What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[harvey1]

Again, very witty responses from you!

Sure, it sounds like virtual particles pop into and out of existence, in accordance with the HUP. This is not yet evidence of something coming from nothing, however. Things pop into and out of existence all the time. <makes spit bubble> Oh, there's another thing popping into existence! <it pops> Oh, there it goes! Just because spit bubbles pop into and out of existence doesn't mean they come from nothing. People pop into and out of existence, too... ashes to ashes and dust to dust.

This is the difference between us Spetey. I don't think my theist beliefs would allow even me to reject science, but if you could read your comments as I do, you would see it as this: "sure, I believe science up until it starts saying things that would make my philosophy a little less secure, then I'll be like the creationists and just misconstrue science to save some face."

All matter-energy is expressed in terms of a quantum state. The ground state ( |0> ) is the vacuum state. Now, are you going to tell me that your IPU pixies exist in the ground state?

Your bubble analogy (etc) are completely unrelated to this quantum physics issue. Obviously, the matter prior to the bubble and after the bubble has been conserved, therefore at no time is a quantum vacuum state representation called for in this case.

Now I grant that virtual particles are unusual in that they can apparently pop into and out of existence in a vacuum. Maybe the correct way to describe that is "something coming from nothing" (though I don't think so since no energy was net created or destroyed, as your physicists emphasize).

There are testable and verifiable effects of the energy that come from this ground state as the Casimir effect clearly demonstrates. So, it is just plain wrong to suggest that all of this happens without anyone able to see the effects of the vacuum energy. In addition, there's a lot of work being done in the field of quantum cosmology that suggests the universe emerged from the ground state of the vacuum (i.e., the ultimate "free lunch").

Are you really going to keep telling me that none of this is reasonable? No free lunches from where you're from?

But anyway, again, if this is all meant to build up to a reason to think the immaterial affects the material, you have a long way to go, since even coming from nothing is different from coming from an immaterial something.

I'm not sure what you mean by "immaterial something." There is nothing for there to be something. All physics can provide in this instance is an answer to the universe that is based on pre-existing quantum laws that take the ground state through inflation and to its present description having galaxies, etc. By "immaterial something" do you mean the quantum laws that exist at the ground state (i.e., nothing state)? If so, then that's what is assumed by those physicists that try to show how the universe could come from nothing. What exactly are you rejecting? Are you saying that because quantum cosmology presupposes there are quantum laws when there should only be nothing is an unreasonable presupposition? It's unreasonable only because it contradicts your materialism? C'mon, Spetey.

I'm starting to think that you will never see anything that contradicts your view as reasonable. You simply have learned enough philosophy to skirt the facts. I'm sorry if that is the case. This is a situation where it's time to admit you are wrong and focus on how that affects your views in general, but I suppose you will philosophize around this too.

[spetey]

Again, very witty responses from you!

Aw shucks.

This is the difference between us Spetey. I don't think my theist beliefs would allow even me to reject science, but if you could read your comments as I do, you would see it as this: "sure, I believe science up until it starts saying things that would make my philosophy a little less secure, then I'll be like the creationists and just misconstrue science to save some face."

Where have I ever "reject[ed] science"? Where have I ever denied any of the science you cite on virtual particles? You are teaching me about virtual particles, and I'm agreeing that there are virtual particles that obey the uncertainty principle. Looks like good science to me.

When you conclude that therefore "something comes from nothing", you are not doing science--you are doing philosophy, and it's not clear that the conclusion is correct, though (as I have said) maybe that's a correct description of what goes on. (Notice none of your physicists phrase things that way, though; and even if they did, I would at least hesitate to accept their philosophical interpretation of the scientific goings-on. Physicists don't always make the best philosophers, and vice-versa.) In particular, I challenged your implicit argument that since virtual particles pop into and out of existence, that therefore something comes from nothing. Things can pop into and out of existence from and to something, too. So just showing that vp's pop into and out of existence does not show they come from nothing. That's all.

When you conclude that "the metaphysical affects the physical", that is again a philosophical conclusion, apparently, and one of which I'm unable to make sense. If you mean by this that something immaterial can affect material things, then I flatly deny this metaphysical conclusion from the science of virtual particles.

There are testable and verifiable effects of the energy that come from this ground state as the Casimir effect clearly demonstrates. So, it is just plain wrong to suggest that all of this happens without anyone able to see the effects of the vacuum energy.

Okay. I never said otherwise. (I did happen to quote one of your physicists as saying that the vp's are "unobservable". But 'observable' is a tricky word, and myself I'm happy to grant that the Casimir effect allows us to "observe" vp's. I don't think anything hangs on this.)

In addition, there's a lot of work being done in the field of quantum cosmology that suggests the universe emerged from the ground state of the vacuum (i.e., the ultimate "free lunch").

Huh, I didn't know that. You mean science is suggesting it's possible for the universe to exist without a God to cause it? Well, that would almost surely count as a case of something coming from nothing--and if science says it can happen on that scale, I won't argue.

But anyway, again, if this is all meant to build up to a reason to think the immaterial affects the material, you have a long way to go, since even coming from nothing is different from coming from an immaterial something.

I'm not sure what you mean by "immaterial something."

I mean a substance (in the sense of the earlier post) that is not material, like God is purported to be, or the IPU. To come from nothing means no substance was involved in the cause.

There is nothing for there to be something.

Maybe a wise guru on a mountain can make sense of this mystical remark; I can't.

By "immaterial something" do you mean the quantum laws that exist at the ground state (i.e., nothing state)?

No; as I have emphasized several times now, laws and principles are not substances.

I'm starting to think that you will never see anything that contradicts your view as reasonable.

Which view is that? I have been given reasons to believe in virtual particles, and I do believe in them. But their existence and obeyance of physical laws does not contradict my materialism in the slightest. Immaterial substances would, but I have yet to see any reason from you to believe in them.

This is a situation where it's time to admit you are wrong and focus on how that affects your views in general, but I suppose you will philosophize around this too.

What exactly is it in this particular discussion that you think I'm wrong about? I honestly don't know.


spetey

[harvey1]

Huh, I didn't know that. You mean science is suggesting it's possible for the universe to exist without a God to cause it? Well, that would almost surely count as a case of something coming from nothing--and if science says it can happen on that scale, I won't argue.

Cool, so you think it's reasonable then that the laws of physics exist even though there is no space, time, matter, or energy? If you can accept this as reasonable then I'll be happy. You want me to be happy, r-i-g-h-t?

[spetey]

Huh, I didn't know that. You mean science is suggesting it's possible for the universe to exist without a God to cause it? Well, that would almost surely count as a case of something coming from nothing--and if science says it can happen on that scale, I won't argue.

Cool, so you think it's reasonable then that the laws of physics exist even though there is no space, time, matter, or energy? If you can accept this as reasonable then I'll be happy. You want me to be happy, r-i-g-h-t?

Of course I do want you to be happy, Harvey. Heck, I'd like everyone to be happy!

As for whether it's reasonable that (I suppose you mean reasonable to believe that) the laws of physics exist without any space, time, matter, or energy--first notice this is nothing like any of the questions you've been pressing before (whether something can come from nothing, whether the "metaphysical" can affect the physical...), and it's not something I've agreed to. What I said is that if science can demonstrate that a universe could come from absolute nothingness (which a vacuum of the type we see is not, notice, since it is embedded in spacetime), then I won't argue.

As for your new question, I just don't know enough of the physics myself, but I would think that if there's no space, or time, or matter, or energy, then there are no physical laws to govern them either. Hard to say.

Why do you ask? You started this thread asking about reasons for atheism. I have given them. (I have a principle that rules out the existence of putative things that play no explanatory role--which is why I don't believe in the IPU, or pixies, or God. Furthermore I argue that you too have this principle, and you don't consistently apply it when it comes to God.) Can you give me any hint about how this physics stuff is related to my reasons for being an atheist?


spetey

[harvey1]

Of course I do want you to be happy, Harvey. Heck, I'd like everyone to be happy!

And, I also have the same wish for you too.

As for whether it's reasonable that (I suppose you mean reasonable to believe that) the laws of physics exist without any space, time, matter, or energy--first notice this is nothing like any of the questions you've been pressing before (whether something can come from nothing, whether the "metaphysical" can affect the physical...), and it's not something I've agreed to.

How can you so easily say there is a major difference in the two positions? Here are the key quotes again:

a quantum system possesses fluctuations... since otherwise the uncertainty principle would be violated" (Sciama, 1991)

particles can appear for a short period of time and exist as so called virtual particles, just to disappear again within a time frame specified by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (Fermilab)

A result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that these high-mass particles may come into being if they are incredibly short-lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. (CERN)

These quotes are all about the same issue, a metaphysical account of the laws of physics that cause particles to exist for a duration that is also governed by those laws. The same principle that is used to explain the existence of virtual particles is also being used by quantum cosmologists to show how the universe could exist from nothing (no space, no time, no energy, no mass). We are talking about laws that exist apart from the material stuff that composes the universe (space, time, energy, mass). This is a metaphysical treatment of those laws which is allowed since science has a metaphysical basis on many discoveries (e.g., symmetry being a main one used in most fundamental physics today).

What I said is that if science can demonstrate that a universe could come from absolute nothingness (which a vacuum of the type we see is not, notice, since it is embedded in spacetime), then I won't argue.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You are saying that virtual particles can't come from nothing (i.e., ground state of a vacuum in our spacetime geometry) but you have no problem with the universe coming from nothing (i.e., no spacetime and no quanta fields)? Please explain that one to me...

As for your new question, I just don't know enough of the physics myself, but I would think that if there's no space, or time, or matter, or energy, then there are no physical laws to govern them either. Hard to say.

Are you saying it's hard to say it is a reasonable possibility or it is hard to say whether it is true?

Why do you ask? You started this thread asking about reasons for atheism. I have given them. (I have a principle that rules out the existence of putative things that play no explanatory role--which is why I don't believe in the IPU, or pixies, or God. Furthermore I argue that you too have this principle, and you don't consistently apply it when it comes to God.) Can you give me any hint about how this physics stuff is related to my reasons for being an atheist?

Sure. You've taken on what looks like a dialectical materialist philosophy and you justify it based on science. Well, what do you know, physics has come along and cast doubt on that 19th century view of materialism but evidently this information hasn't trickled down through all the corridors of where materialist concepts fester. What I'm doing is showing that these 19th century concepts of dialectical materialism are no longer compatible with science, especially the research avenues pursued by cosmologists and particle physicists. Rather than give up the ghost, I contend that dialectical materialists are mostly deeply religious people who base their religion on blind belief having little attachment to modern science. In fact, when push comes to shove, they would rather doubt science rather than their own 19th century pre-conceptions of the world. I was hoping you didn't fall into that category, Spetey. I mean that sincerely. I've debated many atheists, and very few are 19th century materialists (but this site for some reason has a few of them... perhaps the outcasts??). Anyway, I was hoping that I could have this discussion with a Steven Weinberg-savvy atheist since then I don't have to go over such basic, basic science and see it doubted as if I were debating evolution with young-earth creationists. But, you must know, that's how I see this issue - but worse. I tend to forgive YEC'ers since everyone knows they are trying to protect their religious beliefs. But, what is the excuse of an atheist? Trying to protect the fond thoughts of nuclear winter?? That's ridiculous and a great disappointment.

Anyway, I'm trying to keep my disappointment in check, but this dentist chair thing is really starting to wear thin on my patience. I really want to discuss theism where both sides understand the implications of modern quantum theory and cosmological theories, and not this 19th century diaelectical materialism stuff. I had such an extensive debate with someone like that about a year ago and it was really a waste of time.

[spetey]

Hey again!

How can you so easily say there is a major difference in the two positions? Here are the key quotes again:

I've seen the quotations several times now. None of them say that "something comes from nothing", or that "the metaphysical affects the physical" (whatever that would mean) or that "physical laws can exist without any matter or energy". All they say is that these little things called virtual particles can appear for tiny timespans even in a vacuum, in accordance with the uncertainty principle. (Look at them yourself and see!) If physicists think that perhaps this phenomenon is related to how the universe began, okay, I'll buy that. I can even see how such a theory might require that the uncertainty principle hold somehow prior to the existence of the universe--and if that's a matter for science to discover, then I'll trust the scientists' discoveries.

What I said is that if science can demonstrate that a universe could come from absolute nothingness (which a vacuum of the type we see is not, notice, since it is embedded in spacetime), then I won't argue.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You are saying that virtual particles can't come from nothing (i.e., ground state of a vacuum in our spacetime geometry) but you have no problem with the universe coming from nothing (i.e., no spacetime and no quanta fields)? Please explain that one to me...

Read my claim again. (You are often very good about quoting my original claims, which I appreciate.) It may help to simply ignore the parenthetical, which isn't really necessary. I haven't said that virtual particles can't come from nothing. I've only said that such a claim isn't established merely by the existence of virtual particles in a vacuum. And incidentally, I had a chance to ask a tenured physics professor about it today, and he said he would not describe virtual particles as "something coming from nothing". (And yes his specialty is quantum physics, as I understand it.) Maybe other physicists would, especially those applying it to cosmology. Myself I'm ignorant and so withhold belief on the issue; I'm just pointing out that it doesn't obviously follow from the mere existence of vp's.

As for your new question, I just don't know enough of the physics myself, but I would think that if there's no space, or time, or matter, or energy, then there are no physical laws to govern them either. Hard to say.

Are you saying it's hard to say it is a reasonable possibility or it is hard to say whether it is true?

I guess both. But I might grant the reasonable possibility.

Can you give me any hint about how this physics stuff is related to my reasons for being an atheist?

Sure. You've taken on what looks like a dialectical materialist philosophy and you justify it based on science.

Whoa whoa! Who said anything about "dialectical materialism"?! I'm just a materialist. That means, in the 21st century anyway, that I think the only kind of substance that exists is material substance. That's all it means. It is not a religion or a dogma; I have good reason for this view, which I have shared. You have yet to explain what is wrong with my view.

Well, what do you know, physics has come along and cast doubt on that 19th century view of materialism but evidently this information hasn't trickled down through all the corridors of where materialist concepts fester.

(Yuk, 'fester', what an ugly word--I would prefer 'bloom' here, so much prettier. ) I honestly don't know enough about 19th century dialectical materialism to know how it relates to modern physics, and I can't say I care. On the other hand if your claim is that modern physics has shown there are substances other than the material, I would very much like to hear about it. Is it related somehow to these vp's you keep going on about? Because from what's been said so far, I haven't heard anything in that discussion about immaterial substances, from you or the physicists.

I think you'll find most if not all atheists are materialists (or "naturalists" or "physicalists") in my sense. It comes with the territory of not believing in ghosts, invisible pixies, or God.


spetey

[harvey1]

If physicists think that perhaps this phenomenon is related to how the universe began, okay, I'll buy that. I can even see how such a theory might require that the uncertainty principle hold somehow prior to the existence of the universe--and if that's a matter for science to discover, then I'll trust the scientists' discoveries.

What do you mean by "if"? It is something for science to try and discover or else they wouldn't be trying to do it...

As for your new question, I just don't know enough of the physics myself, but I would think that if there's no space, or time, or matter, or energy, then there are no physical laws to govern them either. Hard to say.

Are you saying it's hard to say it is a reasonable possibility or it is hard to say whether it is true?

I guess both. But I might grant the reasonable possibility.

So, for the sake of argument, can I offer as exhibit A in my argument that "it is reasonable to believe that the laws of physics were in force without there being a space, time, matter, energy by which to make any physical reference. That is, saying, "the universe came from the laws of physics from an absolute nothing state" is a reasonable statement?

[spetey]

So, for the sake of argument, can I offer as exhibit A in my argument that "it is reasonable to believe that the laws of physics were in force without there being a space, time, matter, energy by which to make any physical reference. That is, saying, "the universe came from the laws of physics from an absolute nothing state" is a reasonable statement?

I'm happy with the first (that it could be reasonable to believe such a thing if you're an informed physicist or such, not that I myself believe it; I remain agnostic). Your rephrasing of this claim is different. If the laws of physics are (somehow) in place before all matter and energy, then that is not "an absolute nothing state". Though it is a state, I guess, without any substance, if that helps whatever case you're making.


spetey

[harvey1]

So, for the sake of argument, can I offer as exhibit A in my argument that "it is reasonable to believe that the laws of physics were in force without there being a space, time, matter, energy by which to make any physical reference. That is, saying, "the universe came from the laws of physics from an absolute nothing state" is a reasonable statement?

I'm happy with the first (that it could be reasonable to believe such a thing if you're an informed physicist or such, not that I myself believe it; I remain agnostic). Your rephrasing of this claim is different. If the laws of physics are (somehow) in place before all matter and energy, then that is not "an absolute nothing state". Though it is a state, I guess, without any substance, if that helps whatever case you're making.

In the case that the laws of physics did exist without there being space, time, energy, or matter (S,T,E,M), if the "laws of physics" are not a substance then what would you call them? Prescriptive metaphysical modalities? I personally prefer that term. The term 'substance' is misleading since if the laws of physics exist without there being any S,T,E,M, then in that case we aren't referring to a substance - it would seem we are referring to a more accurate description of what we mean by "reality."

[spetey]

In the case that the laws of physics did exist without there being space, time, energy, or matter (S,T,E,M), if the "laws of physics" are not a substance then what would you call them?

I guess I would call them laws.

Prescriptive metaphysical modalities? I personally prefer that term.

This is in line with your marked preferences for terms that have no apparent meaning. There are metaphysical modalities (ways things could be and must be) and there are prescriptive modalities (permissible acts and duties). I don't know what a "prescriptive metaphysical modality" is.

The term 'substance' is misleading since if the laws of physics exist without there being any S,T,E,M, then in that case we aren't referring to a substance - it would seem we are referring to a more accurate description of what we mean by "reality."

Huh?

You promise this is all in an effort to show what's wrong with my reasons for being an atheist, right? Because it looks to me like we're going way, way off-topic.


spetey