Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

In every post you have to show how pompous you are but I'll ignore it... for someone whose whole thesis is wrong it's quite comical.

The third alternative is that the two alternatives you believe in are both wrong because they both have to have characteristics that are paradoxical and contradictory . You agree that an infinite regress is wrong so let's examine the only alternative in your opinion; the alternative that your whole thesis relies on... a Prime Mover a 'causer without a cause' as you put it. Are you willing to answer questions on it?

Now igm please be coherent, my assertion was that infinite regresses are not taken seriously once they require infinities all over the place the alternative default view being that there is a first event in the world, a first event in a chain of events. Its simple, in mathematics is framed with two words either infinity or finity. You were the one challenging this so you are the one that ought to provide an alternative.
As for me being pompous given the patent nonsense on your late posts I can only say I have been mild n fairly amenable or by now I wouldn't be talking with you at all. Now again please I am waiting for the alternative do you have something or is just more baloney ?

I think the word you're looking for is finite... I don't believe there is such a word as finity but I understand what you mean.

I've already given you an alternative... which is that both are wrong... a prime mover has more than just the lack of infinity to define what it must be... and the definition would make it impossible for itself to be a cause of anything... I'll try to show you why... unless you believe it causes things using some magic or is outside all understanding... that would make you no different from a religious person... is that what you are? ... because if so there is no point in continuing further. You already believe in something just because you don't believe in its apparent only alternative... sounds to me like you haven't even examined to see if a prime mover is logically possible... yet you base your thesis on it existing???

Here is where I examine the notion of a prime move... by asking some questions and answering them, let me know if you disagree:

If an uncaused cause exists then this prime mover... must have always existed... true or false? It must be true because nothing caused it to start therefore it must have always existed.

As it has always existed it is unchanging because there isn't anything that can cause an uncaused prime mover to change.

If it can't change then how can it change from a time when it hadn't caused into something that can be the cause of something? It can't.

Also, it would have to be one indivisible entity because parts would 'cause' the whole entity to exist and that would be a cause which the prime mover cannot have... by definition. Therefore this partless entity is impossible because all entities must have parts... a partless entity is impossible.

If you don't agree Fil then just explain in a detailed reasoned way how a prime mover e.g. has parts or can change from not being a cause to being a cause of something other than itself.

I have more arguments against a prime mover (an uncaused causer).

For example (read it all not just the highlighted section):

At the heart of Jñānagarbha's argument against the tenability of causality is his argument that none of the possible ways of looking at the relation of conditions and their effects are workable. There are four possibilities. Either many conditions produce a single effect, or many conditions produce many effects, or a single condition produces many effects, or a single condition produces a single effect.

His presentation of an explanation for why each of these possibilities is untenable is in places terse and difficult to decipher. A single thing, such as vision, cannot be the effect of many conditions, such as the eye, visible color, an attentive mind and so forth, he says, because the effect has the feature of being one, while the causes are many, but there is nothing to account for what causes the reduction of many things to one. Without some coherent account of how a manifold can be reduced to a singularity, this hypothesis ends up being merely an assertion. If one imagines that a manifold set of causes produces a complex multiplicity of effects, then one is saying in effect that each component of the complex cause is producing one component of the complex effect, and this amounts to saying that there are many instances of one cause producing one effect. On the other hand, if one thinks that each aspect of the complex effect is a single effect of the totality of features within the complex cause, then one is saying that a single effect has many conditions, which has already been ruled out.

Moreover, one faces the problem of explaining how the same totality of causes can have many distinct effects, each of which is a feature of the complex effect putatively arising from the causal complex. If one imagines that a multiplicity, such as the manifold universe, arises out of a single cause, such as God or Brahman or consciousness, then one must provide a coherent account of what causes the differentiation among the many effects. What one would expect is that some auxiliary condition combines with the single cause to produce different effects; but if that is the case, then a single cause plus an auxiliary condition is not really just a single cause.

Finally, one might imagine that a single cause produces a single effect, such as when one momentary phenomenon perishes and in the act of perishing gives rise to a subsequent momentary phenomenon of the same kind. That, however, is impossible, since the putative cause must go entirely out of existence before its successor can takes its place, and once the preceding phenomenon has ceased to exist, there is nothing to cause its successor to arise. Since none of the possible ways of explaining causality turns out to survive close analysis, one can only conclude that the very ideas of causality, and of arising and perishing, and of unity and multiplicity cannot correspond to reality.

Causality and arising and perishing and all the various relations that furnish the framework of conventional truth may be indispensable to conventional truth, but they cannot be features of reality. Jñānagarbha, like the Mādhyamikas who came before him, sees conventional truth as a kind of screen or obstacle to the reality that becomes apparent only to an awareness that is unencumbered by concepts and narratives.

A prime mover just means something that has no cause, or something from which you cannot regress any further. In fact the very idea of a prime mover undermines the classic notion of causation n rather applies the concept of causation as perfect correlation of patterns of events.

Second the most advanced theories in science point into a prime mover be it the Big Bang of our Universe or the Multiverse, there are a number of possible models . They certainly don't point to an infinite regress.
So no this has nothing to do with religion...this is the old problem of having a foundation. Infinities prevent a solid foundation to reality. Nothing can be explained in them as everything requires infinities. Infinite complexity, infinite energy, infinite mass, infinite number of steps to get anywhere n so on.


More even if they did point to an infinite regress, there is another way of talking on a prime mover in which time never stops but that nonetheless is a prime mover.
Imagine the number of phenomena possible in a given set of space like the number of combinations of a magical cube. This number is clearly not infinite, it has a limit. That is what physicists call the possible landscape. This possible landscape is a loop as it repeats over and over and over but it ads no novelty to the number of combinations that are possible to get. In this sense the prime mover is the whole of reality repeating itself forever. A collection of forms, a set which clearly has a limit. As I explained the prime mover itself as a whole doesn't change once the number of possible combinations does not increase, its always the same. And yet just like an ant going round and round a sphere you encounter no limits to time you need not ever stop.

The case is very simple igm either you take a geometry of infinity with infinite regress of causes with infinite variety in which case the probability of anything ever connecting with anything else in a orderly manner is infinitely small or alternatively you take a finite model which makes sense of a given possible number of combinations between order and disorder between having galaxies stars n planets up to just having a soup of quarks when it fades back into energy...its a cycle.
This cycle, a collection of N finite states, works like a 4D movie a collection of all spacetime possible variations of events. It is eternal.
The problem is you people in fact are full of pre concepts of prejudice as soon you hear a given popular expression attributed to Religion like a "prime mover" an "uncased causer"...you immediately stop thinking and go on to straight ape mode.

Finally a word of advise...once and for all stop saying there is an alternative to either a finite or infinite state because its making you look cucu. This is unquestionable in any area or field of science you chose for reference I doubt even the crazy mind gang would dare to challenge this.

many hindu deities including krishna have brought dead bodies back to life. krishna was equally a real human as jesus, records of his life place him around 3000BC. just as there are records of jesus doing miracles, there are many with krishna and countless other deities worldwide.\

good

if he actually said, 'nobody else', which i doubt, then that was his mistake. of course every single human, every single atom even, is the 'way to god', in my opinion.

i had a long debate with setanta and others regarding people viewing god as separate from the universe. setanta thinks that all abrahamic religions certainly view god as separate and distinct from the universe. i argued that the teachings probably point to god being the same as the universe. you seem to be proving me right, so perhaps christianity, or your version of it, isn't all that terrible. i think the main problem is the fear christians have of hell, and therefore the need to accept jesus as the ONLY good thing, anything else will condemn you to hell.

completely false. even if you have only 5 particles in space total, there are infinite possibilities for phenomena for those particles. the particles can move in infinite ways. how? because the distance/angle travelled by a particle can change to infinite degrees. even with only 5 particles, or only one particle, there is certainly no finite amount of positions in space, because the very definition of a 'position' must include a distance scale, which can infinitely be changed.

so the prime mover is just the entire universe? this points to what i was saying that god=universe, and that neither are ABSOLUTELY REAL. you are clinging to universe as absolutely real.

please explain the limit of these collection of forms in more detail. i am certain it is unlimited and infinite both in composition and in potential.


not at all, i agree that sound logic can get you to the point where you are. a prime mover. but logic can also take you further, but you refuse to go further, you are stuck where frank and olivier live, in 'what is is' land, in limited rationalism, limited logic.


i will happily challenge.
THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE to infinite vs finite state. why? because both imply an absolute reality. infinite implies that compared to absolute reality, this state goes on forever, and is limitless. finite implies that within absolute reality, it has limits. if the concept of 'absolute reality' is discarded, then neither infinite or finite make any sense. infinite means never ending, but ending implies space or time, which imply absolute reality of them.

Wrong consider space at plank scale as quantized space not continuous...you ought to learn some more Cosmology before you spout nonsense !

Now people should be reminded that we live in a Universe that is still growing and fast expanding as the galaxies keep growing apart from each other...there is nothing to prevent our Universe in the far future will be as big as a googolplex. What matters for finite vs infinite debate is that as soon as all galaxies and matter evaporate into energy then probably the expansion will alt. Such a Universe has not an infinite possible number of states even if it repeats itself.

from wiki on planck length:


you are simply thinking that space is finite, because physicists have CREATED a unit called planck length just to DEFINE the point where they cannot measure further. it is just heisenberg trying to turn infinite into finite:

from wiki:
"The idea of quantum spacetime was proposed in the early days of quantum theory by Heisenberg and Ivanenko as a way to eliminate infinities from quantum field theory."

thanks for the reminder, we all knew that though.


so what?

yes, such a universe has infinite possible states.

even a single atom has infinite possible states. the electron locations are infinite within a cloud, and can only ever be approximated with a probability. the planck length gives a physical limit to the measuring of a 'position', but does not eliminate the possibility of subtler, immeasurable 'positions' existing.

oh gosh...you are beyond hope...bye !

Fil, you should try to refute your own belief; starting with the first assumption you make... you have the intellect to do this... to see your theory is built on something less substantial than metaphysical... thin air... you'll be happier, eventually going forward, if you can manage it.

Infinite regress and an uncaused causer are just concepts and as such are meaningless and therefore are trumped by not believing in either because of many, many sound reasons not to believe in them.

ROFL, so i clearly disprove your stupid theory about planck scale meaning that the universe is indeed finite with finite number of states.

and your response is..


pathetic buddy. don't pretend to be a scientist if you can't argue science. you tell me to learn cosmology, yet you can't even grasp the idea behind the planck scale, the heisenberg principle of uncertainty, this goes beyond your baby intellect?

I think some atheists assume that a person who believes in God is intellectually inferior. They assume a person can't possibly be an independent thinker or must be a lazy thinker simply for believing in the existence of God. This is not the case obviously. Einstein professed " I'm not an atheist" and he obviously had a magnificent brain. The flip side is many theists including some Christians are incredibly arrogant and feel " morally" superior to those who don't share their beliefs. They stand in legalistic judgment of others and think of themselves as somehow more enlightened simply for believing in the existence of God. Most agnostics I've met seem willing to contemplate the possibility of the existence of a god if presented with evidence..They don't seem as rigid as other groups to me. I think holding a single belief doesn't make you smarter or morally superior..it's all in case by case basis.

I don't think god belief is so much an intellectual exercise as an emotional one. The believer may search for cause to justify the belief, but most could never shake it if they decided to try. It's part of who they are. And, for my money, so long as they don't hurt others or themselves, they are welcome to their belief.

Technically, Jesus was an alien visitor making first contact with humans, so I'm sure every open-minded person would be fascinated to listen to what he's got to say..
Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....I am not of this world....I'll tell you things hidden since the creation of the world" ((John 8:14/8:23, Matt 13:35)
Hey Spock will you listen to him?

"Affirmative, it would be illogical not to listen"

A " believer" can be more intelligent than a non-believer. Most non-believers (and believers as well) have never produced a single original thought in their entire life but merely adopt what has already been established by others. I use the Einstein example to explain how someone can be devote his life to intellectual pursuit and be a theist as well. A find sometimes people can think in a rigid way do so in every aspect of life. I find it interesting that so many believers tend to be very judgmental of others even those who share their principles. I agree that once you choose your principles and form an identity as an individual , change is difficult . Some never challenge why they believe what they do and simply adopt the values and/or ideas of others.

Your are beyond idiotic and that is why I chose to not address you !
WTF has the uncertainty principle have to do with the possible geometry on quantized space ??? Where did you took that moronic idea from ?
Whether you can know or not know the velocity or position of a particle says nothing on the number of possible states of a particle. It only says you cannot be sure at any moment what is the state.
On the same account I may not know that Washington is the capital of USA but the fact that I don't know wont make Washington disappear.
You are prolly the most stupid ignorant obnoxious troll ever walked A2K i've come across so far, I mean is just beyond belief... can't you really tell just how dumb your remarks look, has no one closer to you told you yet ? You are a mesh of nonsense, an endless soup of confusion. Now get the **** out of my sight you pathetic clown, I have far better things to do then listen to your **** !

Creativity has a strong bearing on problem solving. So maybe some believe in God in order to try to understand not only our world but the universe as well. Discoverers, inventors, explorers and even mathematicians tend to be creative people. If someone had not speculated that maybe what is makes us sick is something we cannot see the field of microbiology would not exist.