|
|
#31
07-15-2005, 05:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation is deterministic without resorting to nonlocality -- but that's a major hijack. [/ QUOTE ] I think I need to read some of the earlier references to many-worlds, this didn't seem to be saying much to me. First off, it seems like a strange kind of determinism when which "world" we end up in is still random. There are theories like Bohm's pilot wave (I'm pretty ignorant about this, so don't push me too hard) that are deterministic in a more conventional sense. The main point Tipler seemed to be making was that the correlations don't exist if you don't make his "third measurement" and compare the results. Of course, from the perspective of a person measuring either spin A or spin B, they're going to perceive a random string of ups and downs and not determine the correlations until they compare notes later even with a more conventional QM interpretation. So I guess I don't really see the point yet. 
|
|
#32
07-15-2005, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
In all of your counter arguments, all you did was discuss the first cause. Let me address this specifically.
1) There is no reason to assume that there was a first cause. I don't know much about quantum physics, so I'm just going to leave it at that. 2) If you define God as the first cause, that does not prove God exists, because you have not yet proven there had to have been a first cause. 3) Even if you could somehow prove there was a first cause, defining it as God is silly for several reasons. First of all, it goes against every common definition. Secondly, when looknig for something, it makes little sense to find the thing that you know the least about, and claim that is what you were looking for all along. The search for God should not be about finding holes in science, and claiming God is the hole. Believers have been doing this for ages, and science has filled many of the holes already. Eventually, I like to believe we will fill them all.
|
|
#33
07-15-2005, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you hung up on whether we should worship The First mover or not? That is a matter of faith, not of logic. [/ QUOTE ] Because the word "God" has a lot of baggage that comes with it, including the notion that we should worship Him. So if Aquinas wants to prove that "God" exists, he can't do this merely by showing that there was a first cause. He has to also show that the first cause has the other characteristics commonly associated with "God" -- i.e., that it is intelligent, benevolent, etc. Otherwise, it is an equivocation fallacy to refer to it is "God." [ QUOTE ] As for Aquinas proving that we cannot regress through an infinity of causes.. surely you cannot be serious? You are going to have to explain to me how it could be possible, because it seems like common sense to me. [/ QUOTE ] Everything is possible until iti s shown to be impossible. Can you show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible?
|
|
#34
07-15-2005, 05:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation is deterministic without resorting to nonlocality -- but that's a major hijack. [/ QUOTE ] I think I need to read some of the earlier references to many-worlds, this didn't seem to be saying much to me. First off, it seems like a strange kind of determinism when which "world" we end up in is still random. [/ QUOTE ] I'll start by saying that I think of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM the same way I think of certain brain-in-a-vat scenarios. It is "obviously" wrong; it's just that there's no evidence against it. That said, the world "we" end up in is not random. "We" are in every possible world. The version of us in this world is having this exact discussion while the versions of us in the other worlds are doing various other things. The version of us in this world is limited to observing this world, but we're non-randomly in all of them.
|
|
#35
07-15-2005, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause [/ QUOTE ] BINGO Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A; 1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist. 2. You can't regress infinitely. // 3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist.
|
|
#36
07-15-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause [/ QUOTE ] BINGO Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A; 1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist. 2. You can't regress infinitely. // 3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist. [/ QUOTE ] Well said.
|
|
#37
07-15-2005, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause [/ QUOTE ] BINGO Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A; 1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist. 2. You can't regress infinitely. // 3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist. [/ QUOTE ] Before you pat yourself on the back for supposedly exposing a logical flaw, you should go back to the OP's post and reread #2. You did not state Aquinas' arguement correctly. It is your rendering of it that contains a logical flaw, because you did not properly state the first term, which should include "if there is no first cause".
|
|
#38
07-15-2005, 08:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause [/ QUOTE ] BINGO Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A; 1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist. 2. You can't regress infinitely. // 3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist. [/ QUOTE ] Before you pat yourself on the back for supposedly exposing a logical flaw, you should go back to the OP's post and reread #2. You did not state Aquinas' arguement correctly. It is your rendering of it that contains a logical flaw, because you did not properly state the first term, which should include "if there is no first cause". [/ QUOTE ] Fix my post to "correctly" reflect Aquinas' argument(s) then. As in, write the argument as a logical proof. The argument will be invalid unless you try really hard to squeeze out some additional unmentioned premise.
|
|
#39
07-15-2005, 09:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot regress back infinitely;
2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes; 3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God. Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself.
|
|
#40
07-15-2005, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do atheist\\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?
[ QUOTE ]
1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot progress back infinitely; 2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes; 3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God. [/ QUOTE ] You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes. There could be more than one first cause. (WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE SAYING, A BUNCH OF STUFF WAS JUST THERE, NO GOD NECESSARY) There is still a logical gap. [ QUOTE ] Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself. [/ QUOTE ] The effect without a cause stuff stems from stuff we don't understand yet. Quantum foam type stuff. Classical mechanics fall apart at that level, so Newton is irrelevant.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
