If atheism is true, in other words, if God does not exist, then what reason is there to be a moral person? Why do what’s morally right? If God doesn’t exist, then if you live your life good or bad, it doesn’t matter. Everyone ends up in the same place. Being a terrible person doesn’t have the same kind of negative consequences as on Christianity. This is the topic of today’s podcast.
I’ve invited Dr. Anne Jeffrey, an expert on Moral Motivation and Theism, to help us think through these questions more philosophically.
Dr. Anne Jeffrey
Dr. Jeffrey has teaching experience in ethics, applied ethics, political and social philosophy, philosophy of law, and ancient philosophy. Her main research focuses on moral reasons and virtues. She wrote a dissertation defending a mind-dependent account of moral reasons, and she is currently writing about moral virtues that aid us in the process of moral development, such as hope and faith. Dr. Jeffrey is also interested in issues relating political authority with religious tolerance.
Episode 21
Once again, what reason is there to do what’s morally right if God does not exist? I’ve even heard Christians say that if they found out Christianity was false, then they’d consider doing really immoral things. It’s not like they’d go to Hell after they died, so why not sin all the time? Or at the very least sin as much as possible.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a topic that receives a whole lot of attention in the apologetics world. Christians just kind of assume that this is a legitimate way to reason. And it’s a stance that I took not too long ago.
That’s why I’ve invited an expert on moral motivation and Theism, namely, Dr. Anne Jeffrey, to help us think through this question philosophically. Are negative consequences a good reason to act morally? Shouldn’t we do what’s right simply because it’s right, not because of the good or bad consequences we might receive? This may shock you, but the difficulty level for this podcast is advanced. That’s how deep we look at this question. So settle in and get ready to look at this issue at a depth you probably didn’t know existed.
People involved in creating this episode:
- Cameron Bertuzzi – Host
- Sawyer Hudson – Producer and Sound Editor
- Dr. Anne Jeffrey – Guest
To listen to this episode, just hit the play button below. It’s that simple! You can always subscribe and listen on iTunes. All of our episodes are pushed there for free.
I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, so there is a good chance this has already been covered, but there are two very fundamental flaws with this question. The first, and probably the most relevant to christians, is that believing in a god doesn’t prevent you from being an immoral monster. It just means you have to ask more forgiveness than other christians do. The second, whenever christians bring up this question, is sends chills down atheist’s spines. It means the christian that is asking this question doesn’t have basic human empathy and is only one psychotic break away from… Read more »
Very perceptive. I’m an atheist, and I always hit Christian apologists with Genesis 22 and God seriously asking Abe to kill his son Isaac. When apologists try to make this barbaric god sound more acceptable to modern western ears by saying Abe secretly knew God would prevent him from going all the way through with the kill-order, I attack them with Hebrews 11:19. No, Abe’s confidence wasn’t that God would prevent Isaac from actually dying, Abe’s confidence was that God would raise Isaac from the dead. That is, the biblical portrait of “true” faith as revealed in the Hebrews 11… Read more »
The biggest problem with the Isaac story is that the lesson it culturally significant, and modern christians just don’t have the context in which to really get it. At that time people did not have autonomy. They were owned by whoever was ruling the land. Democracy and human input was never a virtue. The virtue for them was obeying without question. No matter how repugnant, you were being virtuous by obeying the command and being immoral by refusing to do the command. It didn’t matter what that command was. God is just the ultimate monarch. God owns everyone and his… Read more »
I just finished reviewing “The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest”(Walton & Walton, IVP Academic 2017). He admits that ANE peoples viewed the gods as necessarily beyond criticism, regardless of what the gods were allegedly doing. I think we see the same sentiment when Paul tries to shut down critical objections to God’s sovereignty in Romans 9:20, by pushing the pot-potter analogy too far. But to be fair, Judaism, like any religion, wasn’t self-consistent. Moses is pictured as successfully knocking some democratic sense into the divine head in Exodus 32:9-14. David protests that God is unrighteous in killing lots of… Read more »
I don’t see a problem with the conjunction of Hebrews 11:19 and Genesis 22. The question is what God would do, not what Abraham knew. At any rate, we know what atheist societies look like. We had 2 strong examples in the 20th century: Maoist China and Stalin/Lenin Russia. In Maoist China we had the largest mass murder via Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” which caused 45 million people to die. In Stalin/Lenin regime, it was some 20 million. I don’t mean to say that being an atheist causes one to be bad, but I do think it reduces the number… Read more »
If Abe secretly knew God would prevent the killing from happening, Genesis 22:1 was incorrect in calling this command of God a “test”. True “biblical” faith doesn’t question even when god’s commands run counter to your personal morals. Yet I’m sure that if God commanded you to kill your son, you’d contradict the example of Abe, you would not tell yourself God can raise the dead, you’d instead say that the command’s departure from your own sense of morality proves it isn’t really coming from “god”. You get precisely nowhere citing to atheist atrocities. Numbers 31:17 and 1st Samuel 15:2-3… Read more »
Your critique misses the point. You are arguing as if your opponents hold that morality is some external, verbal set of instructions rather than something ontological; woven into the nature of being. It’s not a question of whether or not you obey the instructions you read in the bible; it’s weather or not you conform to your nature. You indicate this yourself in the critique above: you assume that “shooting up a church” is (or ought to be) recognized as “wrong”. But if morality is reducible to the movement of particles, why “ought” it be? Why “ought” chemicals be anything… Read more »
…rather than something ontological; woven into the nature of being. Can you explain what that means? Thow it works, or any details that explain what you mean when you say this statement, without repeating the phrase “woven into the nature of being”? If not then I don’t think that is a coherent concept for you. Now if you were to ask a neuroscientist how this would work, they could actually show you the structures in the brain that control morality and even point you to the experiment where an experimenter changed peoples morality just by adding in a magnetic field… Read more »
“Can you explain what that means? ” It means its a part of its being (ontology); it belongs to the nature of the subject in question. It’s not my invention, it’s Aristotelian philosophy. So if a human thinks whatever they happen to think, it’s merely because of some particular chemical property in the brain, right? So why pretend that theists are “wrong” as if theists have violated some hierarchy of values? There is no hierarchy of values, no objective standard, you only think your opponent is “wrong” because of some chemical property in your brain, correct? If I could have… Read more »
It means its a part of its being (ontology); it belongs to the nature of the subject in question. It’s not my invention, it’s Aristotelian philosophy. I guess this is a no. What does it mean to be “the nature of the subject”? How does that work? So if a human thinks whatever they happen to think, it’s merely because of some particular chemical property in the brain, right? No. That isn’t how the brain works. So why pretend that theists are “wrong” as if theists have violated some hierarchy of values? It isn’t pretend to point out that theists… Read more »
“What does it mean to be “the nature of the subject”? How does that work?” This is simply a non-controversial point. You know the difference between a squirrel and a toaster because you recognize that the nature of a squirrel is to be a furry mammal that buries nuts, and the nature of a toaster is to be a metal object that heats up bread. It’s just not controversial. It’s just a normal convention of words. Move on. When I asked if human thought is merely a chemical reaction you said no. Then you go on to say that you… Read more »
This is simply a non-controversial point. I didn’t say it was, I was asking if you understood what you mean when you say the words. A lot of people will say things without actually understanding what they mean. They think they have an understanding until they have to explain it, and then they realize that they don’t actually understand it. You know the difference between a squirrel and a toaster because you recognize that the nature of a squirrel is to be a furry mammal that buries nuts, and the nature of a toaster is to be a metal object… Read more »
You say that thought is a complex arrangement of chemicals that produces ****accurate**** information about the world around us. You use the analogy of a calculator that needs to be ****functioning correctly**** to get ****accurate**** output. This is what you’re missing Darren: you can’t know what *****accurate**** means. ****Accurate**** is just a chemical reaction in your brain. Chemical reactions are just chemical reactions. In order to know if they are ****accurate**** you have to have some objective, abstract, mind independent standard to tell you if they are ***accurate****. Where do you get this standard? This standard cannot be merely another… Read more »
You say that thought is a complex arrangement of chemicals that produces ****accurate**** information about the world around us. You use the analogy of a calculator that needs to be ****functioning correctly**** to get ****accurate**** output. Sure, where is the mind-independent statement there? This is what you’re missing Darren: you can’t know what *****accurate**** means. Why not? I see you making a lot of proclamations about this, I have yet to see you demonstrate this statement is true. ****Accurate**** is just a chemical reaction in your brain. No, it isn’t. Since I have already explained this to you in detail,… Read more »
Darren, I am the theist in this discussion which means I am the one that is defending the proposition that there is more to reality than matter. You are the atheist, which means you must reduce everything to material causes. If your position is true, you are thinking what you think merely because it is the properties of a chemical reaction, not because it is true in any abstract way. You are arguing because you think I am “wrong”. But if I’m just a chemical property, then I just am what I am; there is no such thing as “wrong”.… Read more »
Darren, I am the theist in this discussion which means I am the one that is defending the proposition that there is more to reality than matter. Yes you are which is why I am asking you to demonstrate that your claims are true. You are the atheist, which means you must reduce everything to material causes. You have obviously never talked to a broad range of atheists. All being an atheist entails is not being convinced by theist claims. That’s it. It says absolutely nothing about what is believed. Which is kind of sad because I wish people would… Read more »
Your stated position on human thought from above: “Human thought is the result of physical signals of the world around us being processed by molecules and chemicals that are arranged in a certain way that produces accurate information about the reality around us.” Then you say reduction to material causes is not your stated position. My argument points out the necessary outcome of your position.
Then you say reduction to material causes is not your stated position. My argument points out the necessary outcome of your position. No, your argument does not point out the necessary outcome of my position. You are making lots of proclamations about what you THINK should be the necessary outcome of my position. But you have yet to demonstrate that any of your proclamations are accurate, and your proclamations are not what the actual outcome of my position is. If you would like to actually address what my actual position is, and the actual outcomes that come from it, rather… Read more »
Darren, TN here (not sure if I can log in correctly from this computer). This issue is a common one from the philosophy of mind which is a well developed field of study with many notable atheists such as John Searle, Bertrand Russell, and Thomas Nagel, just to name a few. It isn’t some novel idea I dreamed up. Obviously you don’t know the issues at stake. You should learn the real issues from serious atheists like these rather than read a couple Dawkins books and think you’re all set to go trolling theist sites. If you’d like to try,… Read more »
It isn’t some novel idea I dreamed up. I didn’t say you did. All I am asking you to do is demonstrate that your claims are actually true. If it is a well-developed field, then this shouldn’t be a problem, and yet you continue to refuse to do so. My guess is that you recognize that you can’t. Which is the problem I pointed out at the beginning of our discussion. When theists are asked to demonstrate that their claims and proclamations are accurate, they can’t do it. Just like you have demonstrated here. I suppose if nothing else, thanks… Read more »
Of what does human thought consist if it is not reducible to material causes?
I never said it wasn’t. Did you decide not to take my advise and not make up a position for me to hold?
Is human thought reducible to material causes? Yes or no.
Yes. All the science we have on the brain indicates it is a completely physical process done by the brain.
Since this is what I have been saying your position is all along, why have you been saying I have been forcing you into a position you don’t hold?
Since this is what I have been saying your position is all along, why have you been saying I have been forcing you into a position you don’t hold? Because this isn’t what you have been saying my position is. You have said my position is that it is “merely chemicals”. You have made proclamations about what you think “merely chemicals” are capable of, but you have yet to actually prove your proclamations are true or address my actual position. Which is that the brain is a complex set of matter, electricity, and chemicals that are configured in a way… Read more »
Let’s set X to equal your position on human thought as stated. So X = “the brain is a complex set of matter, electricity, and chemicals that are configured in a way to produce an accurate model of the world we live in.” Now lets substitute in “X” in my argument for whenever I said “merely chemicals” (or some similar expression). Then we have: So if a human thinks whatever they happen to think, it’s merely because of some particular “X” in the brain, right? So why pretend that theists are “wrong” as if theists have violated some hierarchy of… Read more »
So X = “the brain is a complex set of matter, electricity, and chemicals that are configured in a way to produce an accurate model of the world we live in.” So if a human thinks whatever they happen to think, it’s merely because of some particular “X” in the brain, right? No. It isn’t. When I say “the brain is a complex set of matter, electricity, and chemicals that are configured in a way to produce an accurate model of the world we live in.” Do you even understand what that means? If so, could you please repeat it… Read more »
Think a little deeper. I know you can do it! When you say “when you compare what a theist says about reality to reality, the two don’t match up.” That is what is in question. Whatever you are calling “reality” is just a physical process like photosynthesis, or toothpaste. Where do you get this abstract standard that tells you that your opponents (which are just physical processes) are wrong? So your opponents don’t obey empirical evidence. SO WHAT! There is no law that says some random physical process must obey what you claim is “reality”. BTW, can you prove “reality”… Read more »
Think a little deeper. I know you can do it! The real question is whether you can actually recognize thinking in the first place, so far you don’t seem to be doing much of it. Just parroting apologist talking points. That is what is in question. Whatever you are calling “reality” is just a physical process like photosynthesis, or toothpaste. No. It isn’t. But you haven’t bothered to get anything else right so far, I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised you can’t get this right either. At some point, you are going to have to give up your apologist talking… Read more »
I said:
“Whatever you are calling “reality” is just a physical process like photosynthesis, or toothpaste.”
You said:
“No. It isn’t.”
So reality is not just a physical process. What is it in addition to a physical process?
Reality is everything that exists. It isn’t a physical process. Physical processes are a part of reality.
So in other words, why do you suppose that a physical process which just is whatever it is, is supposed to do something other than what it does? So the particular physical process that happens to be what we call “theists” don’t obey “reality”. SO WHAT!
So in other words, why do you suppose that a physical process which just is whatever it is, I don’t know. I’m not talking about a physical process that “just is” whatever it is. is supposed to do something other than what it does? It isn’t doing something other than what it does. So the particular physical process that happens to be what we call “theists” don’t obey “reality”. SO WHAT! So, you are by definition wrong at that point. Which is what I am pointing out. Not only are you wrong, but you are either part of the problem… Read more »
How could thought be caused by physical processes if causality is false?
Well, first, thought isn’t “caused” by physical processes. Thought is what those physical processes are doing.
Second, I don’t know. I’ve never said causality is false. I have just been pointing out that you have no evidence it works the way you are claiming it does, in all places and in all circumstances.
OK, so in my example, the movement of the ball is caused by the bat, and we go down that chain of causes until we get to somewhere the causal chain stops. Where does it stop? Oh, wait, you didn’t say that either right?
Sure, the causal chain stops. I’m waiting with bated breath on how you are going to demonstrate the claims you are going to make next are accurate.
Where does the causal chain stop?
Oh wait, I’m guessing you didn’t say that either, right?
You tell me where it stops. You are the one making all the proclamations. I’m just asking you to demonstrate your proclamations are accurate. Though if loop quantum gravity ends up being correct, there actually wouldn’t be any stop to the chain.
But hey, this is your show. You tell me. Where does it stop and how did you determine you were correct?
Not sure why Christians think it impossibly difficult for atheists to give a rational and normative justification for acting morally while denying god’s existence. If even Christians themselves disagree on a large host of moral issues (i.e., death penalty, divorce, birth control, gun control, the minimum age for marriage, the point when pre-marital petting becomes fornication, how often to bathe, how often to attend church, how disastrous or trivial “sin” is, etc, etc), then it doesn’t matter if a quick “God’s mysterious ways” can help you save face at that point; those Christian in-house disagreements about morality still rationally justify… Read more »
Barry, When you say “Christians” or “theists” claim this or that, I would say you are pointing to people who happen to be largely philosophically incompetent (of which there are admittedly many). The question of whether or not God is necessary for morality can be understood in two senses: One is the question of whether or not a person needs to be an explicit theist in order to be moral, and, quite obviously one need not be (I believe you are arguing against this sense). The other is whether or not one can show by philosophical argument that morality is… Read more »
Well, I just deleted several pages of detailed reply to you, because I sometimes overlook my own higher goal to resolve my disagreements with people like you one tiny step at a time. Most mature educated adults realizing that the more comprehensive the reply, the greater risk that important points will be avoided, lost or skipped…especially in the context of back and forth bickering on the internet and not on the context of the controlled confines of an academic debate. My rebuttal to you was objective, but only on the condition that the dictionary has correctly defined “objective”. I wasn’t… Read more »
It’s not that complicated; simple English works fine. The question is why get mad at chemicals? Suppose I said that toothpaste is “wrong” because it doesn’t do photosynthesis. How does it make sense to say that chemicals have violated some hierarchy of values? Theists (and atheists) are merely chemicals that have their respective properties, how is it “wrong” for chemicals to possess the properties they have? What standard has been violated? If you believe your position, you should just say you think what you think because your brain chemicals have that property, not that your brain chemicals can identify some… Read more »
You said: “The question is why get mad at chemicals?” I reply: No, you asked me to reply to your criticism of relative morality. I made clear in my reply that I will be proceeding one baby step at a time. I am taking one baby step at a time in order to establish as much common ground between us as possible on the issue of morality. People who have more common ground on an issue are more likely to successfully resolve their differences, than people who have little or no common ground on the issue they argue about. I… Read more »
Yes.
Does “mind”= brain?
Yes. Does “bodily strength” = muscle? Or would you deny this common sense because some ancient text insists that bodily strength comes from another dimension and merely manifests using the muscles as a mere interface?
Your point?
Following your lead with “baby steps”, please cite any claims I made about “ancient texts”? Once you do that, I can answer your question about what my point is.
I have no obligation to help you distract the discussion about your alleged prior claims about “ancient texts” as I never expressed or implied that you ever made any such claims. Go read my post again. I was “asking” you whether you would deny a common sense thing because of something written in an ancient text. The comment you refer to was in the form of a question, a question you chose to avoid answering. Now that I’ve “done that”, do what you promised, and answer my question about what your point is, that is, your point in asking me… Read more »
If I do that will you distract the discussion with references to ancient texts? Apparently we have to check on these things ya know. Two can play your game.
My reference to ancient texts wasn’t a distraction, it was a direct attack on the position you reasonably appeared to be taking, given that you call yourself an “Aristotelian”, which reasonably implies you got your ideas from ancient texts .
So hurry up and explain why you asked me whether I believe the mind = the brain.
My reference to Aristotle was to point out that I have no problem with explaining morality using only natural causes–a position that you, as a naturalist must support. However,you now state it is a position you are making a “direct attack on” according to what you wrote. Please reread. If mind = brain then everything attributed to “mind” is really reducible to chemical properties in the brain and you incur all the problems I’ve already illustrated above many times. A problem you refuse to engage and instead wish to spend time defining dictionary words. So hurry up and ask me… Read more »
sorry, I’m not seeing anything you previously said that would make it unreasonable to view the mind as equal to the brain. Perhaps you’d like to make a specific argument?
Suppose I said that toothpaste is “wrong” because it doesn’t do photosynthesis. That would be an incoherent argument because chemicals merely have whatever properties they happen to have, and there is no abstract standard that says what properties they ought to have. Similarly, if one argues that human thought (or whatever can be attributed to the “mind”) is merely the properties of brain chemicals, and then argues that those chemicals “ought” to have some other properties, that is an incoherent position because, again, there is no standard that says chemicals ought to be anything other than whatever they happen to… Read more »
I listened to the podcast and was amused when Dr. Jeffrey was asked about the popularity of her opinions about morality. The reality is that only about 14.6% of philosophers take the theist arguments seriously. Here are some of the numbers for some of the subjects covered in the podcast. God: theism or atheism? Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%) Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%) Other 117 / 931 (12.6%) Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism? Accept or lean toward: scientific realism 699 / 931 (75.1%) Other 124 / 931 (13.3%) Accept or… Read more »
And here is the link to the poll if anyone is curious: https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Is truth established by opinion poll? Or sound argument? I would say that modern philosophy as a whole makes several fatal errors so why would I be surprised if those errors show up in opinion polls?
Is truth established by opinion poll? Or sound argument? Neither, which is why you don’t go to philosophy to figure out how to get a rocket to Mars. Truth is established by looking at reality and finding out if the statement you are making accurately describes it or not. Just as a side note, there are no sound arguments for theism, since none of the theist arguments can demonstrate that any of the premises they use are sound. I would say that modern philosophy as a whole makes several fatal errors so why would I be surprised if those errors… Read more »
“Truth is established by looking at reality and finding out if the statement you are making accurately describes it or not.” Which is another way to say “sound argument”. “Just as a side note, there are no sound arguments for theism, since none of the theist arguments can demonstrate that any of the premises they use are sound.” Question begging. I claim otherwise. The point of providing the poll was to show that the vast majority of the people that actually understand the arguments, and have studied them in-depth, reject the arguments.” Question begging again. What “people that actually understand… Read more »
“Question begging. I claim otherwise.”
That’s fine. You can claim it all you want. What you have to do at this point is to demonstrate your claims are actually true.
No problem. So let’s say I hit a baseball with a baseball bat. The ball moves because the bat moves it; the bat moves because my arm moves the bat; my arm moves because of electrical impulses in my shoulder, which move because of neurons in my brain; etc. Now all of the things in this list have potential to move, but can’t move on their own without be actualized by something else: baseballs don’t move by themselves; bats don’t move by themselves; arms don’t move by themselves; etc. The potential motion of the objects in this list must be… Read more »
Now all of the things in this list have potential to move, but can’t move on their own without be actualized by something else: baseballs don’t move by themselves; bats don’t move by themselves; arms don’t move by themselves; etc. The potential motion of the objects in this list must be actualized by something else. Sure, but not everything acts that way, as demonstrated by quantum physics. No matter how long the list of objects with potential is, it must–by ontological necessity–terminate in a source of pure actuality with no admixture of potential (because any potential needs to be actualized).… Read more »
See my reply to your other post.
“The point of providing the poll was to show that the vast majority of the people that actually understand the arguments, and have studied them in-depth, reject the arguments” First, I would like to point out that philosophers, especially ones that work in academia, usually work and specialize in certain fields of philosophy. And because of this, it is not necessarily the case that they have an expert opinion on every philosophical topic out there. Second, I doubt that every philosopher who took that survey has extensively studied the theism/atheism debate. Why am I doubtful you may ask? Well, the… Read more »
All good points, Jjnan1. It seems to be an accident of our “Internet age” that there is no shortage of people who lack any sense of caution or restraint and are eagerly willing to make dogmatic pronouncements about complex subjects based on little more than their feelings. All one needs to do, it seems, is produce a Youtube video with the title “So-and-so ‘DESTROYS’ So-and-so” and all of a sudden you have an army of zealots and a cocoon of confirmation bias.
“Why am I doubtful you may ask? Well, the God question is one that has a massive amount of literature behind. Literally, it has thousands of years worth of material.” Sure, but out of all that material, there are only a few arguments. The same arguments that are used today for theism are the same ones used thousands of years ago. Sometimes they are packaged a bit differently, and sometimes they are polished up a little to get rid of the obvious flaws, but it isn’t like there is a lot of different material to go over. The arguments just… Read more »
“The arguments just aren’t that good”. Great! So tell me how you understand Aristotle’s argument from motion and why it isn’t good. Go ahead.
I will never understand why people think that a person that lived almost 2500 years ago had some special knowledge about how the world works. The reason that Aristotle’s argument from motion isn’t all that great is that it is almost completely speculation about how Aristotle thought the world SHOULD work. He makes a lot of bald assertions without any indication that those assertions are correct. Which is actually the same problem that ALL the theist arguments have. Once you start asking for the proponents to demonstrate that the arguments are an accurate depiction of reality, they are unable to… Read more »
So the argument is that no potential can actualize itself. No matter how long the list of potentialities, they still can’t actualize themselves. Therefore, the list of potentialities that are actualized must terminate in pure actuality. You say this is a “speculation” about how the world “should” be, that this is merely “bald assertion”, and anyone who attempts to demonstrate this will be unable to do so. The demonstration I gave was a baseball that is moved by a bat, that is moved by my arm, etc., etc. So, do tell how a baseball not being able to move itself… Read more »
So the argument is that no potential can actualize itself. Yes, I know. And there are some aspects of quantum physics that make that assertion untenable. For example, quantum entanglement seems to be completely time-independent. Which means the universe literally could have created itself from the quantum foam. And then, of course, there is the quantum realm itself that has no actualizer, is physical, and has all sorts of “potential” for “creating” universes. No matter how long the list of potentialities, they still can’t actualize themselves. Is this something you can demonstrate is true? The demonstration I gave was a… Read more »
To say that I have a burden of proof to demonstrate that every effect has a cause, is a logical fallacy: such a proof would be infinitely long and I would have to show every possible effect has a cause which is impossible due to sheer infinity of examples. We know of no effect that doesn’t have a cause, therefore the burden of proof is on the denier to provide a counter example, which you attempt to do, but even your attempt to deny causality appeals to causality: you say that the universe could have created (i.e. caused) itself. Then… Read more »
To say that I have a burden of proof to demonstrate that every effect has a cause, is a logical fallacy: Can you name the logical fallacy it is? I have never seen that particular fallacy anywhere. What I have seen is the burden of proof, which is that if you are making a positive claim, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate it is correct. We know of no effect that doesn’t have a cause, therefore the burden of proof is on the denier to provide a counter example, I have seen this fallacy though. Its called the… Read more »
” there is no indication that the quantum foam has a cause.” Not knowing a cause is not proof that there is no cause. Science is the abstract representation of the material world. The descriptions and equations that express scientific claims, do not establish the metaphysical realities expressed, they merely describe them. The metaphysical realities that science presupposes are not provable by science itself: what is “proof”? What is “evidence”? these are metaphysical presumptions that undergird science but cannot be proven by its methods. You would not be able to prove what “proof” is since the very attempt would beg… Read more »
Not knowing a cause is not proof that there is no cause. Nor is it proof that is does have a cause. To make proclamations about something you don’t know is not argumentation, it is just making proclamations that you can’t demonstrate are accurate. You would not be able to prove what “proof” is since the very attempt would beg the question. I always love it when theists start making proclamations about what science can’t do. Invariably they always seem to get it wrong because they seem to miss the central tenant of any scientific endeavor. Compare to reality to… Read more »
When the baseball moved, did it have a cause, or did it have no cause?
Now all you have to do is demonstrate that the universe itself works with the same rules as the things in it. Pointing to a baseball does absolutely zero to support your claims about the universe.
When the baseball moved, did it have a cause, or did it have no cause?
Is the universe intelligible?
If you are going to ignore my point, then you aren’t going to get you anywhere. If you want to use the baseball to make proclamations about the universe as a whole and that which is outside of it, you have to recognize that just because a baseball acts in one way, inside of the universe, doesn’t mean the universe itself acts the same way from th environment it is in.
In fact, we know it doesn’t because the macro world works differently than the quantum world does and the universe is an emergent property of the quantum world.
How do you know the universe is inside a different, larger environment? Are you proclaiming this or can you prove it?
Do we experience baseballs that move by themselves, or does their motion have causes? It’s a simple question.
Is the universe intelligible? That is, can the human mind ascertain real, abstract information from observation?
How do you know the universe is inside a different, larger environment? Are you proclaiming this or can you prove it? It is what all the observations we have made about quantum physics indicate. We are as certain of this as we are of gravity. Do we experience baseballs that move by themselves, or does their motion have causes? It’s a simple question. Its is a simple and completely pointless question, but if you need to go down this rabbit hole to see how completely pointless it is, I’ll play. According to quantum physics, there is a slight, almost non-existent… Read more »
Could you provide a peer reviewed source that shows that there is a consensus among cosmologists that the multiverse is a fact as certain as gravity? Hawking’s theories don’t rise to that level according to his peers. Do you have peer reviewed evidence? If you hit a baseball with a baseball bat, do you think the ball moved because of the bat, or do you think the ball moved by itself because of QM? Whether or not it’s a “pointless” question, remains to be seen. Just answer the question. “The universe is intelligible until you get down to the quantum… Read more »
Could you provide a peer reviewed source that shows that there is a consensus among cosmologists that the multiverse is a fact as certain as gravity? Since I didn’t actually say that, I’m sure you will understand why I feel no need to defend it. If you hit a baseball with a baseball bat, do you think the ball moved because of the bat, or do you think the ball moved by itself because of QM? I would think it was moved by the baseball bat. If it was being moved by other means then there would be no need… Read more »
When you made this statement (which I copied from your post):
“It is what all the observations we have made about quantum physics indicate. We are as certain of this as we are of gravity.”
What was that in reference to?
Exactly what it says. Quantum physics is the foundation of our universe and space and time are emergent properties of it. We have known the equations and have been verifying them with experimentation ever since Einstein. Most of the advances in computer technology for the last 20 years have come from what we learned from those experiments. Multiverse theory comes about when you take the equations for the quantum world, those we know by experimentation are correct and add in the different quantum hypothesis. If you plug in string theory you get the multiverse, and if you plug in loop… Read more »
Ok, I said this:
“How do you know the universe is inside a different, larger environment? Are you proclaiming this or can you prove it?”
Then you said this:
“It is what all the observations we have made about quantum physics indicate. We are as certain of this as we are of gravity.”
Can you provide a peer reviewed source that demonstrates cosmologists agree that we know the universe is inside a different , larger environment?
Wait, let me guess, you didn’t say that. You said something else, right?
Can you provide a peer reviewed source that demonstrates cosmologists agree that we know the universe is inside a different , larger environment?
Since you seem to have given up trying to demonstrate that any of your claims are accurate, trying to attack me instead. Does this mean you are accepting that my original statement, that theists are incapable of demonstrating their claims are true, and you would like to move on to cosmology?
Wait, we know this as certain as we know gravity, right? Finding a peer reviewed source to prove something as certain as gravity should be easy, shouldn’t it?
Yes, we are definitely at the childish stage of theist interaction. This is the stage after the one where the theist realize they have no good reason to accept their own arguments, so they become petulant children.
Here are your peer-reviewed articles, all 2+ million of them: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=quantum+mechanics&btnG=
So your peer reviewed proof for something as obvious as gravity is just a google search for scholarly articles on QM. Can you provide one, just one peer reviewed source that supports your claim? No? Why is that? It must be cause I’m childish I guess. It must be because I’m a petulant child. That’s why there are not peer reviewed sources for your claim.
Look Darren, that’s enough. I’ve got things to do and you just want to play word games. Have a nice evening. I won’t be responding further.
That’s ok, no need. You have pretty much demonstrated I was correct with my initial statements.
Do you think I am arguing for a beginning of the universe? I’m not. If the universe in infinite, that makes no difference to me. If you think that is what I’m arguing for (even though I have never claimed that–I have no opinion on it) do you think that because you read it in “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins?
Why is it that Theists, have absolutely no clue what they are talking about when it comes to the sciences, as demonstrated above, yet feel the need to degrade those that do. If it makes you feel better, I don’t think I have ever read the God delusion. Have you ever bothered to look into the math behind quantum physics? Do you go to science symposiums to listen to people who know what they are talking about? Have you ever bothered to look at ANY scientific discipline in detail? Or do you get all your information from Answers in Genesis… Read more »
In fact, any attempt to prove (or disprove), by necessity requires the presumption of causality to perform the proof. When the disproof of causality requires causality, it’s not very convincing.
Then I suppose it is just as well I’m not trying to do that then.