Evolution and atheism

[Sacrificial Ram]

Ok.
1) An unknowable First Cause insists on an agnostic confirmation.

2) A knowable, but yet unproven, First Cause admits to "something" that transcends the material universe in that it pre-dates the Big Bang.

3) The denial of a First Cause, specifically in regard to the material universe proceeding from the Big Bang, argues against the largest body of scientific evidence that infers all effects have causes.

Statements 1) and 2) are sufficient to make acceptable the first two verses below, no other exposition of the terms necessary for the sake of argument to follow.

That is, it remains to be seen where the text takes from this beginning:

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, The Firdt Cause created the now known Universe(s) referred to as the heaven and the earth.

1) number 3 is incorrect. Quantum mechanics shows there are non-causual events.

2) You are also assuming that the big bang is the 'begining'. The Eukopyrotic model of the Big bang does not assume this.

[kofh2u]

1) number 3 is incorrect. Quantum mechanics shows there are non-causual events.

2) You are also assuming that the big bang is the 'begining'. The Eukopyrotic model of the Big bang does not assume this.

You are correct on both counts.

In regard to the first point: acasuality at the Quantum level, we must introduce the Jungian idea of Synchronicity.

Here we introduce the idea that this First Cause is becoming, is manifesting, immanently, in man's Collective Unconsciousness.

This idea is not original as stated here, but is reflected in the thinking of Heisenberg, Planck, Shrodinger, so on. The scientific interest especially motivated by acausal events at the quantum level find compatibility in scripture as we read down from the first two verses in Genesis:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Mind), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in panentheistic* expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (during the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly panentheistic* organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

* David Ray Griffin, God and ligion in the Postmodern World: panentheism as a new animism replacing primitive pantheism.

[Sacrificial Ram]

You are correct on both counts.

In regard to the first point: acasuality at the Quantum level, we must introduce the Jungian idea of Synchronicity.

Here we introduce the idea that this First Cause is becoming, is manifesting, immanently, in man's Collective Unconsciousness.

This idea is not original as stated here, but is reflected in the thinking of Heisenberg, Planck, Shrodinger, so on. The scientific interest especially motivated by acausal events at the quantum level find compatibility in scripture as we read down from the first two verses in Genesis:

Gen. 1:26 And God, (the theistic Almighty Universal Mind), said, (in proclamation), Let us, (these Natural Laws, in panentheistic* expression, the very Spirit of God), make man, (during the process of gradual evolution),.. Let us make man, (as a micro cosmos reflection of the Universe, in his mind, an Immanent reflection of God), IN OUR IMAGE, (after the spirit of our orderly panentheistic* organization): and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

* David Ray Griffin, God and ligion in the Postmodern World: panentheism as a new animism replacing primitive pantheism.

Well, actually, no. For a purely physical environment, we don't have to worry about pathneism, Jung, or a collective unconcouiousness at all.

Heisenberg would not be certain about your concept, and Shrodinger would have kittens if he knew someone was going to try to apply his science is such a manner.

[kofh2u]

Well, actually, no. For a purely physical environment, we don't have to worry about pathneism, Jung, or a collective unconcouiousness at all.

Heisenberg would not be certain about your concept, and Shrodinger would have kittens if he knew someone was going to try to apply his science is such a manner.

Hahaaa.. shrod's cats.. out of the box.

The point of my comments was that your observation of causeless events at the quantum level reinforce the arguments I make.

God is Universal Consciousness,

The First Cause, Universal Consciousness, is manifesting in the sons of God, man. One is the image of the other.


The casuaty of Consciousness, (both human and Cosmic) is suggested, as evidenced in Schrodingers box paradox, in quantum leaps, in Heisenberg Uncertainy.

Human consciousness, affect mind over matter in quantum world interactions is akin to the First Cause in the macro-world.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Hahaaa.. shrod's cats.. out of the box.

The point of my comments was that your observation of causeless events at the quantum level reinforce the arguments I make.

God is Universal Consciousness,

The First Cause, Universal Consciousness, is manifesting in the sons of God, man. One is the image of the other.


The casuaty of Consciousness, (both human and Cosmic) is suggested, as evidenced in Schrodingers box paradox, in quantum leaps, in Heisenberg Uncertainy.

Human consciousness, affect mind over matter in quantum world interactions is akin to the First Cause in the macro-world.

Whew, a very odd mishmash of psuedoscience and religion. As far as Heisnberg and Schrodinger's theories, they don't address consciousness at all.

[kofh2u]

Ram,

Its not about proseltyzing atheists.

Its about explaining scripture in the emerging 21st Century paradigm.
Its about putting weird sounding ancient explanations of scripture into the language of a plausibility for people in this Information Age.
The quantum world and the surrealism of Relativity are appropriate company to scripture grounded in the academics and spirituality of our times.

Hardly is it expected that the anti-christs will be converted by this analogy with their own sciences.
But, this is recourse for secularly trained, educated people who have always exercised a spiritual side to their lives. It is the new song of scriptural interpretation that replaces the archaic, the ancient, thebmetaphysical guesses that are so easily attacked today.

Who wants it? The new age geek ministers.


Rev. 22:11 He (who, in that smallest 6% part of the world population)
that is unjust, (in the economic distribution of resources), let him be unjust still (in this present socio-political economic global system): and he which is filthy (with the sexual manipulation of the cultural institutions), let him be filthy still: and he that be (so self-right), righteous, (and so self assured in his own political and/or religious conceits), let him be (self) righteous still: and he that is holy, (altruistic), let him be holy, (different and separated out) still.

[rogero]

Is it obvious to all that Kofh2u is just plain nutz?

[Sacrificial Ram]

Is it obvious to all that Kofh2u is just plain nutz?

There are worse out there... ... but he certainly has a very unique and new age view of things.

[bandecoot]

Is it obvious to all that Kofh2u is just plain nutz?

Much to my chagrin I wasted a good 2 hours of my life responding to him, who do I apply to to get a refund?

[lucaspa]

Hi,
I visited your site which listed 5 "hypothesis" on the subject of First Cause.

You add Agnosticism to those five, raising the number to six.

???? Agnosticism is not a candidate for First Cause. How did you get that idea?

You also answer the question bankecoot could not:

KOFHY:
Do Strongies admit to an unknowable "First Cause?"

bandecoot:
I would imagine not,...

Correct. Strong atheists pick one of the candidates other than God. If you pick an "unknowable" First Cause, then you are probably going to be agnostic.

KOFHY:
And, lusca, you suggest that strong atheists in fact "believe" in something that as yet is not "known."

So, we have "believers," all?

Except for agnostics. Those aren't believers. Unless they add "unknowable" to agnosticism. Then they are making a statement for all the future. And that is a belief.

[lucaspa]

No, that is not true. There are noncausual events. Also, some forms of quantum mechanics have time working a bit differently that the sequential
we perceive in the macro world.

Ah, but even though Quantum Fluctuation is a candidate for First Cause (and is uncaused), that is still a cause of the chain of cause and effect within the physical universe.

I know, a bit confusing.

Hawking in No Boundary uses what he calls "imaginary time". In this case, he arbitrarily picks the paramenters immediately after the Big Bang such that time is identical to the other dimensions (that we call space). IF that is the case, then Hawking gets an unbounded but finite universe, eliminates the singularity of the BB, and has a new candidate for First Cause.

I have not seen any other formulations of time within QM. If you have, I'd appreciate a source so I can update my info. Thank you.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa:
I wanted to get back to this because, to me, this highlights the confusion of two separate ideas within the minds of atheists:
1. The validity of a claim.
2. What you are required to do as a result of the claim being valid.


There is no confusion. This issue of being required to do anything only arose because I chose an example where the outcome is not academic but really matters. When getting it right is really important (money, health...), that's when we find out what you count as credible evidence.

Ah, but in "getting it right" means doing something.

It is interesting how you never answered the example...are you "agnostic" about the miracle investor's claims? Would you give your mother any advice, if so what and why?

I did answer the example. I don't believe it. That's my personal belief. That's different from knowing the claim is false.

Are you telling me that the main reason you disbelieve Mr. X's claim that he can levitate is that you think he would have had trouble breathing at high altitude?

Not "trouble". Impossible. At 30,000 feet without special life support equipment, he would die in very little time. The claim/hypothesis has deductions of consequences that cannot be true. That's falsification, not "disbelief".

Well, since I am a physicist I'm in a good position to correct you. We are "agnostic" towards tachyons, time-travel etc in the same sense that you are "agnostic" about unicorns. OK?

I'm not agnostic about unicorns. They are falsified. We've searched the entire search space. However, I'm intrigued. I said: "Just as science is agnostic towards the existence of deity." Why did you change that to unicorns? Are you implying that science is not agnostic toward the existence of deity?

You seem to be pretending to have no concept of plausibility. Some hypotheses are more implausible than others. Yet you certainly have such a concept, or you couldn't function in the real world (you'd spend equal amounts of time checking out preposterous claims and reasonable ones).

Plausibility has nothing to do with whether something is true. I function in the real world the same way everyone else does: by belief. I believe some things are true. I just don't delude myself that those beliefs are facts. And science usually advances by testing out "preposterous" claims. When I started looking at adult stem cells 15 years ago, I was repeatedly told that it was "preposterous" that adults had primitive stem cells. Look at the field today.

Yes. But like many things that could have happened, it is highly implausible. That judgement is based on what we know about the world. Just like when I go to the garage and see my car is gone but there is a pool of water on the floor, I know it is highly unlikely that the car melted into water. I am not "agnostic" about the possibility that it melted. It would take a lot of evidence to convince me that such a thing had occurred. Are you "agnostic" about melting cars?

Does the pool have the same number of water molecules as your car had molecules of other compounds? I submit that what you do is falsify the melting hypothesis by looking at the size of the "pool" of water and comparing that to the size of the car. Taking into accounts known evaporation rates, you conclude that the "pool" of water could not be your car.

Now, let's try another example. You say you are a physicist. All "what we know about the world" says that the same object never exists in 2 places at the same time. Right? Never before observed. So, should we dismiss this paper? 10. J Winters, Quantum cat tricks. Discover, 17(10): 26, Oct. 1996. By your account, we should declare this paper as "implausible" and dismiss it. Why? Because it summarizes a paper in the physics literature describing the separation of an atom into its spin up an spin down quantum states with those states being separated by 10 atom diameters. It's like having 2 of you 10 feet apart. Yet there is the data. Do want to dismiss it because it documents a "highly implausible" event?

What is happening here is that, in trying to dismiss data you don't like, you are painting a picture and practice of science that we can't live with. Right now, I don't care about your atheism. It's that your attempts to justify atheism are opening you to criticism of being a very bad scientist.

I mean that the hypothesis of a deity is highly implausible in the absence of credible evidence. Just like the hypothesis of elves, the hypothesis of alien abductions, etc. Are you "on the fence" about elves?

Define "credible evidence". So far, you are defining it in a circular pattern. Evidence of deity is dismissed as being "credible" solely in terms of the plausibility of the hypothesis. What's the hypothesis? The existence of deity!

What I am trying to get you to see is the difference between what you know and what you believe. In terms of elves, the evidence is agnostic. I do not know if elves exist or not. I don't have the evidence to falsify them. On a personal note, I believe elves do not exist. But as I emphasized, that's a belief, not knowledge.

Atheism is in the same position. In terms of scientific evidence, there is no evidence to falsify the existence of deity in general or Yahweh in particular. However, you believe deity does not exist. That's OK. That's your belief and you are welcome to it.

I mean the same thing you mean when getting the answer right really matters. I mean whatever you count as credible evidence when it is not just a philosophical argument, but your life or health or family or wealth is at stake.

No, you don't. Evidence for you is based not on objectivity, but on the hypothesis: whether in your judgement you find the hypothesis credible. Now, Christianity states that my eternal life and spiritual health is at stake.

Really? What statement of faith is required to say that it is implausible that unicorns exist? Is the "there is no evidence" argument against their existence "incredibly weak"?

Unicorns can be, and have been, falsified. In this case, it's because we have searched the entire space that it is said unicorns occupy. Like searching my living room and falsifying the hypothesis: Lucaspa's living room contains a sleeper sofa.

So, when you can search the entire search space, the statement "there is no evidence" becomes data that can falsify a hypothesis. Notice that the Loch Ness monster is starting to fall into this category. Now that several sonar sweeps of the loch have been done, there is just no place that Nessie can be.

However, can you say the same circumstance applies to deity? In fact, methodological materialism guarantees that science cannot search the necessary search space.

If you are willing to put "there is a God" on a level with "brussels sprouts taste good", as a subjective statement, then fine. If not, this is irrelevant.

Is it subjective? After all, we have the objective firing of the neurons involved. What I am saying is that I have evidence that brussels sprouts have a terrible taste. That evidence is my personal experience of their taste. And make no mistke, Albert, that all evidence is personal experience. Science has made the conscious choice to work with a subset of personal experience: personal experience that is the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances. But, if the set is inherently unreliable, then the subset is also unreliable.

Theists have evidence for the existence of deity. Not scientific evidence, but evidence. If we follow your reasoning, atheism has no evidence. Fortunately for atheism, it is not in as bad a shape as it would appear from your arguments.

[lucaspa]

I state why I dont believe in any God and let it go at that. The burden of Proof is on the theist, as they make the assertion that a God exists. I just state my reasons why I dont believe in God or Gods. Its up to the theist to show proof.

Ah, please go back and look at the OP and all my posts since. I have been making a very conscious effort to repeatedly state that you are not obligated to accept the existence of deity. This whole thing started off because I stated just what you stated here: atheism is a faith. You said it as "I do not believe in God or Gods." Yes, that is your belief. You are welcome to it.

However, if you are in a discussion over the issue of whether deity exists or not, then you have an equal burden of proof to present evidence that deity does not exist as a theist has of presenting evidence that deity does exist. After all, doesn't your "reasons why I dont believe in God or Gods" have evidence within the reasons?

In the process of trying to deny that atheism is a faith, the atheists here must present proof that deity does not exist. Faith, after all, is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Webster's Dictionary). So, to deny atheism is a faith, then you have to present proof.

And shifting the burden of proof is bad? Not from where I am sitting. Why should I go out of my way to make a case for the nonexistance of nothing?

1. Yes, shifting the burden of proof is bad. It is one of the logical fallacies.
2. Because "make a case for the nonexistence of nothing" is what science does all the time. It's how science works. Science works by falsification. Falsifying entities. Entities such as "flat earth". We have found evidence that shows the nonexistence of the entity "an eath that is flat".

Let's take another example: the aether. This was an invisible medium thru which light waves passed. It was a "nothing". The Michelson-Morely experiments showed that the aether was nonexistant.

The problem, for you, is that, in science, entities that are not shown to be nonexistent are considered as still possible of existence.

As for the argument from design, where is the evidence for a designer? See, it works on just about anything. With one exception, things that actually exist or that there is valid, sound, verifiable evidence for.

If you read the OP, you know that I stated that evolution by natural selection removed the argument from design. Up until 1859, the designs in plants and animals made it possible to consider them as manufactured artifacts. Since deity was the only conceivable manufacturer, the designs in plants and animals were considered proof of the existence of deity. However, since natural selection is the designer, the argument from design is no longer a valid argument for the existence of deity.

Even somethings I cant see, I cant see or indeed prove the existance of electrons, but I do fervently believe in their existance, as I have had 240 volts @ 50 hz across my hand once or twice.

See above for the aether. However, also see the previous posts about other entities such as tachyons. Do they exist or not? They are permitted by the Theory of Special Relativity, which has very strong support, but there is no evidence. Do you believe they exist, do you believe they don't exist, or do you withold judgement until the data is in?

Ah my bad I should have written methodology. I should also have given some examples of methods like PCR, HPLC. See, I bother myself with the dribblings of Creos not much at all.

Your problem is that I am not a creationist. A theist, yes. Creationist, no.

When I run a gel I dont bother worrying about the overarching framework that I operate under. I am simply interested in how the bands turn out, of course if you want to disagree with me, thats fine. But the way I do Mol Arch works just fine. I leave the agonising over theoretical frames to post-docs. They have time for that stuff, I know, they get me to do their work for them.

Well, in this discussion, you have to stop being a technician who does the experiment by rote and instead think about exactly why you do the experiment the way you do. Just think, you'll end up knowing things the post-docs don't.

You have of course jumped down my throat when I was agreeing with you, not good form really.

Incorrect statements are incorrect whether they are made on your "side" or not. This isn't about sides, but about a search for truth. Your statements were about the nature of science, and they were incorrect. As such, those statements were harmful for a search for truth.

You can call atheists what you like it does not matter to me. Shermer may be an Atheist, but he is not The Atheist, Im not sure we would accept anyone who said they were.

"Atheist" here is convenient shorthand for "someone who advocates atheism". We are discussing the ontological status of atheism. Is it a faith? I say "yes". Atheism exists independently of those who are atheists. Now, if you deviate too much from what is the consensus statements of what constitutes atheism, then you need to pick another label for your position.

As for your pontificating on WA positions, too bad. You have about as much chance of shifting me from it as you have of flying to the moon unaided. I enjoy being the smug Atheist who sits back and watches the theist wiggle around, coming up with more and more nonsensical "proofs" of God.

But I'm not proving God. This isn't an Apologetics argument. Atheists generally want to turn any discussion into one, because they don't want to examine the ontological status of atheism. I'm not trying to get you to stop being an atheist. I don't care if you are one or not. However, any claims that atheism is not a faith are incorrect.

Weak atheism decays into either strong atheism or agnosticism. That is what happens under critical examination. Now, do you want me to walk you thru the steps of that? We can. The decay of weak atheism happens whether you personally accept it or not. Just as evolution happened whether Ken Ham or Kent Hovind accept that it happened or not. Your statement tells us something about your psychology but nothing about weak atheism.

I Loved Kofhys "unknowable first cause producing a known effect" That cracked me up for a while. It was almost Pythonesque in its surrealism.

But is it wrong? Don't we have that right now for the Big Bang? Read Hawking's A Brief History of Time. Look at the bold below. Different words than Kofhys, but same meaning. It looks like science is Pythonesque.

"In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events befroe the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang." Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 46.

Of course if God is simply unknown or imperfectly known, then so is the big bang. Which is an uncaused cause, HRG_new can explain the QM physics behind that one as my math is not up to that standard. See, once more unto the breach with valid sound evidence.

It is what caused the BB that is First Cause. However, so far QM has not come up with a valid theory of quantum gravity. So there is no sound evidence.

[lucaspa]

Is it obvious to all that Kofh2u is just plain nutz?

Perhaps just plain nuts. Or perhaps sunk too far into trying reconcile exactly science and a literal Bible. Something that is unnecessary. It is the false witness re-writing of the Bible that bothers me the most.

[Kibagami Jubei]

Faith, after all, is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" (Webster's Dictionary). So, to deny atheism is a faith, then you have to present proof

Proof is for alcohol and mathematics. You just defined all claims about reality to be faith, thus rendering the term meaningless. Congratulations.

Of course, dictionaries provide common usage, not formal definitions. Any discussion which is founded on dictionary definitions is bound to degenerate into nothing more than semantics.

2. Because "make a case for the nonexistence of nothing" is what science does all the time. It's how science works. Science works by falsification. Falsifying entities. Entities such as "flat earth". We have found evidence that shows the nonexistence of the entity "an eath that is flat".

We have evidence. We do not have proof. Is the statement 'the Earth is not flat' based in faith?

The problem, for you, is that, in science, entities that are not shown to be nonexistent are considered as still possible of existence

Even those which cannot, even in principle, be falsified by empirical observation?

See above for the aether. However, also see the previous posts about other entities such as tachyons. Do they exist or not? They are permitted by the Theory of Special Relativity, which has very strong support, but there is no evidence. Do you believe they exist, do you believe they don't exist, or do you withold judgement until the data is in?

They may or may not exist - however, absent evidence that they do exist, I do not believe that they do. This is different from believing that they do not exist, of course.

Weak atheism decays into either strong atheism or agnosticism. That is what happens under critical examination. Now, do you want me to walk you thru the steps of that? We can

Sounds like fun.

Different words than Kofhys, but same meaning

No. What Hawking is alluding to is the fact that Einstein's field equations cannot be defined at a singularity. That leaves us with no way to connect any hypothesised 'pre-big bang' events with post-big bang events at all. They're not just unknowable, they're irrelevant.