings. Perhaps they didn't think of it, perhaps they would be more embarrassed by withdrawing some of their previous comments, etc.. But, at some point the issue raises a question about psychological motivations, and we can't all walk around letting the emperor to be naked. Someone ought to say something about it.

Maybe we should look at you psychological motivations for believing in God to the point you human constructs to provide evidence. Maybe you have some problem with atheists as a child.
Maybe one ran over your puppy. Maybe you fear some previous commitment concerning your soul and belief in Jesus is not something you can let go of with out great psychological pain.

[wuntext]

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution? Folks, it's not as if everyone on earth is saying you must believe God exists. Rather, the issue is why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

Have we looked at every known possibility? Who actually says this? This atheist doesn't believe in god because I do not believe that an entity with the attributes usually applied to any god can exist without 'magic'.

It would be like rejecting string theory when every other possible solution has been exhausted. And by reject I mean they aren't agnostic on string theory, they think string theory is absolutely wrong.

If every other possible solution had been exhausted and the evidence for the existence of god was irrefutable, then disbelief in these circumstances would be unreasonable. Have you this irrefutable evidence?

[QED]

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution? Folks, it's not as if everyone on earth is saying you must believe God exists. Rather, the issue is why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

I've started a new topic so we can take this up.

[harvey1]

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution?

What makes you think you have looked at every known possibility?

I'm referring to material causation. As I said, it sums up very nicely:

1) Definition: E1=immediate cause, E2=immediate effect
2) Definition: Material Causation means E1 brings about (or limiting) what E2 is, with E2 occurring as a result of E1 occurring first. Between the E1 occurrence and E2 occurrence there cannot be a non-material relation actually existing between E1 and E2
3) (E1, E2) are either (a) distinct static events, or (b) distinct vague events, or (c) identical static events, or (d) identical vague
events
4) If (a) or (b), then nothing material can possibly connect E1 & E2
5) If (c) or (d), then E1 does not bring about (or limit) E2 since they not distinct
6) Hence, material causation is not possible

Here is all the known combinations: events are either distinct or not, events are either static or vague.

they still seem open if evidence was presented to them or even a working definition of God was available that made any sense or was coherent.

You mean like the big bang, singularity theorems, weak energy condition theorems, extraordinary coincidences in the physical constants, etc., etc.?

Maybe we should look at you psychological motivations for believing in God to the point you human constructs to provide evidence. Maybe you have some problem with atheists as a child.
Maybe one ran over your puppy. Maybe you fear some previous commitment concerning your soul and belief in Jesus is not something you can let go of with out great psychological pain.

Let's not talk about individuals in particular since that can lead to us breaking the rules. Instead let's talk about beliefs and the motivations for holding particular beliefs. I'm perfectly willing to discuss psychological motivations for theists or Christians as a whole. The key, though, is why a particular group (i.e., materialists who happen to include a number of atheists) are unwilling to make the simple conclusion that material causation is not possible. That issue argues strongly for a psychological motivation on the part of those who reject such conclusions.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

1) Definition: E1=immediate cause, E2=immediate effect
2) Definition: Material Causation means E1 brings about (or limiting) what E2 is, with E2 occurring as a result of E1 occurring first. Between the E1 occurrence and E2 occurrence there cannot be a non-material relation actually existing between E1 and E2
3) (E1, E2) are either (a) distinct static events, or (b) distinct vague events, or (c) identical static events, or (d) identical vague
events
4) If (a) or (b), then nothing material can possibly connect E1 & E2
5) If (c) or (d), then E1 does not bring about (or limit) E2 since they not distinct
6) Hence, material causation is not possible

What gobbledegoop!!! You have not factored in E3=concurrent event, E4=Prior event, E5=subsiquint event, E6=etc,. So you have therefore NOT addressed all possiblities., thus your conclusion COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!!!

Material causation is OF COUURSE possible. Thus Atheism is as valid a concept as any theist...story.

The key, though, is why a particular group (i.e., materialists who happen to include a number of atheists) are unwilling to make the simple conclusion that material causation is not possible. That issue argues strongly for a psychological motivation on the part of those who reject such conclusions.

Not willing to admit that what is not true is truth, I find no problem with that.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

What gobbledegoop!!! You have not factored in E3=concurrent event, E4=Prior event, E5=subsiquint event, E6=etc,. So you have therefore NOT addressed all possiblities., thus your conclusion COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!!!

QED, can you explain to Grumpy why he didn't understand this argument?

[Cathar1950]

I am guess here but it might be that we don’t know what you are talking about when you say “material causation” due to what appears to be your unacknowledged 19th century view of matter and a less then coherent view of causation.
You demand a cause form an uncaused agent because everything in your opinion needs a cause. Which put you in a paradox you refuse to acknowledge. So you place “God” outside of time, space and reality so God doesn’t figure into your argument. It might be that your idea of causality might be the limiting factor. Maybe there is no causality, as you understand it. Maybe things pop in and out of existence with out a cause, as you know it. What you see as cause is history or something new that wasn’t there before and we look at it as cause because of our way of looking at time.
There are many possibilities we have not even thought of yet. You seem to want to take an abstraction and a self-referencing object that is out side of time/space with out cause in a dualistic reality were concept are the real entities and say you have presented us with a solution. Then you have the nerve to say it is because you have to have a spiritual mind to understand it because our reasoning natural mind can’t see it. Am I the only one here hat thinks it sounds just a little eccentric?

[harvey1]

I am guess here but it might be that we don’t know what you are talking about when you say “material causation” due to what appears to be your unacknowledged 19th century view of matter and a less then coherent view of causation.

Okay, then can please define what "material causation" ought to mean. Does this new definition allow angels to influence events? Why or why not?

You demand a cause form an uncaused agent because everything in your opinion needs a cause. Which put you in a paradox you refuse to acknowledge. So you place “God” outside of time, space and reality so God doesn’t figure into your argument.

I don't think it puts me in a paradox anymore than causation needs a cause. That would be ridiculous since you need the concept to address the concept itself. This is not necessarily true for everything in the Universe since we certainly don't need strawberries to address whether strawberries are caused by some earlier evolutionary process.

It might be that your idea of causality might be the limiting factor. Maybe there is no causality, as you understand it. Maybe things pop in and out of existence with out a cause, as you know it.

That's fine, maybe there are no reasons for any event. If that's so, then science is a waste of time. I think you might be alone in that view, however.

What you see as cause is history or something new that wasn’t there before and we look at it as cause because of our way of looking at time.

So, physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is just a matter of how we subjectively look at things? Sort of optional...?

There are many possibilities we have not even thought of yet.

What you call possibilities I call the desperation of atheism in its attempt to reason without a God.

You seem to want to take an abstraction and a self-referencing object that is out side of time/space with out cause in a dualistic reality were concept are the real entities and say you have presented us with a solution. Then you have the nerve to say it is because you have to have a spiritual mind to understand it because our reasoning natural mind can’t see it. Am I the only one here hat thinks it sounds just a little eccentric?

Of course you've taken everything I've said completely out of context. But, notice that I have not taken your words here out of context: "Maybe things pop in and out of existence with out a cause." This is a rejection of rational thinking.

[Cathar1950]

Of course you've taken everything I've said completely out of context. But, notice that I have not taken your words here out of context: "Maybe things pop in and out of existence with out a cause." This is a rejection of rational thinking.

I was actually repeating something you once said about virtual particles.

Okay, then can please define what "material causation" ought to mean. Does this new definition allow angels to influence events? Why or why not?

I think we have been over this before and it is your problem with material causation that needs to be explained with out resorting to a desperate attempt to prove an unknowable God.

I don't think it puts me in a paradox anymore than causation needs a cause. That would be ridiculous since you need the concept to address the concept itself. This is not necessarily true for everything in the Universe since we certainly don't need strawberries to address whether strawberries are caused by some earlier evolutionary processes.

Why do you limit it to strawberries?

That's fine, maybe there are no reasons for any event. If that's so, then science is a waste of time. I think you might be alone in that view, however.

How does that follow? I am saying your concept of God seems to be a waste of time and beyond reason.

So, physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is just a matter of how we subjectively look at things? Sort of optional...?

That is the big epistemological question of them all isn’t it? Do you have “ the” answer?

[harvey1]

Of course you've taken everything I've said completely out of context. But, notice that I have not taken your words here out of context: "Maybe things pop in and out of existence with out a cause." This is a rejection of rational thinking.

I was actually repeating something you once said about virtual particles.

Well, if I said it, then you have to show me the context. I don't think I've ever said that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without any cause whatsoever. That is, the world is completely irrational. I would never say that in the proper context.

I think we have been over this before and it is your problem with material causation that needs to be explained with out resorting to a desperate attempt to prove an unknowable God.

I'm finding a habit of your's that I should (continue to) point out. It seems like you make a point, and then when asked about that point, it seems you either don't respond or you make some vague remark where it is virtually impossible to know why you originally objected in the first place. I gave a definition of "material cause" and argued that materialists must be committed to this definition. You said that I have this 19th century concept of material causation. Okay, I now ask you to define material causation or tell me how to make my definition accurate. Unfortunately, now it seems that you have come back saying that I ought to try and figure out what you originally had in mind. I'm not a mind reader! I cannot tell you what you think this definition ought to be. I can only tell you what material causation means based on common sense (e.g., a materialist defintion obviously doesn't want immaterial relations as actually existing).

I don't think it puts me in a paradox anymore than causation needs a cause. That would be ridiculous since you need the concept to address the concept itself. This is not necessarily true for everything in the Universe since we certainly don't need strawberries to address whether strawberries are caused by some earlier evolutionary processes.

Why do you limit it to strawberries?

I don't, that was an example.

That's fine, maybe there are no reasons for any event. If that's so, then science is a waste of time. I think you might be alone in that view, however.

How does that follow? I am saying your concept of God seems to be a waste of time and beyond reason.

Then it should be rather easy for you to come up with responses. Why all the delays and no responses? As I said, it seems that you raise issues, sometimes even make tough caustic accusations, and then bail. That not a very good means of debating in a friendly way. I hope nobody is fooled by it.

So, physics, biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. is just a matter of how we subjectively look at things? Sort of optional...?

That is the big epistemological question of them all isn’t it? Do you have “ the” answer?

I don't consider irrationalism to be the answer if that's what you mean. I treat those subjects as being about reality and therefore their answers are not subjective. Things don't just happen, and things certainly aren't all subjective.