A problem for both the Theist and Atheist?

If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

Lol, watch your step.

It's lonely, where you're headed. Trust me. ;)

The fallacy comes out of the skewed perception that nothing and something could be at odds with each other. Indeed, it is impossible to have one without the other in any given instance.

That underline was supposed to be italics.

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

Haha Ren's right Rational.

First there's about 11 other interpretations which aren't indeterministic and no one knows which one is right yet.

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

At 4/28/2012 6:32:57 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

Haha Ren's right Rational.

First there's about 11 other interpretations which aren't indeterministic and no one knows which one is right yet.

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Excuse me 7 interps.. there's about ten that's deterministic.

At 4/28/2012 6:32:57 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

Haha Ren's right Rational.

First there's about 11 other interpretations which aren't indeterministic and no one knows which one is right yet.

Of course, hence why I said If the indeterministic interpretation was true.

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

^ If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

At 4/28/2012 9:43:33 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

^great point, it seems the newtonian world of clarity constrains what we can or can;t say about quantum events. eg, I would never claim God turned my blood to wine using Quantum tunneling, or that my head just relocated 10million times just now....

QM: DAARR BE DRAGONS!

At 4/28/2012 11:26:16 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/28/2012 9:43:33 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

^great point, it seems the newtonian world of clarity constrains what we can or can;t say about quantum events. eg, I would never claim God turned my blood to wine using Quantum tunneling, or that my head just relocated 10million times just now....

QM: DAARR BE DRAGONS!

Im not sure what classical mechanics says about QM, or that it "constrains" what we can say about quantum events. I think the state of the field right now is just that they are generally incompatible on many subjects. I do know that there are macroscopic quantum events that have been observed though.

My point was more that if we have an equation which describes something like the probability field of an electron cloud and can use it to make predictions about how an atom will interact with other atoms, there is clearly causality involved regardless of the absence of determinacy.

But I agree with you about dragons, I think everybody should be immediately skeptical/wary of any article relying on QM (regardless of if it supports your position or not).

At 4/29/2012 12:16:58 AM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 11:26:16 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/28/2012 9:43:33 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

^great point, it seems the newtonian world of clarity constrains what we can or can;t say about quantum events. eg, I would never claim God turned my blood to wine using Quantum tunneling, or that my head just relocated 10million times just now....

QM: DAARR BE DRAGONS!

Im not sure what classical mechanics says about QM, or that it "constrains" what we can say about quantum events. I think the state of the field right now is just that they are generally incompatible on many subjects. I do know that there are macroscopic quantum events that have been observed though.

My point was more that if we have an equation which describes something like the probability field of an electron cloud and can use it to make predictions about how an atom will interact with other atoms, there is clearly causality involved regardless of the absence of determinacy.

Yea exactly I just meant constrains our global frame WRT using QM for any and everything.

At 4/28/2012 8:22:30 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

This is a bare assertion. Also, are you basically implying that a chair doesn't begin to exist, because it's not "from nothing" (which may be correct, I just want you to be honest and let me know this is what you are implying). If a fluctuation pops into existence uncaused from a Vacuum (not nothing), it still began to exist.

So answer this question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

You are picking at a straw man, I never said "from nothing". Why don't you try arguing against points I'm making, instead of arguing against a false notion of what you think all Atheists believe.

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Why do you continue with this straw man fallacy? I never said "from nothing", are you delusional?

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Ok, so you are implying that something cannot begin to exist unless it was from nothing. Well, you came from matter and atoms that existed before you, are you saying that you never began to exist? Did the Earth always exist because it didn't come from nothing? Quit dodging your implications and answer the question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

The supernatural is not rejected in the study of neuroscience, it's not just not required. If there was some indication of something supernatural going on which involves neuroscience, I'm sure it would be taken into account. The problem is though, there isn't.

At 4/28/2012 9:43:33 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

Actually, many physicists I've researched say Quantum Fluctuations have no trigger cause, only necessary conditions.

I can quote countless physicists saying fluctuations are uncaused, if you would like.

Also philosophically:

"The core idea of indeterminism is closely related to the idea of causality. Indeterminism for some philosophers is an event without a cause."

http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

"Indeterminism is the concept that events (certain events, or events of certain types) are not caused, or not caused deterministically (cf. causality) by prior events."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So ya...There are tons of philosophers and physicists who agree with uncaused, indetermined events. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from if you think otherwise...

At 4/28/2012 9:43:33 PM, Raisor wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

You havent really justified your claim that "indeterminate" means "possibly uncaused."

That is a really strong claim which you seem to take as either self evident or obvious, but I do not think many people (philosophers or physicists) would agree on that point.

Anyways the fact that you can use mathematical descriptions of quantum events to make predictions seems to clearly demonstrate that however you interpret quantum events they still have causal relationships to the rest of the universe.

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average."

- Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville

At 4/29/2012 6:19:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/28/2012 8:22:30 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

This is a bare assertion.

No it's a metaphysical principle

Also, are you basically implying that a chair doesn't begin to exist, because it's not "from nothing" (which may be correct, I just want you to be honest and let me know this is what you are implying). If a fluctuation pops into existence uncaused from a Vacuum (not nothing), it still began to exist.

You misunderstand me: I'm affirming P1 of the Kalam--everything that begins to exist has a cause.

So answer this question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

You are picking at a straw man, I never said "from nothing". Why don't you try arguing against points I'm making, instead of arguing against a false notion of what you think all Atheists believe.

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Why do you continue with this straw man fallacy? I never said "from nothing", are you delusional?

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

^I'm arguing against this. No straw man.

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Ok, so you are implying that something cannot begin to exist unless it was from nothing.

You're messing up what I'm saying again: I'm saying YOU'RE positing that with your idea of a "hole in the 'theory' of whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the same as saying things can pop into being uncaused.

Well, you came from matter and atoms that existed before you, are you saying that you never began to exist? Did the Earth always exist because it didn't come from nothing? Quit dodging your implications and answer the question:

The earth DID come from something. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I affirm everything must have a cause.

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

The supernatural is not rejected in the study of neuroscience, it's not just not required." If there was some indication of something supernatural going on which involves neuroscience, I'm sure it would be taken into account. The problem is though, there isn't.

The bold is a presupposition. But it's that consciousness IS the phenomena to be explained.

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

I'd very much question that statement, and say that many atheists adhere to libertarian and compatibilist philosophies as well.

At 4/29/2012 12:16:58 AM, Raisor wrote:

Im not sure what classical mechanics says about QM,

They contradict one another in some instances.

They abide by entirely different laws in some respects. Part of what makes it so incredibly fascinating.

or that it "constrains" what we can say about quantum events. I think the state of the field right now is just that they are generally incompatible on many subjects.

Indeed.

I do know that there are macroscopic quantum events that have been observed though.

The Big Bang? Hehe.

My point was more that if we have an equation which describes something like the probability field of an electron cloud

HUP?

and can use it to make predictions about how an atom will interact with other atoms, there is clearly causality involved regardless of the absence of determinacy.

This is only true to a point. We can infer what an atom might do under given conditions based on what it's already done, but that inference is not 100 percent accurate, nor is it the only possible interaction that will occur.

At 4/29/2012 6:46:41 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/29/2012 6:19:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/28/2012 8:22:30 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

This is a bare assertion.

No it's a metaphysical principle

Also, are you basically implying that a chair doesn't begin to exist, because it's not "from nothing" (which may be correct, I just want you to be honest and let me know this is what you are implying). If a fluctuation pops into existence uncaused from a Vacuum (not nothing), it still began to exist.

You misunderstand me: I'm affirming P1 of the Kalam--everything that begins to exist has a cause.

So answer this question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

You are picking at a straw man, I never said "from nothing". Why don't you try arguing against points I'm making, instead of arguing against a false notion of what you think all Atheists believe.

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Why do you continue with this straw man fallacy? I never said "from nothing", are you delusional?

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

^I'm arguing against this. No straw man.

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Ok, so you are implying that something cannot begin to exist unless it was from nothing.

You're messing up what I'm saying again: I'm saying YOU'RE positing that with your idea of a "hole in the 'theory' of whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the same as saying things can pop into being uncaused.

Well, you came from matter and atoms that existed before you, are you saying that you never began to exist? Did the Earth always exist because it didn't come from nothing? Quit dodging your implications and answer the question:

The earth DID come from something. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I affirm everything must have a cause.

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

The supernatural is not rejected in the study of neuroscience, it's not just not required." If there was some indication of something supernatural going on which involves neuroscience, I'm sure it would be taken into account. The problem is though, there isn't.

The bold is a presupposition. But it's that consciousness IS the phenomena to be explained.

Me: Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

You: Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

If it's possible for something to begin that's not from nothing, then why are you talking about something coming from nothing, when I never mentioned it?

If a fluctuation popped into existence from a Vaccum (not nothing), uncaused, it would still be something beginning to exist that didn't have a cause, even if it didn't come from nothing.

Where are you getting this "nothing" from? I didn't mention it once, are you delusional?

I think you are confusing two things that have nothing to do with each other:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Causality

At 4/29/2012 6:48:27 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 4/28/2012 4:01:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes. If something begins that is indetermined, it may still have some type of cause, but it's not required, and the Theist needs the cause to be required in order to make their arguments work.

However, if these QM interpretations are true, it also puts a huge hole in determinism (Which is what most Atheists adhere to).

I'd very much question that statement, and say that many atheists adhere to libertarian and compatibilist philosophies as well.

Compatibilists are still determinists...

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average."

- Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville

Yeah he is using the word "cause" in a pretty different sense than the word is used in cosmological arguments.

He is using the word cause in the classical physics sense of "billiard ball A hits billiard ball B causing ball B to move." In this sense quantum events are "uncaused."

It is a very different thing to say quantum events are metaphysically uncaused. Quantum events arise out of initial conditions and depend on laws of physics that govern them. They dont really "just happen." The radioactive atom decays at a random time and doesnt have some event that triggered the decay, but the quantum event depends on there being a radioactive atom, it depends on the conditions of the atom that describe the probability field of the quantum event (the half life). There are all sorts of necessary preconditions for the quantum event, and so it is far from being without cause in the strong sense that is needed to be seriously problematic.

It is also worth noting that the quote you used is pulled is being made specifically in the context of arguing against cosmological arguments. He is explicitly making an interpretation to support his position. Not necessarily anything wrong with that, just pointing it out.

I'm just inclined to rule out a priori genuine indeterministic interpretations of QM on the basis that they violate the law of non-contradiction and other very basic metaphysical principles. It seems at least to me that the main motivation to embrace such interpretations is to avoid the implications of cosmological arguments.

At any rate, genuinely indeterministic interpretations of QM are hard to come by. Most of alleged examples of causal indeterminacy are more plausible seen as epistemic rather than ontic (viz. quantum decay, which follows certain law-like behavior).

At 4/29/2012 2:26:09 PM, Contradiction wrote:
I'm just inclined to rule out a priori genuine indeterministic interpretations of QM on the basis that they violate the law of non-contradiction and other very basic metaphysical principles. It seems at least to me that the main motivation to embrace such interpretations is to avoid the implications of cosmological arguments.

At any rate, genuinely indeterministic interpretations of QM are hard to come by. Most of alleged examples of causal indeterminacy are more plausible seen as epistemic rather than ontic (viz. quantum decay, which follows certain law-like behavior).

"It seems at least to me that the main motivation to embrace such interpretations is to avoid the implications of cosmological arguments."

The implications of cosmological arguments should not be problematic to the Atheist in my opinion, they all rest on shaky foundations and assumptions. Much of the defense of the premises use contradictory terms as well, like "external" to "space" or "before" and "prior" to "time" which indicate to me a bad argument.

"I'm just inclined to rule out a priori genuine indeterministic interpretations of QM on the basis that they violate the law of non-contradiction and other very basic metaphysical principles."

Something coming from nothing may be a valid metaphysical principle, but something occurring without a "trigger" cause, but due to background conditions certainly doesn't violate and logical principles I know of.

At 4/29/2012 7:45:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/29/2012 6:46:41 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/29/2012 6:19:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/28/2012 8:22:30 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

This is a bare assertion.

No it's a metaphysical principle

Also, are you basically implying that a chair doesn't begin to exist, because it's not "from nothing" (which may be correct, I just want you to be honest and let me know this is what you are implying). If a fluctuation pops into existence uncaused from a Vacuum (not nothing), it still began to exist.

You misunderstand me: I'm affirming P1 of the Kalam--everything that begins to exist has a cause.

So answer this question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

You are picking at a straw man, I never said "from nothing". Why don't you try arguing against points I'm making, instead of arguing against a false notion of what you think all Atheists believe.

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Why do you continue with this straw man fallacy? I never said "from nothing", are you delusional?

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

^I'm arguing against this. No straw man.

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Ok, so you are implying that something cannot begin to exist unless it was from nothing.

You're messing up what I'm saying again: I'm saying YOU'RE positing that with your idea of a "hole in the 'theory' of whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the same as saying things can pop into being uncaused.

Well, you came from matter and atoms that existed before you, are you saying that you never began to exist? Did the Earth always exist because it didn't come from nothing? Quit dodging your implications and answer the question:

The earth DID come from something. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I affirm everything must have a cause.

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

The supernatural is not rejected in the study of neuroscience, it's not just not required." If there was some indication of something supernatural going on which involves neuroscience, I'm sure it would be taken into account. The problem is though, there isn't.

The bold is a presupposition. But it's that consciousness IS the phenomena to be explained.

Me: Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

You: Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

If it's possible for something to begin that's not from nothing, then why are you talking about something coming from nothing, when I never mentioned it?

If a fluctuation popped into existence from a Vaccum (not nothing), uncaused, it would still be something beginning to exist that didn't have a cause, even if it didn't come from nothing.

Where are you getting this "nothing" from? I didn't mention it once, are you delusional?

I think you are confusing two things that have nothing to do with each other:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Causality

Tell me how something can come into being uncaused.

At 4/29/2012 5:34:31 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/29/2012 7:45:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/29/2012 6:46:41 AM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

At 4/29/2012 6:19:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

At 4/28/2012 8:22:30 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

Second, even if it were indeterministic theists mean in their arguments that any metaphysically thing that begins to exist must have a cause. This is true in all of metaphysics, indeed it's a principle; From nothing, nothing comes (also, nothing from nothing means nothing... ya gotta have somethin if ya wanna.. OK I'll stop).

This is a straw man, whoever said "from nothing"? Are you implying that something can't begin to exist unless it's from nothing?

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

If something began to exist without a cause, then it would come from nothing. No word games.

This is a bare assertion.

No it's a metaphysical principle

Also, are you basically implying that a chair doesn't begin to exist, because it's not "from nothing" (which may be correct, I just want you to be honest and let me know this is what you are implying). If a fluctuation pops into existence uncaused from a Vacuum (not nothing), it still began to exist.

You misunderstand me: I'm affirming P1 of the Kalam--everything that begins to exist has a cause.

So answer this question:

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

The Kalam is such that it requires a cause, that means denying the claim (from obvious theoretical physicists which I don't feel the need to mention) of something coming from 'nothing' as in the quantum vacuum nothing... which is obvious not nothing. That was my point. So no I'm not implying what you thought you saw.

You are picking at a straw man, I never said "from nothing". Why don't you try arguing against points I'm making, instead of arguing against a false notion of what you think all Atheists believe.

"If the indeterministic interpretations of QM are true, then this puts a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes."

When we say nothing we don't mean the quantum fluctuation. Indeed that IS something, it's a sea of energy with many different characteristics, etc. Also, the QF itself had to have had a beginning.

Why do you continue with this straw man fallacy? I never said "from nothing", are you delusional?

Once, more, who said anything about "from nothing"? What does this have to do with causality?

Once more, "a hole in the Theist's theory that all things that begin to exist have to have causes"

^I'm arguing against this. No straw man.

a hole in the theory (actually metaphysical principle) that whatever begins to exist must have a cause = things coming into being uncaused and out of nothing, this applies to all of space-time reality including the false vacuum.

Ok, so you are implying that something cannot begin to exist unless it was from nothing.

You're messing up what I'm saying again: I'm saying YOU'RE positing that with your idea of a "hole in the 'theory' of whatever begins to exist has a cause" is the same as saying things can pop into being uncaused.

Well, you came from matter and atoms that existed before you, are you saying that you never began to exist? Did the Earth always exist because it didn't come from nothing? Quit dodging your implications and answer the question:

The earth DID come from something. You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I affirm everything must have a cause.

Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

Thirdly, physical determinism is irrelevant to mental states. On libertarianism, though we may be influenced my physical states, it doesn't at all follow that we're determined by them.

Neuroscience paints a different picture.

Of course it does. What study that presupposes materialism without justification wouldn't paint a different picture?

The supernatural is not rejected in the study of neuroscience, it's not just not required." If there was some indication of something supernatural going on which involves neuroscience, I'm sure it would be taken into account. The problem is though, there isn't.

The bold is a presupposition. But it's that consciousness IS the phenomena to be explained.

Me: Do you believe that something can begin to exist, if it's not from nothing?

You: Of course, that's affirming P1 of the Kalam, I don't see your point here.

If it's possible for something to begin that's not from nothing, then why are you talking about something coming from nothing, when I never mentioned it?

If a fluctuation popped into existence from a Vaccum (not nothing), uncaused, it would still be something beginning to exist that didn't have a cause, even if it didn't come from nothing.

Where are you getting this "nothing" from? I didn't mention it once, are you delusional?

I think you are confusing two things that have nothing to do with each other:

1. Something cannot come from nothing
2. Causality

Tell me how something can come into being uncaused.

I could ask you the same question about God.

At 4/29/2012 5:36:36 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I could ask you the same question about God.

Thats really off topic. Thread is about implications of QM and causality/determinism, not how well cosmological arguments function in general.

Tell me how something can come into being uncaused.

I could ask you the same question about God.

Not quite, the thought is, God never came into being. Neither did numbers, sets, abstract objects, etc.

No its a problem for Quantum Theory.

Recognition vs Reality fallacy.

Aka not knowing where it came from does not mean it came from know where. For no where is not there to know about.

Its time for a better Theory.