Review and Debnucking of Lawrence Krauss's A Unvierse From Nothing.

illustration of Higgs boson

The closest thing to a “smoking gun” for anti-God evidence is presented by Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe from Nothing.[1] Krauss merely argues something that every Christian apologist on message boards has been dealing with since the late 90s, that is the notion that the idea that Quantum theory means that the universe popped into existence from nothing based upon the assumption that Quantum particles do the same. This is really nothing new. When I first became aware of message boards and of the strife between atheists and theists on message boards, they were arguing about this. Yet the book has be lauded by atheists like it’s their version of the advent of Christ. Almost as quickly as it manifest it was shot down again by a philosopher. I’ll come t that in a moment. Why Krauss’s book got the glamour and not some of the physicists a decade ago who were saying the same thing I don’t know. Perhaps it’s because they didn’t write whole books about it. In any case, Krauss argues that the eternal laws of Quantum mechanics produce particles out of nothing when the instability of vacuum states causes quantum fields to shift and produce different kinds of particles.[2] This seems like it’s blessed with the aura science and thus cannot be questioned, yet a philosopher dared to question. David Albert exposed the meaning of terms in this senero and exploded the whole project.

Albert first points out that tracing the universe back to some physical property or cause is not an explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.

What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?[3]

Secondly, moving on form that difficulty, he points out that since the enlightenment science has always assumed that at the “bottom of everything” there is “some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff.”[4] Newton had it that this “stuff” consisted of particles. At the end of the nineteenth century it was particles and electro-magnetic fields. “And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged.”[5] The laws don’t tell us where the elementary “stuff” came from. The laws concerning quantum mechanics are not exception. The laws do not tell us where the fields came from. Moreover, every previous theory counted particles among concrete stuff and quantum theory does not. In quantum theory particles are understood as arrangements of fields. Some arrangement correspond to certain numbers and kinds of particles, come correspond to no particles.[6] This latter arrangement, Albert tells us, is what they call “vacuum states.” According to Albert, Krauss is arguing that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories “entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.”[7]

In other words because the state of no particles is “unstable” (it’s hard to keep nothing from becoming something) “nothing” blows up into something so to speak. There are problems with this account. First, we have just seen, it assume a whole set up of laws and fields with no real reason for them to be there (the fact that none of the theory explains a real “why” I’ll put off until latter). Secondly, the issue of what is meant by “nothing” is the crux of the matter. When physicists say “nothing,” they don’t mean real actual nothing as in a lack of anything at all. What they really mean is vacuum flux, that this pre existing framework of law and field and the arrangement there of the and the sporadic popping in and out of prior existing particles. As Albert says, “Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff..”[8] This is most crucial because Albert is arguing that “nothing” in terms of no particles does not mean “nothing” in terms of now fields, or no laws. Thus “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing,” it means something for which we still must account. That really blows the whole argument because it’s not a universe from nothing, it’s a universe form something else for which we must account, and can’t. So that means it’s just a rehash of status quo. The book originally was introduced with a media splash and created a sensation. Albert taking out the argument created anther sensation. Op ed writers and bloggers began crediting Albert with victory and a sense of hoopla began.

What would a universe from true actual nothing really prove? If it could be shown that the universe just started up, something form nothing (real actual nothing) there would be no way to really demonstrate that it’s not the Christian concept of creation ex nihilo. In fact that would actually fit the qualifications for the basic Christian doctrine of creation. There would be no way to prove it one way or the other because we could never go back to the other side of nothing and demonstrate that something isn’t causing this “something from nothing.” The impression is given the hype about Krauss’s book that there is some control that screens out metaphysical causes such as God. There in fact no such control. Now of course if this were the case we could not use that as an argument to demonstrate the existence of God. If we wanted to use that as a God argument we would have to push the logic of it on the grounds that something form total actual nothing is illogical and flies in the face of every single observation we can ever make about the real world. That would not demonstrate the reality of God. It might be a good conjecture but it would still only be a conjecture. At that rate it could go ether way. Yet it’s not disproof of God either. In fact, examining the arguments made by the three atheists expositors above, none of them actually says “here is proof there is no God.” Dawkins say “almost certainly” and Stenger says God is a failed hypothesis. Krauss imitates we don’t’ need him as an explanation. Something else is going on other than disproof.

What they are really getting at is not about proof or disproof but control of knowledge. They actually want to replace epistemology with ideology. They want to shut down forms of knowledge such as philosophy and phenomenology and replace them with the atheist fortress of facts idea. This is all really saying, all three books make the argument “we have the fortress of facts and theism has no facts.” Of course “facts” in this sense mean nothing more than the information that can be controlled by atheist expositors and that supports the atheist straw God concepts. It’s a switch from a global knowledge which includes philological thinking about science as a respectable partner in learning and centers everything on their realm of discourse. Thus Dawkins reduces God to the level of a biological organism, Stenger reduces belief to the level of a scientific hypothesis (even though belief is about something totally removed form the workings of the physical world), and Krauss asserts that knowledge of the physical world is the only knowledge worth knowing. All three are reducing theological ideas to a point where they take on physical attributes and become part of the scientific domain, thus they can be controlled by scientists.

What is even more blunt and telling is Krauss who gives away the whole store in an op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times:

The illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis. Everywhere we look, it appears that the world was designed so that we could flourish.

The position of the Earth around the sun, the presence of organic materials and water and a warm climate — all make life on our planet possible. Yet, with perhaps 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone, with ubiquitous water, carbon and hydrogen, it isn't surprising that these conditions would arise somewhere. And as to the diversity of life on Earth — as Darwin described more than 150 years ago and experiments ever since have validated — natural selection in evolving life forms can establish both diversity and order without any governing plan.

As a cosmologist, a scientist who studies the origin and evolution of the universe, I am painfully aware that our illusions nonetheless reflect a deep human need to assume that the existence of the Earth, of life and of the universe and the laws that govern it require something more profound. For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable.

But science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide — rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires — we are forced out of our comfort zone. One by one, pillars of classical logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th century, from Einstein's realization that measurements of space and time were not absolute but observer-dependent, to quantum mechanics, which not only put fundamental limits on what we can empirically know but also demonstrated that elementary particles and the atoms they form are doing a million seemingly impossible things at once.[9]

Wait a minute, something’s wrong here. He’s taking a kind of thinking that is used as a tool to inform us about the workings of the physical world, and saying “because to use this tool we must assume the subject matter of the tool is all there is, that proves that’s all there is.” That proves nothing. Perhaps the subject matter of the tool is irrelevant to the consideration of concepts like “purpose” and “meaning” because these are not part of the domain in which that tool is meaningful. When the concept of the tool becomes the only form of knowledge then of course all other considerations must be put aside, by why should we allow that to happen? Actually science has not taught us “to think the unthinkable—that the universe has. No can it ever do so. To even ask the question is beyond the scope of science. To do science one must not assume purpose or meaning in the workings of the physical world, yet one need not always be doing science. This is truly what we call “ideology.” One idea fits all and all sense data must be herded into that rubric in order to be considered “valid.” It’s really ideological struggle between reductionism which seek to cut off all aspects of reality save those that can be controlled by reductionism, vs. the assumption that human aspirations are worth considering in some way other than reductionsitically. The driving force behind the fortress of facts is the assumption that only one kind of thinking can be pursued. This one idea of reductionism must control and filter all knowledge. This is nothing more than a totalitarian ideology.

Krauss really gets blunt about the ideological ramifications in interview. Ross Andersen publishes in the Atlantic an interview he had done with Krauss for another project. He entitles the article “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?”[10] Krauss had just come from Christopher Hitchen’s memoral service, and even he descriges as: “It was a remarkable event for a remarkable man, and I felt very fortunate to be there. I was invited to give the opening presentation in front of all of these literary figures and dignitaries of various sorts, and so I began the only way I think you can begin, and that's with music from Monty Python..”[11] Asked why the sudden public antagonism between physics and philosophy he answers:

Krauss: That's a good question. I expect it's because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then "natural philosophy" became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers. This sense that somehow physicists, because they can't spell the word "philosophy," aren't justified in talking about these things, or haven't thought deeply about them---[12]

Philosophy can only have “content” in so far as it reflects the workings of the physical world? As though that’s all the content there is to have. That’s all there is to think about. Only science is about anything. But wait how is it that physics has encroached upon anything philosophy is about if philosophy a bunch of made up flights of fancy. Science was never about the meaning of life and philosophy was never about the workings of the physical world. It’s true that science used ot be called “natural philosophy” but hat was far from being the major section of philosophical thought. He seems embarrassed about not being in philosophy. He resents the idea that he can’t talk about the meaning of life. He can talk about the meaning of life he just can’t claim scientific authority to make pronouncements informing us all of the meaning of life, or lack thereof.

Here is his statement on the importance of philosophy:

Krauss: Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention. There are areas of philosophy that are important, but I think of them as being subsumed by other fields. In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature or logic, which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very mathematical, but what they're really doing is mathematics---it's not talking about things that have affected computer science, it's mathematical logic. And again, I think of the interesting work in philosophy as being subsumed by other disciplines like history, literature, and to some extent political science insofar as ethics can be said to fall under that heading. To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas. [13]

He arbitrarily reduces logic to mathematics just because math is in the domain of science. We could just as easily relegate math to a subordination under philosophy on the grounds that math is based upon logic. Russell and Whitehead proved that logic is the basis of math, and since logic started as philosophy it would be more logical to put math under philosophy.[14] Besides formal logic is not mathematics. Moreover, major logicians such as Hartshorne and Plantinga who achieved authoritative status in the use of S5modal logic could, by Krausses logic, be seen as mathematicians and by extension of that association as physicists. Thus their takes on the modal argument for God must be scientific. Remarkably he actually attributes something to fields such as history and literature. He does that to parcel out philosophy. Of course this drive to end the very existence of philosophy is just a bid to take over knowledge so that one ideology prevails as the only way to think, it just happens to be the one in which Krauss is credentialed. He wants to pretend that philosophy is really just leeching off other disciplines when in reality he’s moving beyond the accepted domain of science to poach on the territory of theology, philosophy, ethics history and probably other disciplines (mathematics and logic). It’s also worth nothing that he missed the point on nothing in terms of the history of ideas. He claims it was the philosophers who re-write nothing and have constantly changed its definition when in reality it’s the philosophers who have continually defined nothing as nothing but science Newton scientists have been re-writing the meaning of the term to define it as “something.”15

A humorous exchange occurs when Andersen points out that philosophy offers a basis for computer science. Krauss says: “Well, you name me the philosophers that did key work for computer science; I think of John Von Neumann and other mathematicians, and---.” Andersen says: “But Bertrand Russell paved the way for Von Neumann..”

Karauss says: “But Bertrand Russell was a mathematician. I mean, he was a philosopher too and he was interested in the philosophical foundations of mathematics, but by the way, when he wrote about the philosophical foundations of mathematics, what did he do? He got it wrong.” So not only can we take him over as one of the science boys since he did math but (which would just as easily mean math is part of philosophy again) but he also got it wrong about math (yet that reflects on his philosophical side not on his math side, not real sure how that works since it would be the math side that got it wrong). Andersen remarks “Einstein got it wrong.” To which Krauss replies:

Krauss: Sure, but the difference is that scientists are really happy when they get it wrong, because it means that there's more to learn. And look, one can play semantic games, but I think that if you look at the people whose work really pushed the computer revolution from Turing to Von Neumann and, you're right, Bertrand Russell in some general way, I think you'll find it's the mathematicians who had the big impact. And logic can certainly be claimed to be a part of philosophy, but to me the content of logic is mathematical.[16]

Science guys are happen when they are proved wrong? I guess he must be ecstatic since Albert’s article? We’ll have to ask him how happy he’s been since his book was panned. It means there’s more to learn, such as the meaning of life and the value of philosophy. He admits logic is part of philosophy and Russell was into both it just eludes him that this also means philosophy is the foundation of computer science and math together that makes it the foundation of physics. Now that’s the “unthinkable” we should be taught to think. Maybe the fortress of facts is a house of cards and maybe there’s more than one form of knowledge in the universe? His answer is supercilious because a scientist being happy when he get’s it wrong doesn’t change the fact under discussion it doesn’t change the fact that scientist get it wrong just as philosophers sometimes do.

Kruass referred to Albert as “a moronic philosopher.” That doesn’t sound happy to me. Nor does it sound very acute. Albert is so moronic in fact he is not only a well thought of philosopher at Columbia he also holds a Ph.D. in theoretical physics.[17] He might to reconsider his castigation of Albert when we take a deeper look at Karuss’s argumentation skills. He essentially gives away the store, and thinks he’s bested his opponents.

But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that [something from nothing]. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable---that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore.[18]

That’s really the point Albert made and he says this as though he just doesn’t understand the opponent’s argument. He does bring up the issue of St. Augustine and creation ex-nihilo. He doesn’t seem to get that the issue cuts both ways. Yet the Christian is not something from nothing, it doesn’t post that the universe just popped into being from true absolute nothing without a cause and for no reason. He admits that his “nothing” is actually something, and something must be explained, something must have caused it. What could that something be but God? That would be the argument. He’s not answering it by throughing back the issues ex-nihilo misunderstood (minus God) then admitting that his own views leaves an origin form an unexplained “Something.” Andersen raises the prospect that he’s arguing physics with Saint Augustine (who presumably worked form Aristotelian physics thus making his view 2000 years out of date). Krauss states:

It might be more interesting than debating some of the moronic philosophers that have written about my book. Given what we know about quantum gravity, or what we presume about quantum gravity, we know you can create space from where there was no space. And so you've got a situation where there were no particles in space, but also there was no space. That's a lot closer to "nothing."

But of course then people say that's not "nothing," because you can create something from it. They ask, justifiably, where the laws come from. And the last part of the book argues that we've been driven to this notion---a notion that I don't like---that the laws of physics themselves could be an environmental accident. On that theory, physics itself becomes an environmental science, and the laws of physics come into being when the universe comes into being. And to me that's the last nail in the coffin for "nothingness."[19]

He seems not to understand what these “moronic philosophers” are driving at. He keeps talking like he’s proved something if he shows that there is no “nothing” but in fact that’s the only way his argument would work. If no actual nothing then he has no argument at all. Then he’s just saying “the universe came from something that we can’t account for.” Implication: it might have needed God to create it. It only appears to be that God is unnecessary if things can spontaneously pop up out of true absolute nothing. Even that would not be proof since we can’t prove there really is no cause. Yet if we could prove that that would be the only real way to prove that God is not needed or not present. The real answer he has that might work is based upon pure speculation. He appeals to natural law and a supposition not in evidence that they are some kind of accident. This just puts the atheist back at square one saying “maybe there could be an alterative to God, maybe.”

---

[1] Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is something Rather Than Nothing. New York, NY: Free press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 2012.

[2] Ibid 189.

[3] David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘a Universe form Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss,” New York Times Sunday Book Review (March 23, 2012). On line version URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html visited June 20, 2012. David Albert also has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics.

[14] ibid.

[5] ibid

[6] ibid

[7] ibid

[8] ibid

[9] Lawrence M. Krause, “A Universe Without Purpose.” Los Angeles Times, Opinion. (April 1, 2012). On line copy URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-krauss-cosmology-design-universe-20120401,0,4136597.story visited 7/2/12.

[10] Ross Andersen, “Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?” The Atlantic (April 23, 2012). Pm et 396. Online URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/ visited 7/2/12.

[11] Ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] Principia (find)

[15] find

[16] Krauss in Andersen, ibid.

[17] Massimo Pigliucci, “Lawrence Krauss Another Physicist with an Anti-Philosophy Complex,” Rationally Speaking, blog. URL: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html visited 7/4/12

Massimo Pigluicci is a philosopher at City University of New York..

[18] Krauss In Andersen, ibid.

[18] ibid

Quantum Particles Do Not Prove Universe from Nothing

 

 

 

 In response to the debate over the weekend in the comment section of my challenge to atheists. The original person whom I challenged, Martyn Cornell, asserted that QM particles do prove a universe from nothing,  They don't. Here's the article to which I linked.

 

 

 

In light of of Naturalist arguments, are predicated: that QM particles prove something can pop up out of nothing with no cause. Quantum theory seems to confirm the notion that it is possible for the universe to begin with no cause. In terms of the TS argument that would mean that no organizing principle is necessary to explain order.

The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire Universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the Universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the Universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity. [1]

This statement is more admission than documentation. It admits that quantum theory might not pertain to the universe as a whole. After all the theory has only been validated under normal conditions of space/time, temperature and the like. We have no idea if it still applies at the big bang expansion where the laws of physics seem to be suspended, temperature and time approach infinity. “What we do know is that massive objects do not exhibit quantum behavior. No one can be sure that a new-born universe would obey quantum theory as we know it..”[2]Moreover the statement admits that the theory requires a theory of quantum gravity in order to apply as a theory of origins. Do we have a theory of quantum gravity that has been validated empirically?

Lawrence Krauss in his book, A Universe from Nothing, [3] argues that quantum theory means that the universe came from nothing based upon the assumption that quantum particles do the same. Krauss argues that the eternal laws of Quantum mechanics produce particles out of nothing when the instability of vacuum states causes quantum fields to shift and produce different kinds of particles. [4] This seems like scientific proof but all it really says is that nothing became unstable and turned into something, no thought as to how that could be. There's a deeper trick, however, in that the terms don't really mean what they seem to mean. David Albert (a Philosopher with Ph.D. in physics) exposed the meaning of terms and exploded the whole project.


Albert first points out that tracing the universe back to some physical property or cause is not an explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.


What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?[5]

Secondly, he points out that going back to the enlightenment, science has always assumed that at the “bottom of everything” there is “some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff.” [6] Newton had it that this “stuff” consisted of particles. At the end of the nineteenth century it was particles and electro-magnetic fields. Albert argues that since that time all of physics is basically about “how that elementary stuff is arranged.”[7] The laws don’t tell us where the elementary “stuff” came from, not even laws of quantum mechanics. The laws do not tell us where the fields came from, let alone where the “laws” themselves came from. Moreover, contrary to all previous theories, quantum theory particles are understood as arrangements of fields. Some arrangements correspond to certain numbers and kinds of particles, some correspond to no particles.[8] This latter arrangement, Albert tells us, is what they call “vacuum states.” According to Albert, Krauss is arguing that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories “entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.”[9]


There is no explanation here. No hint as to how nothing could become something. If nothing comes out of some prior condition we don't know. Krauss is just assuming something from nothing. That's important because prior conditions have to be accounted for. There are problems with this account. First, we have just seen, it assumes laws and fields with no explanation as to where othey came from. Secondly, when physicists say “nothing,” they don’t mean real actual nothing, absence of anything, they really mean vacuum flux; that is the pre existing framework of law and field and the arrangement of these things and the sporadic popping in-and-out of prior existing particles. As Albert says, “Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff..” [10] “Nothing” in terms of no particles does not mean “nothing” in terms of no fields, or no laws. Thus “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing,” it means something for which we still must account.


The particles doing the popping are “virtual particles,” meaning they are made up of combinations of other particles that come together for a short time then break apart again. “Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.”[11]

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles.[12]
Thus it's only said that they are coming from nothing because there's a new combination of particles that only exists for a short time. Yet they are actually coming from other particles. Quantum theory is not the best explanation for the age old question, why are we here where did it all come from? God not only provides an ultimate sources but is also a more elegant solution because one simple idea furnishes both the explanation of origins and also ties up morality and everything else into one neat solution.




Sources



1 CTC op. Cit.

 2 Edgar Andres, “Review: the Grand Design,” Challies'.com, Tim Challies, on line reouce, URL:


http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design acessed 10/4/15


Andres is Emeritus professor University of London. Physicist and an expert on large molecules. Born 1932,


3 Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is something Rather Than Nothing. New York, NY: Free press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 2012.

 4 Ibid 189.

 5 David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘a Universe form Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss,” New York Times Sunday Book Review (March 23, 2012). On line version URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... rauss.html visited June 20, 2012. David Albert also has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics.


Albert is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, and runs a MA program in philosophy and physics.

 6 ibid.

 7 ibid

 8 ibid

 9 ibid

 10 ibid

11 Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: http://www.scientific american.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ accessed 10/12/15


Kane is director of the Michigan center for theoretical physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

12 Ibid.
 

Atheists Confuse Logic and Argument, with Science

these links are all specific to certain message board so I don't think they are any good anymore. They might work if you are signed up, I no longer am.

 
 Toulmin Argument Diagram


Many atheists don't know that arguments are constructed out of  lines of reason and that their function is to persuade us that there a particular conclusion that we should agree to. Many of them confuse logic with scientific experiment. they think an argument should start with evidence, then in an objective manner observe to see the facts rather than making petition for a particular view point. Of course in saying this they are not being open ended and unbiased as they would have us believe. They are destroying arguments that give us reason to believe in God and replacing them with their own biased view point int he fortress of facts.

Some examples of atheists doing this and saying these things can be seen on carm. Pseudoexpat can be seen on carm making a post on top down logic in response to Royce's post attacking a "special kind of top down logic" that he can't name or describe but it's found in God arguments. Here is Royce's original thread. My responding thread on "atheist double talk on top down reasoning," and "atheists privilege doubt."


by all this talk of "top down" they mean they don't like arguments with premises that necessitate conclusions. That is idiotic because that's how argument works.

In Pseudoexpat's thread and in response to his OP (which is an excellent refutation of Royce's original nonsense)Pixie says:


Originally Posted by Pseudoexpat

As Royce puts it, top-down reasoning's first and most important characteristic is that it will say anything in defence of a claim, no matter how crazy. Ok, if this is as far as it goes, then of course we should never do it. Saying anything in defence of a claim is transparent lunacy.

Pixie:

I think the point is that an argument should go from evidence to reasoning to conclusion. So-called top-down reasoning in contrast starts with a conclusion, then attempts to contrive the reasoning and evidence to support it. It is motivated reasoning because is is based on a motivation to prove the desired (and pre-determined) conclusion. I do not think you really address this properly.

He has an argument starting from evidence and preceding to conclusion as though it's observing the evidence to see what happens. He condemns reasoning that "is based on a motivation to prove the desired (and per-determined) conclusion." That's what arguemnt is. He's thinking of a scientific experiment that has to be open ended.Logical arguments are not open ended. Their function is to guide us to a specific point through showing the reasoning takes us there. The confusion with scinece is expressed in an even stronger fashion by an atheist who chimes in to agree with this guy:Fanghur. He says:

Right, and the premises of any argument should always be based on the empirical evidence we currently possess, not on blind speculation regarding things that are currently beyond our ability to test, and hence which we have zero basis to make any sort of probability estimation regarding.

Premises need not be based upon emprical evidence. The reason he thinks so is because he thinks it's like a scientific experiment. That's a bad understanding of science as well argument. The true nature of science is not to prove things but to disprove. Science does not work by observing what ahpepns objectivley then recording facts.Yes that is done to an extent but not in all cases. That's not the true aim. The true aim is to disprove bad bad hypothesis and from that to offer an adequate explanation, which by virtue of it's status as the only hypothesis still standing is accepted as default. At least that's according to Popper. [1] Compare this with a web definition of argument:

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal"

synonyms:

reasoning, justification, explanation, rationalization; More[2]

The Toulmin model of argument presents the parts of an argument:

The Toulmin Model

1. Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
2. Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
3. Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. 
4. Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
5. Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
6. Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing.  The degree of conditionality asserted. [3]

None of that is about observing nor is it open ended. It may or may not begin by presenting data, but that is a matter of impersonation not logic.


When Fanghur says that arguments should be based upon data and "not on blind speculation regarding things that are currently beyond our ability to test, and hence which we have zero basis to make any sort of probability estimation regarding," he is telling us that he thinks arguments are scientific experiments. He says it even more blatantly in a second post: "Pat, the point is that when one is trying to determine what the most logical explanation for something is, all presuppositions other than those that are logically inescapable should be set aside right from the get go; that is one of the defining necessities of scientific discovery and thinking, and something that Craig categorically does not do." He compares arguments to scinece, implies that their purpose is discovery, and asserts that arguments that argue for something are seen as "ciruclar reasoning." Never mind the fact that all atheist seem to start form the point that there can't be a God and any evidence for God is not evidence but must be wrong. That's not ciruclar, but it's circular if you are know what you are arguing for?

I suggest that science itself can't survive without "top down reasoning." they are confusing form of argument with the nature of logic. and the nature of logic with science. It's a truncated ideologically bound form of scinece that is calculated form the Atheist truth regime. Top down reasoning means that a top of the metaphysical hierarchy determines the bottom terms. So that a premise determines a conclusion is part of top down reasoning.

This whole discussion is predated upon the atheist assumption that there can't be anything but physical causes in reality. That physical causes are facts and have only to be observed to be understood clearly. They are totally in the dark as to the framed nature of any understanding of interpreted data. In other words is the no pure data objectively observed that is free from interpretation and frame work. They are privileging doubt about God. They can't beat the God arguments when logic is used fairly and in its classical sense, so they have to destroy logic as we know it and reduce it to quasi scientific experiment in order to get around the kind of logic that beats their arguments in defense of belief. No God argument that I use or that I know of begins with the assumption "God has to exist." The Kalam argument begins with the assumption that everything that is, and that exists contingently, has a cause that necessitates its existence. Then it assumes that anything coming into existence must have a cause. This is predicated upon the concepts of necessity and contingency. That is "top down" because it assumes that one term is at the top of the metaphysical order and it necessitates terms that are below it, or that dependent upon it for their existence. These are the assumptions they don't want us to make.

They read those as assumptions that there must be a God. They are not the assumptions of God, they are assumptions from which we can derive the conclusion that there must be  a God. That is fair and logical, provided we can pull it off in the nature of the argument. They object because it doesn't privilege their view. That's the only way know to do logic is to privileged their own view. The assumption that things need causes is not unfair nor is it illogical. It's mere the result of all of our experience. We have no counters to that experience. Even quantum particles don't coutner that experience because as David Albert showed in his brilliant review of Krauss's book (the Universe from Nothing) nothing is not really noting, it comes form prior conditions and prior particles which must still be expalined.[4] They are causes of more particles. thus everything we know is the product of a cause and thus it is not illogical that all things that are contingent need cause. Of course that doesn't mean God means a cause since God is not contingent. The rub is that this is in line with the atheist assumption that they can only buy logic that's based upon empirical assumptions. This is an empirical assumptions, it's i line with all our observations. Confronted with an empirical assumption they refuse to accept it and try to make it seem unfairly privileging belief in God.

That's because they can't stand the logical conclusion that flows from it, that there must be a God. Thus they rebel agaisnt logic itself.







Sources

[1] Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London, New York:Routledge Classics, original English publication 1959 by Hutchison and co. by Routldege 1992. On line copy URL: http://www.cosmopolitanuniversity.ac/library/LogicofScientificDiscoveryPopper1959.pdf digital copy by Cosmo oedu visited 2/6/2012, p4

[2] https://www.google.com/#q=what+is+an+argument

[3] Rohan, "The Toulmin model of Argument." Website by Sandiego State University: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm

[4] David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘a Universe form Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss,” New York Times Sunday Book Review (March 23, 2012). On line version URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html visited June 20, 2012. David Albert also has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics.

see also my article form this blog on Albert's review of Krauss.  
Metacrock's Blog,"Review and Debnucking of Lawrence Krauss's A Unvierse From Nothing,"
 Thursday, January 10, 2013, URL: http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2013/01/review-and-debnucking-of-lawrence.html

Atheists are Slave thinkers

On CARM we have a thread about something from nothing. This guy rued why why not? the Universe just popped into existence out of nothing and that's just as good as anything. He has a huge post and actually uses a bunch of references which is quite rare.

 For time-dependent processes with H(t) ≡ H0 + V (t) the scattering operator ˆ S has the form ˆ S = C0 : ˆ S0 eS :
where C0 is a normalization constant, eS describes creation and annihilation of particle–antiparticle pairs and their
scattering, and the exceptional part ˆ S0 describes creation and annihilation of single particles.

.......That is a sample.All it really means is he's trying to claim vacuum flux as proof of something from nothing. Atheists have been arguing this since before the late 90s when I came on the internet apologetic scene.I think they are starting to take my chiding seriously that I always doucment and they don't. None of the stuff quotes really supply any rel proof becuase there is none. I point this out.  I post a longer essay which is found on this blog about the Krauss book The Universe form Nothing and how it was debunked by David Albert. He proves that when physicists say "nothing" they don't mean real actual nothing they mean vacuum flux. That's like syaing the particles come out of more particles. So it' snot really noting the prior particles still require explanation (how did they come to be?). So really it's not proving much of anything. Then guy who did the original post starts to argue that this is something physicists say so you have to believe it. He didn't say that but he might as well have.


Originally Posted by boneso

Says you Meta, how many physics doctorates do you have? How many physics papers have you published which have been well received by the scientific community?

 Meta

 

David Albert has one. He ahs a doctorate in theoretical physics.

whether or not physicists believe in it is not the issue. there are physicists who believe in God some of them won the noble prize.



Boneso:

Of course you know better than everyone, after all you know better than Hawking, one of the most intelligent people on earth, all christians know better than all of the high IQ scientists, its weird how that works isn't it!

Meta:He's been discredited on that point, other physicists just as renown as he is believed in God.When I say he's been discredited I mean his book the Grand Design didn't take off it was exposed immediately for the publishers hype that it was. Hawking tried to argue it all comes down to gravity so we don't need God that did  not go over becasue two things became apparently:


(1) he didnt' say it the publisher did


(2) who made the gravity? or how'd it get here?

no physicists has the authority to tell you weahter or not God exits. they are not philosophers. they are not theologians they don't know the ultimate truth. you are just seeking authority figure to hide behind.

that proves you are not a free thinker. you are a slave and minion.

 Wait, wait  for it, you ant seen nothing yet!

Boneso
 I appreciate your input but your views seem to be based on other peoples opinions on the matter, in this case David Albert. 

 Holy irony BATMAN! This is the guy who was just saying that I have to have physicists to back up my opinion[. which by the way I do. that's who is the 18 foot notes I use. so when I have the docs tthen I'm taking my opinion for other people. he on the other hand is original and an independent thinker even though he talks like we can't believe something if physicists don't give us permission. he also had a bunch of foot notes to the Op so the change that I take my views from others because I have 18 foot notes can be made against him too.

Boneso

I am struggling to take it seriously now as i am worried that you have taken what David Albert has published as factual information. The mans publications are extremely vague and worded particularly casually. He fails to go into any depth in the hope that his writings can be read and understood by the layman, exact details are not something he feels neseccary to include in his work. He has even been known to have contradicting viewpoints from one publication to the next. Im sorry but if you have obtained your knowledge on this subject from David Albert, i cannot take it seriously. Try Matt Strassler or Hamlet Karo Avetissian.

 Of course he doesn't document any of this drivel. I doubt taht he knows who David Albert is. He teaches philosophy at Columbia, has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics, and trashed Krausse's book and was hailed by bloggers across the net as the victor. more more than one  blogger said "Albert own Krauss."

Look up any writer you will find people trashing him. Anyone who publishes much as a lot of jealous trolls saying stupid things about him. This guy of cousre doesn't bother to document any of the accusations.  Typical of the atheist slander machine to reach for the slander when he's backed in a corner.

 The brain washed lackies of the hate group just dont' know how to think. they are seeking God figure to hide behind who will give them permission to hold their beliefs and make them feel safe but they can't use the real God because they set themselves against him. Just in case some readers are tempted to think "O but if Christianity was valid there would be some physicists who believe it" there are many. Here are statements by some major physicists.

Fritz Shafer, nominated for Nobel Prize in Chemistry, University of Georgia, himself a Christian:	"it is very rare that a physical scientists is truly an atheist."
Martin Rees at Cambridge:	"The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
Arthur Schewhow, Nobel prize winner from Stanford, identifies himself as a Christian.	"We are fortunate to have the Bible which tells us so much about God in widely accessible terms."
Charlie Towns Nobel prize winner:	"The question of science seems to be unanswered if we explore from science alone. Thus I believe there is a need for some metaphysical or religious explanation. I believe in the concept of God an in his existence."
John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister.	"I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."
Allan Sandage, The world's greatest observational cosmologist , Caregie observatories won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) became a Christian after being a scientist,	"The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures."

The Travisty of Atheist Mendacity Contiues

The atheists continue their little message board assault, psychology rape and mugging. lies, cheating, refusal to play fair in argument. This know nothing who fancies himself a scientist Mat Hun (Yes Mat you I'm talking to you) ambused me. He began insisting that me beat my God argument fire in the equations. I told him I would deal with it. I told him I would debate latter, when I finished 1x1 with this know nothing calling himself "Blondie." What does he do but put up a thread and get a bunch of trolls to mock and ridicule my answers. Of cousre they insist he won.He attacks when I'm not able to focus on it but I put up some stuff he couldn't answer. But the army of trolls insist that he won.

I took the answers from the seven things he couldn't answer, which essentially prove my argument, I put on another thread. When I got through with the 1x1 I put up a thing for 1x1 with him. But he runs way and refuses to debate. This is like the ninth atheist who has ran away from debating me after agreeing to. He just got through watching me stomp "Blondie" the idiot in 1x1 round. That guy was truly an idiot and truly did kick his ass.

Of closure Mat wants to stay where his trolls can give him cover. Here's the post I put up in the separate thread, the seven things he couldn't answer. Read these answer well because they show how totally inadequate his arguments were.

Look at their answers:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

if they don't read this one I'll just put the other one up. The one you refused to debate.

Vespa

So speaketh ye olde verbose Master baiter...

Brian W.

You've received answers meta, and Matt is FAR out of your league when it comes to physics..though you may have an edge when it comes to constructing fairytales (theology) based on your rudimentary understanding of physics. You are just being childish as usual by moving the goalposts after receiving your answers, molding a completely unfalsifiable position for your invisible friend to occupy, and always insisting on having the last word. Grow up.

Grow up he says. But the answers I've received are on the thread and half of them are like "I don't' know" or they don't apply. Read them. I have proved the answers he gave me sx. The trolls give cover and just assert the value of their comrade's crap.

What does this prove but that atheists for the most part don't think and don't care about truth?


Maybrick

Its plain to see, because you have actually quoted them that he did answer them.

The situation seems to be that you don't like those answers.

Which is entirely your choice, but why the argumentative and overbearing tone?

Read the actual answers they say stuff like "I don't know."

no (1) (1) how can it be that nothing comes into being in life that we see but that it has a naturalistic cause. If something happens and we say it doesn't have a cause scientist say "O that's silly of course it does, everything has a natural cause."

Hunt

Simple, because nothing is unstable quantum mechanically, "nothing" (and you have to be precise on what you mean by nothing, as nothing isn't necessarily nothing, Krauss pointed this out in a lecture which is available on you tube) violates the uncertainty principle (which is something we have observed)

at this point his answer doesn't' even apply. I said "nothing comes int being I meant there's a regular seeming "law" that says things don't' pop into existence out of nothing because we never see that.

he starts talking about the primordial state of nothingness which is not what I said. Even so his answer is wrong:

I already said "noting" to a physicists means Vacuum flux not true nothing. you are not talking about real noting you know are you not tha'ts admonishment answer.

I quote Odenwald as proof:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11831.html

"How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe?

"When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

(2)

the universe just comes to be without a case how do you know people cant' just raise form the dead without a cause? Just becuase you haven't seen it. Mat look at the contradiction! when people say they have seen it you go "O that can't be the cause it doesn't happen." how do you know their description isn't just better than yours? if there's no causes for things then there's no reason to think it couldn't happen.

I have answered this, you are (conveniently) ignoring the different length scales that I have been mentioning. The nuclear/quantum scales and the length scale for classical physics.

that is not an answer. that has nothing to do with different observations or biased view points.

his second alleged answer is meaningless. They don't indicate that the order isn't real nor do they even hint at an answer to the second question, which was why don't things pop into existence? all his answer really means is becasue "Quantum level is real little bitty and we are on the bigger scale." that's not really germane I asked why we don't see other stuff popping. he believed the universe popped up doesn't he?

why don't we see news in my tea cup or my bath tub?


(3)

why would Hawking say gravity caused everything if physical laws aren't needed for causes? It seems he's saying there has to be cause for the universe.

Hunt

I am not too sure,

that really answers it. his answer s I don't know. not sure. so that is not much of an answer.

that's the pattern for most of it. The other three were ideologically motivated answers about laws being descriptive but they don't do anything to demonstrate they there's this order out there.

He wont face me 1x1 in an orderly situation when I'm prepared to debate. It's got to be because he knows he's going to get creamed. why else?He's willing to waste his time on the message board saying frivolous things. It's no differnt then the fine tuning argument where he went 40 posts just his own horn as a scientists and not answering an argument.

That Mat wont Hunt: Debating Fire in the Equasions Argument

This was my last debate about a God argument on CARM before I decided to leave the echo chamber. Notice the double talk from this guy who claimed to be a scientist!

23 posts, I was just daring responses. they would nto respond then: before he answers like this:

Vestpa:

So speaketh ye olde verbose Master baiter...

that's his brilliant comment. he's trying to make pun saying that I master bait. that's this guy's idea of being serious about arguments. Then they wonder why I insult them. They just can't figure out what they do to set me off.

Brain W:

You've received answers meta, and Matt is FAR out of your league when it comes to physics..though you may have an edge when it comes to constructing fairytales (theology) based on your rudimentary understanding of physics. You are just being childish as usual by moving the goalposts after receiving your answers, molding a completely unfalsifiable position for your invisible friend to occupy, and always insisting on having the last word. Grow up.

the answers he's talking about were " on the original thread. three 3 I don't know. One "I have a scinece degree and you don't. four "laws of physics are descriptive" no elaboration or answer the actually questions I posed.

this post is what emerged form about a six post exchange that took place after their 23 posts of crap:

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
why couldn't you do this on the 1x1 board?

Why does it have to be a debate?

you kept insisting you 'beat' my argument and came out swinging when I was busy and told I was. So you set up the idea that you wanted a contest, then you run away when time comes to for it.

Obviously there's some reality there because no scientist is ever willing to blow explaining causes. they don't say "we don't need a theory of orig because theres' no origin to explain we are just imposing order because that's what we do."

People are naturally curious.

that's not an answer to my argument. It doesn't answer what I said. It's a reason to think about it, not a reason to dismiss it.

actually it contradicts scinece itself. Why bother to make systemic observations about he way things work if there's no order, we are just imposing it from within ourselves? Not only that but it contradicts the idea of a descriptive law of phscis, why bother to describe if it's just us imposing order instead of a real description?

I see you are using the term order without actually defining it.

I see you are playing your tricks of language again.I did define it. don't you know an operational definition when you see one?

You are incorrectly making the assumption that the reason why scientists measure, they make observations and perform experiments and from their results they see that the universe consistently behaviours according to some fixed rules, so far we have not observed anything different.

the same observation Whtiehead made, the same one Newton made, the basis of kicking God out of Science that LaPlace made. you are using the ideological prlaform of the cop out period after atheism abandoned LaPLace because it could no longer justify observations without assumptino of physical laws, brought on QM theory.

As the laws of physics are just man made descriptions, the constancy of the way that nature are inbuilt into the equations.

which also means it's a cultural construct, it's relative, it's not truth and it can be argued with.

I think I do. I say why don't things fall up? why aren't thing repelled by mass? why don't universe pop into my tea cup. I think we get an idea what I mean.

Actually you don't. I want a precise definition from you on the matter. It wastes times if we are using different notions of the word. Matt Slick accused me of this, but he really didn't understand the importance of it.

those are very simple questions why don't you answer them. The way I'm using "order is obvious I've explained it two oar three times. I've explained it in terms of the very things I"m asking you to explain.

when we argue about the resurrection Hans say "we don't see people getting up from being dead." that's a from of order. why don't see that? because apparently it never happens. you want to just leave it there it's just a coincidence that it never happens, but there has to be some kind of principle that prevents it. Otherwise we would see it. Since you admitted that's a human observation it can also be wrong. there can be other observations that you are just ignoring where in rare cases some people do get up from being dead.

when it comes to what you don't want to happen you assert it never does, when it comes to what you don't want then you assert a rule of some implication of a rule.



no it doesn't. I can assuming without necessarily having an idea of deity. you are rather balking at the conclusion not at the premise.

It does but you just can't see it.

you didn't read very carefully. I was talking about early modern scinece when LaPlace used perspective laws to take God out of scinece.

I did read it as a matter of fact. Laplace never invoked the notion of a deity because he didn't need to. He modelled the observations as he saw them.

Of cousre Laplace didn't evoke a deity, to the contrary, he kicked one out! that's what he's infamous for! you don't get it? He's is my all time candidate for fink of the ages becasue he took God out merely for a stupid reason like "I have psychical laws instead." Of course he took out the reason for having them.

I never said he appealed to deity, try reading the words next time.

part 2

that contradicts above, why do that if it's imposed by us? you are also not answering what I said about descriptive is a framework to hide order.

Not too sure what you're saying here.

that is not applicable to my original argument. that's why your answer was irrelevant to begin with. It's also not right because it's not true nothing. but it was that area of nothing I was talking about. that was supposed to be an answer to my questions.

Okay, you brought up the argument in the first place.

I asked a question. you claimed you answered it but your answer didn't apply to what I was talking about. then wont listen to see what it is.



It contradicted your point. you were saying something from noting it says no nothing it is something anyway. it doesn't' really matter because your answer is about the wrong thing.

If you think it did that then a) you don't understand what I was saying and b) you didn't understand what the quote was saying and c) you are misrepresenting what I was saying. I said there was a possibility that the model that Krauss spoke about was an accurate description of the universe.

no stop blathering you are still answering the wrong thing.



Yes that's why it's a paradigm and it's going to shift. so it's not absolute it's not the fortress of facts. its' a description based upon a limited sample so you can't use to rule out God.

Science isn't going to "shift" to something else, it is going to keep using the same methodology as it always has, trying to describe the universe from their experiments and observations, refining the models with more data.

NO no no no no no np! stop pretending like you understand Kuhn, you don't know anything about him. He doesn't scinece becomes something other than scinece, he says scientific confusions are incommensurable becasue standards by which they are judged are based upon paradigms that shift when scientific revolutions happen.

that's what shifts, paradigm. we go from one to another. not to none scinece but to new paradigm.

operationally I have. these are common issues in arguments atheists I'm not using in any wired way that people done usually use them.

You haven't.

talking about defining order? I think it's pretty obvious when I explain by saying "why don't things flee the center of mass" what I"m calling "order." the regularity by which things happen over and over the same way everything we observe them.

are you going to answer it or are you going to pull another little track and say "you didn't define "mean," what do you mean by mean?"

that's just slough. because otherwise you have the gall and temerity to rule out belief in god yet you obviously haven't thought about it.

I rule out a deity because there is no evidence for one, moreover there is evidence that there is no such deity, evolution is a strong argument that there is no deity in my opinion

obviously there is. the order and regularity that you can't explain!

he takes out arguments he can't answer. name calling them rather than dealing with them logically.



but hat could just as easily be the mind of God. you have no empirical evidence.
you are just speculating but if a theist said that atheists would be chiming "there's no before the big bang."

you are obviously just speculating too becasue you agree there is no order, your observations and just man made and limited. You are to observing anything orderly you are just imposing an ideolgoical Meta narrative.


We have no definite answer to the question, "What was before the big bang", there may be some scant evidence around that there was (Penrose's cyclic universes)
you are basing your answer on ideological propaganda and speculation.

Speculation possibly, but science has a proven track record for solving problems and answering questions

only when it' limited to it's own domain. It has no tacking record in ruling out God or explaining the underlying order of things. you are doing a bait and switch.

your observations you admit are "man made" and you are not observing any kind of structure or ofer, you already said that. so you have no track record at all in terms of the larger picture beyond the purely physical workings of the world.

Not really. all you mean by that is that within tine narrow sub framework you use to mark what you are talking about you don't have a neat little A = B kind of causality. bu ti the larger framework it's not coming of total nothing. it's in the realm of physical aw and time, and vacuum flux.

No, there really is no cause for the radioactive decay of a nucleotide. Deal with it. Some things you can only do statistics and probability with, there is no deterministic model that we can apply.

(1) that's not an issue, there doesn't have to be because as I said that's just as much evidence of Mind in creation as causes are.

(2) you don't know that.. your observations are only man made and limited.

Now as a theist I'm not obligated to for causes necessarily it just depends upon what argument I want to push. my new reboot of FITE argument does not require that we disprove all a causal understanding.

So previously, you said that the cause/effect argument required a "mind" now you are throwing all that out?

you are not listening. I said C/e is evidence ordering principle. if QM events are not caused that is not evidence against God becuase the use of non causal and uncertainty principles also require mind, in the context of an ordered universe. Otherwise it would be a deterministic universe.

see? done this way where the mind knows just when to control and just when to let it ride it makes a free will universe. otherwise everything would be real determined.


my argument that the weirdness of a causal principles in the framework with the ordering principles are evidence of mind. Evidence because only a mind would know when to control and when to let it go random. in other words God might play dice with the universe but a non thinking set of deterministic causes could not pay dice.
It is just one description on the phenomena that we see, however it might not be the only way of describing the world that we see. Causality is only one possible way of describing the observed phenomena.
see the point? you need a mind to stop and say "hey this is the place to throw the dice."

I only see that you have stated your opinion, but provided a coherent argument for it.

Obviously I stated my opinion. that' not an answer. I base my onion upon the qaualia we discuss so avoiding a discussion of that qualia is not an answer.

I'm saying a science is fine and good but nature is not impressed. God is not impressed it doesn't mean you know. you may know better than I certainly sure that's true in many ways but you don't know the ultimate answers. you don't know what the framework is or how it got there. you don't know what is being described.

This just seems to be special pleading to me.

how could it be special pleading when I'm taking into account all the phenomena and you are trying to lose the phenomena that embarrassing for you?


I just did. Human attempts at knowledge. Its' a metaphor.

Actually you didn't define anything. I am using specific concepts of scales and you are using some ill-defined ideas and using that to your advantage.

would you know a definition if you saw one? why do you suppose every time you ask I say things like "the order and regularity we observe such as things don't' flee the center of mass." how is that not defining hat I mean by order?