The Exploding Head

[cdowis]

We haven't talked about issues with atheists, so here is a youtube that takes them on.

[thesometimesaint]

Funny but not accurate.

[Tarski]

Make a cartoon that gives the atheist a stupid sounding voice. Now give the theist a smart sounding voice but have his actual words express the usual stupid talking points. Next have your atheist character implausibly have no comeback on any of these tired old nuggets of theistic pseudowisdom.

Finally, (fail to) notice that none of the theistic points carry weight in Mormon theology since creation exnihilo is not part of the latter and God is not conceived of as a first cause either.

In reality there is plenty to say in response. Each one of the theist's points could be demolished along several dimensions. Each of the theists points is scientifically uninformed and philosophically naive. There is no sign of any sophisticated or seasoned understanding of notions of cause and effect, conservation laws, and no indication that the theist has learned how to think about the big bang.

(No atheist I know thinks that everything has a cause. Does the number Pi have a cause?)

The singularity itself is not even an event within the causally structured manifold of spacetime and it would be a mistake to treat it as such. In particular, we should not expect it to be amenable to the usual physical notions of cause and effect. Actually, a closer look at cause and effect reveals it to be a philosophically tricky notion anyway (Hume's objections still loom). Even in the easy cases, the appropriate causal narrative to explain an event often depends on our level of description and the stance we are taking:

Which of the following best explains why I was late coming home from work:

1) The initial vector of positions and velocities of the particles in the universe at time t1 before I returned home was X and the appropriate differential equations have a solution X(t) such that X(t2) describes a universe wherein I arrive home at t2 (late). (This could be phrased in terms of fields as well).

2) I wanted to buy a newspaper that was supposed to feature a story about me. My usual newsstand was sold out so I had to travel across town to get a copy.

If you think the 2nd version can in principle be reformulated completely in the language of fundamental physics, you have another thing coming. There is a discussion about this in Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". The importance of different "stances" in causal explanation is given book length discussion in Dennett's "The Intensional Stance".

Edited July 10, 2013 by Tarski

[Questing Beast]

Some/many people over-think some/many things. And some/many need some/many things to not change, so they think as little as possible....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Funny but not accurate.

That much is true. If I was an athiest and saw this I would have lol'd and then walked away. This remains so unconvincing it is really quit silly. It reminded me of the anti-mormon tracts out there that are over simplistic and the arguments are so lame. I know that no athiest would have responed they way the cartoon depicted.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

.....

Good to see you. Have you been busy grading papers? Glad you could join in the fun.

[thesometimesaint]

Make a cartoon that gives the atheist a stupid sounding voice. Now give the theist a smart sounding voice but have his actual words express the usual stupid talking points. Next have your atheist character implausibly have no comeback on any of these tired old nuggets of theistic pseudowisdom.

Finally, (fail to) notice that none of the theistic points carry weight in Mormon theology since creation exnihilo is not part of the latter and God is not conceived of as a first cause either.

In reality there is plenty to say in response. Each one of the theist's points could be demolished along several dimensions. Each of the theists points is scientifically uninformed and philosophically naive. There is no sign of any sophisticated or seasoned understanding of notions of cause and effect, conservation laws, and no indication that the theist has learned how to think about the big bang.

(No atheist I know thinks that everything has a cause. Does the number Pi have a cause?)

The singularity itself is not even an event within the causally structured manifold of spacetime and it would be a mistake to treat it as such. In particular, we should not expect it to be amenable to the usual physical notions of cause and effect. Actually, a closer look at cause and effect reveals it to be a philosophically tricky notion anyway (Hume's objections still loom). Even in the easy cases, the appropriate causal narrative to explain an event often depends on our level of description and the stance we are taking:

Which of the following best explains why I was late coming home from work:

1) The initial vector of positions and velocities of the particles in the universe at time t1 before I returned home was X and the appropriate differential equations have a solution X(t) such that X(t2) describes a universe wherein I arrive home at t2 (late). (This could be phrased in terms of fields as well).

2) I wanted to buy a newspaper that was supposed to feature a story about me. My usual newsstand was sold out so I had to travel across town to get a copy.

If you think the 2nd version can in principle be reformulated completely in the language of fundamental physics, you have another thing coming. There is a discussion about this in Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". The importance of different "stances" in causal explanation is given book length discussion in Dennett's "The Intensional Stance".

Long time no see. Good to see you back.

[bcuzbcuz]

We haven't talked about issues with atheists, so here is a youtube that takes them on.

Sophomoric.

[cdowis]

Interesting.

Since we are talking about such things, can someone tackle the "Watchmaker" parable. It is supposedly has been refuted with the universal acceptance of evolution (see starting at 35 minutes). Hitchens goes on with an interesting comment regarding the place of human beings in the overall scheme of creation, and how silly it is. Basically, the whole universe was created for the benefit of us?

[media=]

Edited July 10, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

It's the watch maker fallacy.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+watch+maker+fallacy&mid=16493A9DE88D195CBCE716493A9DE88D195CBCE7&view=detail&FORM=VIRE6

[cinepro]

Theist: Then who or what caused the Big Bang?

Atheist: I don't know.

[thesometimesaint]

Theist: Then who or what caused the Big Bang?

Atheist: I don't know.

Circular argument.

[mfbukowski]

Make a cartoon that gives the atheist a stupid sounding voice. Now give the theist a smart sounding voice but have his actual words express the usual stupid talking points. Next have your atheist character implausibly have no comeback on any of these tired old nuggets of theistic pseudowisdom.

Finally, (fail to) notice that none of the theistic points carry weight in Mormon theology since creation exnihilo is not part of the latter and God is not conceived of as a first cause either.

In reality there is plenty to say in response. Each one of the theist's points could be demolished along several dimensions. Each of the theists points is scientifically uninformed and philosophically naive. There is no sign of any sophisticated or seasoned understanding of notions of cause and effect, conservation laws, and no indication that the theist has learned how to think about the big bang.

(No atheist I know thinks that everything has a cause. Does the number Pi have a cause?)

The singularity itself is not even an event within the causally structured manifold of spacetime and it would be a mistake to treat it as such. In particular, we should not expect it to be amenable to the usual physical notions of cause and effect. Actually, a closer look at cause and effect reveals it to be a philosophically tricky notion anyway (Hume's objections still loom). Even in the easy cases, the appropriate causal narrative to explain an event often depends on our level of description and the stance we are taking:

Which of the following best explains why I was late coming home from work:

1) The initial vector of positions and velocities of the particles in the universe at time t1 before I returned home was X and the appropriate differential equations have a solution X(t) such that X(t2) describes a universe wherein I arrive home at t2 (late). (This could be phrased in terms of fields as well).

2) I wanted to buy a newspaper that was supposed to feature a story about me. My usual newsstand was sold out so I had to travel across town to get a copy.

If you think the 2nd version can in principle be reformulated completely in the language of fundamental physics, you have another thing coming. There is a discussion about this in Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". The importance of different "stances" in causal explanation is given book length discussion in Dennett's "The Intensional Stance".

I have to agree.

[cdowis]

Circular argument.

OK, so the Big Bang is a false premise?

Or, if the Big Bang did occur, what was the cause. (where did the "stuff" of the big bang come from, and how long did it exist before it "decided" to blow up. Not sure where your circular argument is coming from.

[cdowis]

"Does the number Pi have a cause?"

Indeed it does. It is an artifical construct and was "caused" by thought process. Outside of a mathmatical mental construct, it actually does not exist. If nobody had ever "thought" of Pi, it would not exist.

[thesometimesaint]

Your argument presupposes a cause. A grand watchmaker. Science knows of no way to have a time before time existed.

[cdowis]

Your argument presupposes a cause. A grand watchmaker. Science knows of no way to have a time before time existed.

There cannot be a "before" time was created. Ergo, time has no cause and has always existed, and the creation process has existed thru eternity.

The Watchmaker has always been making watches. There is no chicken and egg paradox -- there is a complete match between all chickens and eggs, and vice versa.

I think my head is going to explode.

Edited July 10, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

"Does the number Pi have a cause?"

Indeed it does. It is an artifical construct and was "caused" by thought process. Outside of a mathmatical mental construct, it actually does not exist. If nobody had ever "thought" of Pi, it would not exist.

The function of Pi would exist whether anybody "thought" of it or not. Just like dinosaurs existed whether Adam rode them or not.

[thesometimesaint]

Ergo, time has no cause. It has always existed.

Not falsifiable.

[cdowis]

Not falsifiable.

Of course it is -- you simply reverse the arrow of time and see what happens. But in the meantime, as Spock would say, the logic is inescapable.

[tyler90az]

I would not mock, unless you wish to be mocked.

[cdowis]

I accept the challenge. Go for it., as long as it is thoughtful and insightful Utterwise I simply ignore it if it is just silly.

This is not Social Hall.

Edited July 10, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

There is a discussion about this in Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature". The importance of different "stances" in causal explanation is given book length discussion in Dennett's "The Intensional Stance".

I have to say that video was hard to watch. I kept wanting to yell at the screen.

"Cause and effect" was debunked by Hume way back in the 18th century, and with it went the whole first cause argument- also know as the prime mover. Old old stuff! http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

As far as I am concerned it's not worth arguing about.

Edited July 10, 2013 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Of course it is -- you simply reverse the arrow of time and see what happens. But in the meantime, as Spock would say, the logic is inescapable.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/10/evolution-vs-god-movie-so-popular-it-crashes-evangelical-leaders-website-its-going-to-take-down-evolution/

Here is a new movie about God vs Evolution. I have not seen the trailor yet so I am not sure what to think. My first reaction to some of the comment about how athiest are "nervous" make me think the people involved with this movie have some wishful thinking going on.