Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[harvey1]

Here is my argument against material atheism:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

[harvey1]

What's this "you have time slicing"? Yes you have have a measurable change that can be labelled wih a local clock, but this is purely a labelling exercise. A photon making its way from C to E does so according to Schrödinger equation in a continuous manner. I've never seen a treatment that suggests gaps of the sort you speak of.

You should read Lee Smolin's book...

Anyway, if you reject time slicing, then you are guilty of accepting (2):

2. Events are not real in that an event C at t1 is composed of an uncountable number of sub(C) events, and any particular sub(C) event is composed of an uncountable number of sub(sub(C) events, and so on without end

In which case you are rejecting causation by saying those events do not actually exist since they can be reduced to other events.

[The Happy Humanist]

There you go getting hung up on your own definitions again.

I knew Ronald Reagan, and you are no Ronald Reagan. Must we live in the 80s, Jim? I hated the 80s.

Atheist vs. Agnostic is of no moment in discussions like these. We are all non-theists, which means we do not accept your interpretation of the universe. Convince one sub-group, atheist or agnostic, and you will convince the super-group, non-theists.

Funny, because theists and agnostics agree, we are all non-atheists, which means we do not accept your interpretation of the universe. Convince one sub-group, theist or agnostic, and you will convince the super-group, non-atheists.

You are misusing the fact that agnostics are an improper subset of non-theists. In fact agnostics remain unconvinced of any interpretation of the universe. Ours is compatible in that we admit it is incomplete. Yours is not in that you insist that yours is completed by an unknown quantity, God. A God so small, by the way, that he has now been relegated to the infinitessimal slices of time between sub-atomic collisions...talk about your God of the Gaps...

[harvey1]

agnostics remain unconvinced of any interpretation of the universe.

Including atheistic ones?

Ours is compatible in that we admit it is incomplete.

Agnostics do not believe that we have enough evidence to know there is a God with some agnostics not sure if we could ever have enough evidence. Atheists believe they have enough evidence to know that God does not exist. Now, what sounds similar in those two arguments? The consistent agnostic looks upon the atheist argument with as much distain as the theist argument. If you admit knowledge of God existing is vastly incomplete, then that's puzzling since you are then guilty of forming a conclusion with admittedly incomplete knowledge. By your own lights you should be an agnostic.

My theist position is more consistent since I do think there is enough pertinent evidence to believe that God exists, and I do not think this pertinent is evidence is all that incomplete in terms of drawing the conclusion that I draw.

Yours is not in that you insist that yours is completed by an unknown quantity, God. A God so small, by the way, that he has now been relegated to the infinitessimal slices of time between sub-atomic collisions...talk about your God of the Gaps...

No, I'm not so foolish as to believe an erroneous belief that a simple 3 line argument can easily show cannot be the case. And, that's not a God of gaps argument since there's a number of atheists who believe that causation as materially based is nothing short of complete nonsense. I agree with them, but they are wrong in their views because immaterial relations require a theist belief.

[The Happy Humanist]

agnostics remain unconvinced of any interpretation of the universe.

Including atheistic ones?

Yup. Atheistic meaning those that heavily doubt the God hypothesis, of which I am one.

Atheists believe they have enough evidence to know that God does not exist.

No, most atheists believe they have enough evidence to be pretty darn sure he doesn't exist, but leave a small "gap" to allow for our epistemic shortcomings. The ones that are certain he doesn't exist are failing to acknowledge that gap. They are few and far between, however, and not really germaine to this discussion. So most of us who call ourselves atheists are really agnostic atheists. This is why I am more comfortable with the term "non-theist," it avoids all this unnecessary hair-splitting.

If you admit knowledge of God existing is vastly incomplete, then that's puzzling since you are then guilty of forming a conclusion with admittedly incomplete knowledge.

Vastly? Did I say vastly? Where did I say that? I think I just said incomplete. We don't know what happened a millisecond before the Big Bang. That's vast? Surely not vast enough to prevent us from coming to a tentative conclusion.

And, that's not a God of gaps argument since there's a number of atheists who believe that causation as materially based is nothing short of complete nonsense.

Can you explain their position, or post some links?

I agree with them, but they are wrong in their views because immaterial relations require a theist belief.

Immateriality = God? How so?

[QED]

Anyway, if you reject time slicing, then you are guilty of accepting (2):

You must be getting desperate or something. I don't suppose it's possible that both of your premises could be wrong?

I'm not simply holding out on you with this claim of yours. You hardly know me, but if you did, you'd know that I really am on the lookout for new wrinkles that can't be ironed-out with conventional thinking. I do my bit by reading-up on interesting material like this paper I found online by Kauffman and Smolin but when it comes to the really big picture ultimately something has to resonate with the impressions I get through all my senses for me to drop my scepticism. No doubt you will accuse me of only allowing things to resonate with my prejudices and I'm sure you'd describe you take on the world in a similar way only in your case you just happen to be sceptical that we could find ourselves in such an orderly existence by any degree of chance.

This is what I just don't get: there are so many examples of the anthropic principle at work and so many people who fall into the honey-trap of thinking that it takes intelligence to produce design. It's no coincidence that these people tend to be the ones that cannot accept that we're evolved from apes and believe that we are the very pinnacle of God's creation. Now you seem to do an end-run around all this by accepting the science in between but cite it all as being God and his methods. It almost seems churlish to argue against this at times -- until that is the various apologies and rationalizations appear in order to account for the (more than) occasional absence of love, mercy and goodness seen in the cosmos. It's always possible for you to define God in particular ways that make it hard to dispute, but any collection of these definitions does not add-up to a God that's generally recognizable to "the sort of people who believe in God". If you believe in the outright supremacy of human beings or are not the slightest bit doubtful that God walked among men in the shape of Jesus then go ahead and call me prejudiced.

Incidentally I thought Smolin was a dirty word for you, after all he's the physicist most associated with the idea of "natural selection" of universes.

[harvey1]

Atheistic meaning those that heavily doubt the God hypothesis, of which I am one.

Oh, it's a scientific hypothesis? Can you show me the paper where this hypothesis was formerly presented before physicists? Who wrote the paper?

No, most atheists believe they have enough evidence to be pretty darn sure he doesn't exist, but leave a small "gap" to allow for our epistemic shortcomings.

You seem to make a special case that this particular knowledge is fallibilistic. Can you tell me if there is any claimed knowledge by humans that isn't at all fallibilistic? If all knowledge is fallibilistic, then why make this special caution with regard to God?

The ones that are certain he doesn't exist are failing to acknowledge that gap.

But, there are people who aren't fallibilistic with knowledge in general, but that doesn't mean that they are right, does it?

So most of us who call ourselves atheists are really agnostic atheists.

Funny you mention that. I just saw a square circle a few minutes ago, and didn't know what to make of it.

This is why I am more comfortable with the term "non-theist," it avoids all this unnecessary hair-splitting.

It seems you are equivocating the term "agnostic" with the term "fallibilistic." The term agnostic specifically refers to those who are are skeptical about claims that say that our best evidence suggests that God either does or does not exist. The term fallibilistic means how we treat knowledge which we claim is true. That is, we give it a certain measure of fallibility.

Vastly? Did I say vastly? Where did I say that? I think I just said incomplete. We don't know what happened a millisecond before the Big Bang. That's vast? Surely not vast enough to prevent us from coming to a tentative conclusion.

Well, if you are saying that your interpretation of God's existence is like the agnostic's interpretation, then you are saying that the evidence for or against God is vastly incomplete. Everyone agrees that the evidence is incomplete since the evidence is incomplete about everything that is claimed in terms of what exists. In fact, this is the weakness of agnosticism in that the arguments for extreme skepticism is based on the incomplete nature of knowledge. If you are only saying that your interpretation is incomplete (e.g., how the theist would agree), then you have more in common with the theists than you do with the agnostics.

Can you explain their position, or post some links?

In the late 1970's, David Armstrong, Michael Tooley, and Fred Dretske all independently proposed the existence of causal laws that are immaterial. They are all avid atheists and, in fact, David Armstrong is perhaps the most famous atheist in the philosophical community in that time. However, all three rejected what you guys have been supporting tooth and nail. I'm telling you, it is non-sensical.

Immateriality = God? How so?

Well, first, listen to what you just said. If you go that direction, then you've just caved into one of the most significant claim against theism. That is, God is immaterial, and that has always been a bone of contention. The second thing is that once you no longer ground your truths on some material state of being, then truth acquires its own value independently of the material state--hence the notion of truth becomes a mental value. It's very difficult to argue that you can have a mental value for truth without a mind.

[harvey1]

Incidentally I thought Smolin was a dirty word for you, after all he's the physicist most associated with the idea of "natural selection" of universes.

No, I like Smolin a great deal. I met him once at a conference, and he's a real nice guy. Besides, why do you think I wouldn't like him because he tries to explain the universe? I admire that quality. I think "not agreeing with" need not translate into becoming a "dirty word."

You must be getting desperate or something. I don't suppose it's possible that both of your premises could be wrong?

Desperation to you is showing a logical absurdity? I think it is the opposite here. You are holding firm to a belief which has no merit to it. Instead of giving up on a belief (as you should), you persist despite the illogic in it. I don't think that is a good way to advance in your views, QED. It makes it very difficult to debate with you since you won't acknowledge an irrational argument, no matter how it contradicts reason.

but when it comes to the really big picture ultimately something has to resonate with the impressions I get through all my senses for me to drop my scepticism.

That's fine, and I'm much more sympathetic with that view than atheists are when theists say this to atheists. However, even theists must conform to certain things. It is not advisable to be "out there" unattached to strong reason. This is why I am an evolutionist. It would be very easy for me to succumb to IDism since I acknowledge the great amount of design. However, I also know that there's a great amount of randomness in the designs of nature. I know it is non-sensical for God to be involved inconsistently like that. I am trying to conform to strong reason. If it was just a matter of waiting to get whiff of resonation, I think I would be somewhere else in my views. Like Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself. I think that is all too true.

For that reason, I think you ought to drop this material causation bit. Either take up a statistical behavior of material things or move over to a kind of Tooleyism where causal laws are immaterial relations. If you did so, I think I would have more respect for your views. When I see you refuse to trust sound argument, I wonder what I could do to possibly change your view.

It's always possible for you to define God in particular ways that make it hard to dispute, but any collection of these definitions does not add-up to a God that's generally recognizable to "the sort of people who believe in God".

Well, this sounds like another thread in the making. Is there biblical support for my view of God? I think there is a ton of biblical support for it.

If you believe in the outright supremacy of human beings or are not the slightest bit doubtful that God walked among men in the shape of Jesus then go ahead and call me prejudiced.

I think it is a misunderstanding on the part of people who came after as to how the incarnation was meant to be interpreted.

[QED]

I think it is the opposite here. You are holding firm to a belief which has no merit to it. Instead of giving up on a belief (as you should), you persist despite the illogic in it. I don't think that is a good way to advance in your views, QED. It makes it very difficult to debate with you since you won't acknowledge an irrational argument, no matter how it contradicts reason.

What is this belief of mine that has no merit? That Quantum Electrodynamics accounts for the transfer of kinetic energy hence accounts for all material cause and effects? What science (if any) do you have that refutes this?

Okay, let's analyze your atomic pushing and shoving metaphor. It seems one of these statements must be false since they are not all compatible, please tell me which statement you see as false:

1. Events are real in that they actually occur in time (e.g., C at t1, E at t2, etc.). There is no further subdivision possible of event C after having identified the event that actually causes (an)other event(s) E.
2. Events are not real in that an event C at t1 is composed of an uncountable number of sub(C) events, and any particular sub(C) event is composed of an uncountable number of sub(sub(C) events, and so on without end

Now, it seems to me that both statements cannot be true. One statement is false, and the other is true. It also seems to me that no matter which statement is true, material causation cannot explain either possibility. In the case of (1), you have time slicing and therefore non-material causal gaps between event C and event E. In the case of (2), you do not have events at all, and therefore you cannot have any form of real causation since there is nothing in principle to be the cause of an effect.

To which I replied with this:

What's this "you have time slicing"? Yes you have have a measurable change that can be labelled wih a local clock, but this is purely a labelling exercise. A photon making its way from C to E does so according to Schrödinger equation in a continuous manner. I've never seen a treatment that suggests gaps of the sort you speak of.

You gave me two options, the first of which seemed to fit better with my understanding of the relevant physics -- yet in your summary of this option you then went on to describe it as 'time slicing' concluding that this presents non-material causal gaps between events C and E. This analysis is what I have issue with for the reasons I quoted in my reply above. I honestly don't get what you're talking about. Maybe (and it's quite possible) I'm just too thick to understand what you're presenting. But it looks to me as if you've plucked this idea out of the rarified air of philosophy journals knowing that it lies squarely in the realm of non-scientific conjecture. Pardon me however, if it is the former.

[harvey1]

What is this belief of mine that has no merit? That Quantum Electrodynamics accounts for the transfer of kinetic energy hence accounts for all material cause and effects? What science (if any) do you have that refutes this?

QED is based on the laws of physics. For example, the path integral requires the cancellation of an infinite number of particle paths which is not based on any material causation since "paths" are not material they are histories.

You gave me two options, the first of which seemed to fit better with my understanding of the relevant physics -- yet in your summary of this option you then went on to describe it as 'time slicing' concluding that this presents non-material causal gaps between events C and E. This analysis is what I have issue with for the reasons I quoted in my reply above.

The Schrodinger time-evolution equation doesn't necessarily disfavor discrete time interpretations. If you want to interpret the time-evolution equation as (1) or (2), be my guest, however you must show how causation is possible.

[Curious]

Okay, let's analyze your atomic pushing and shoving metaphor. It seems one of these statements must be false since they are not all compatible, please tell me which statement you see as false:

1. Events are real in that they actually occur in time (e.g., C at t1, E at t2, etc.). There is no further subdivision possible of event C after having identified the event that actually causes (an)other event(s) E.
2. Events are not real in that an event C at t1 is composed of an uncountable number of sub(C) events, and any particular sub(C) event is composed of an uncountable number of sub(sub(C) events, and so on without end

Now, it seems to me that both statements cannot be true. One statement is false, and the other is true. It also seems to me that no matter which statement is true, material causation cannot explain either possibility. In the case of (1), you have time slicing and therefore non-material causal gaps between event C and event E. In the case of (2), you do not have events at all, and therefore you cannot have any form of real causation since there is nothing in principle to be the cause of an effect.

I am a little confused.
What if we look at a balance with a weight on either end. Say one end has a downward force due to gravity of 10N while the other end (with twice the weight) has a downward force of 20N. Now let us define a physical event as any movement of the balance from its position which starts on the horizontal. If we were to "stop time" then the net 10N force on the heavier side of the balance would not move the balance but any progression of time would show a corresponding movement downwards. This force is constant upon the weight and is caused completely by the mass of the objects involved. Now isn't this material causation?