Ok.

Do you have an argument to go with this claim that non-belief is really a belief?

When you're through watching TV, do you turn it off or change it to the "OFF" channel?

I'd argue that you don't prove facts, you observe facts. Then you come up with explanations for those facts, and test those explanations by the predictions they make, usually by observing new facts. "Rationality" is the art of judging the correctness of an explanation by its congruence with observed facts, and its ability to predict new facts.

You can't prove anything to the point of absolute certainty. Hypothesis and theories are not "facts," they are descriptions of processes and inter-relations. As such, they are potentially incorrect. They are always contingent upon new data, new observed facts.

This doesn't exclude them from rationality in the slightest.

Not believing in magic is not only rational, it is the only logical conclusion. Belief in magic (or God, or any other supernatural being) is irrational. Not because it hasn't been proven, but because it is completely contrary to our observed facts, and our contingent (and rational) hypothesis and theories. That is: it is completely incongruent with observed reality.

Anyway, so far I've not seen a decent argument against the rationalism of atheism. A lack of belief in something that isn't observably there is perfectly rational. It should be the default position for all of the infinite things we have not observed to be there.

Welcome.

You touch upon a point that I raised in my very first thread. Atheistic materialism is ultimately absurd because it views life as being ultimately absurd.

By the way, this forum frowns upon stating the obvious.

Agreed. To believe that life is ultimately without meaning and purpose is...well...absurd!

Agreed. The term "freethinking atheist" is actually an oxymoron. The atheist is not a free thinker, but a slave to the dogma of materialism.

Paisley, please provide evidence for the claim that the Earth was made in six literal days 6000 years ago.

You write this statement seemingly with the idea "I gotcha!" Sorry to disappoint, but my conception of God is slightly more sophisticated than yours. Apparently, your atheism is only limited to "Mickey Mouse" ideas of God (e.g. the "Old Man in the Sky," the "Flying Spaghetti Monster," and the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" ). This probably explains why you label yourself an atheist. If I had such an immature idea of God, I too would identify myself as an atheist. I suggest that grow up and become theologically more literate and then come back and see me.

Seriously, what's the problem here? Drugs or is it something else?

No, the point is definitely relevant because it highlights the basic difference between a materialistic worldview and a spiritual one.

Yes, it is. Materialism is the view that physical matter is the only fundamental reality.

This is the whole point. Appearances can be deceiving. Materialism is based on the belief that permanent "things" (a.k.a. as particles) constitute fundamental reality and that all change can be explained simply in terms of a reconfiguration of these particles. This is the primary illusion - that the world actually consists of permanent objects and exists independently of conscious-awareness. 

Materialism is based on substantialism, not processism. What you are espousing is processism and it is not compatible with materialism.

I will concede that materialists are vainly attempting to redefine the term so that it is compatible with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But in so doing, they are rendering the term meaningless.

Probability waves are not physical things; they're mathematical absractions. And mathematical abstractions do not exist independent of a mind that abstracts. So why call yourself a materialist (a.k.a. physicalist) when you have dispensed with the physical? This is misleading, if not downright deceitful. To argue that probability waves and mathematical abstractions constitute fundamental reality is an argument for immaterialism, not materialism.

That was not evidence that the world was created in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago.

('Your' concept? How marvelous. So you've taken the Abrahamic God trope and simply romanced it into your world as best you could by put blinders on that block-out all the unreasonable aspects of Creationism.

How cute.

How arbitrary).

No, the point that you're missing is that it is not a redefinition of materialism, but a definition of matter that sits at the heart of this and so it is the implication of materialism which is changed, not the definition. Matter as a process of interactions is still matter, and matter as the physicalist defines it remains an entirely valid proposition; the distinction is that it is formed from observations made at another level.  The process description and the physical description are abstractions, what they describe is what exists, and they do not describe distinct things. Therefore, materialism, the view that this abstraction 'physical' applies to all fundamental things, that all things are matter, remains perfectly valid, it is not dispensed with at all.

This brings us to the relevant contention which is between neutral monism and physical monism. Neutral monism takes no sides between the abstractions, between the technical observation (experimentation) and the personal observation (sensory reality), neutral monism gives both abstractions equal weight as descriptors of matter whereas physical monism sees the technical observation as referring objectively to the personal observation so they're weighted unevenly according to their type.

It's not immaterialism, and it's not an argument that mathematical abstractions are fundamental reality. One can argue that fundamental reality correlates so precisely well to mathematics that what is fundamentally real may be mathematical in nature, but this is not to say that our mathematical abstractions are the reality, only that mathematical language is our best tool for preserving the state of the observed reality into abstraction.

I continue to grant you that the concept of materialism can be very misleading, but the position of materialism itself is not undermined by the error of it's adherents. Materialism is sound enough, but it desperately needs wider discussion.

Hey Paisley, just what the Hell is your concept of God anyway, given that it's apparently not the standard creationist trope?

This oughta be good.

'Elemental mind'? How ambiguous.

You think that fire and electricity can think and shit, then?

EDIT:

I'll assume you're familiar with the term 'trope'? As in, 'You stole the 'God' trope from creationism in the first place'?

Because that blows your claim that I set-up a strawman out of the water.

In the spirit of my righteously indignant atheistic Jesus, and in modern style of linguists, as fowl mouth George Carlin, I strongly disagree with you.  And as I have said a few times, thank you P sincerely for your posts that we can bounce communication, so all can learn of what we are. We are Fucking ignorant is our first revelation to wisdom. Please feel free to cuss at me. Can you cuss, or is that against your pantheism world view?

Drunk or not, I love you more, Fucker ....   

My point is some things aren't worth actually debating and need to be attacked, to heal. Like all dogma ..... Fuck Dogma, god damn it !  ..... Get (the fuck out of my way) SATAN, Jesus said to Peter ....  -------------------------

Yeah Eloise , teacher of the ONENESS, as you say, "a metaphysical position of materialism" ....   Yep, and when we understand it will no longer be metaphysical. We are simply ignorant, As Nigel the Bold said, "We don't know" .....

    Why make shit up P and spout it as truth? Keep the awe, stop the dogma ....

Which is why he's basically an atheist - his "god" is so watered down and useless to be of any real significance in his life.

Dawkins has him pegged - no matter how often he tries to get away.

You provide me with your resume to support your arguments; I cite credible sources to support mine. That's the difference between my posts and yours.

Paul Davies (science writer and physics professor at Arizona State University) states emphatically and unequivocally that "quantum events are not determined by preceding causes." This is why it is called indeterminism. Duh!

Chaos theory states that minor changes of data in the initial conditions of a dynamic system can be exponentially amplified to such an extent that as the system evolves over time it becomes impossible to predict (for all intents and practical purposes) the effect that such minor changes will have on the final state of that system (e.g. forecasting a weather system). However, chaos theory is a deterministic theory, not an indeterminate one. (I have already cited sources to support this claim.) Note that chaos theory is considered to be UNPREDICTABLE and yet DETERMNISTIC. Why? Because the unpredictability is based on practical concerns of the complexity involved in determining how all the cause and effect relationships will play out whenever minor changes are made to the data of the initial conditions of a system. However, the same cannot be said of QM. Quantum events are unpredictable precisely because they are INDETERMINATE. They (i.e. the quantum events) are believed to be inherently unpredictable (not because of complexity) but because they are "pure chance" events and without cause. This is what you're not getting!

Also, you are appealing to speculation by stating "chaotic energy fluctuations at the planck scale are sufficient to explain QM, while remaining firmly in the realm of materialism." This is not quantum theory. This is not a scientific theory that has been tested and verified. This is mere speculation! Quantum theory is not based on chaos theory.

I suspect that the connection between chaos theory and quantum mechanics may be to provide an explanation how small perturbations (random quantum fluctuations) in the microworld (i.e. quantum events) can have a major effect in the macroworld. The argument is sometimes made that quantum events are only relevant in the microworld of subatomic particles, not in the macroworld of Newtonian physics. Chaos theory can provide a basis to explain why this is not so and that the macroworld may also be indeterminate.

Yes, willfully ignorant! Once again, you give me your resume while I provide you with a credible source. I said to read it and reread it until you get it. It says that "the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge." Did you get it? It cannot be explained in terms of some other DETERMINISTIC theory (such as Chaos Theory)!

Now, unless you can provide me with a credible source that refutes quantum indeterminacy, then don't bother responding to this post. Don't give me your resume, give me an authoritative source. If you can do that and stop flinging personal insults, then maybe I would be more willing to consider what you have to say.

I am fully aware that probability theory has numerous applications and is used to describe processes that, for all intents and practical purposes, are considered to be random. However, probabilities in the context of QM is being used to describe a phenomenon that is believed to be a "pure chance" event. This is what you're not getting!

I will grant you that quantum theory may be falsified sometime in the future (all scientific theories are subject to being falsified). And what was previously believed to be a pure chance event may then be viewed as only having the appearance of a random event. But until quantum theory is falsified, then you do not have the luxury of saying that we do not have scientific evidence for "uncaused events." We most certainly do. This is why I can say that the prevailing scientific evidence suggests that materialism is invalid because it has been undermined by quantum mechanics.

Previously, you described theses hypotheses with an acronym - I believe the term you used was "SWAG" or something like that. Can you please define what the acronym stands for. I can't remember. Thank you.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is actually an interpretation that is held by most scientists (a whopping 60%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Do you believe that MWI is testable and falsifiable? Please explain to me how 60% of scientists believe in an infinite number of parallel universes for which there is absolutely no scientific proof? I would say this smacks of metaphysics. What do you think?

I did do my research. Thank you very much. And this is why I can say there are no "explanations" for "uncaused events" (not unless you consider metaphysical ones).

Incidentally, quantum indeterminacy is not the only aspect of QM that undermines materialism. There are other aspects - namely, quantum superposition (that an electron can apparently be in all places at the same time prior to collaspe of the wave function), quantum entanglement (what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" ), and nonlocality (information is exchanged superluminally (faster than the speed of light)....actually information is exchanged simultaneously). Take all this account and then factor Bell's theorem into the mix, which states that there is no deterministic theory (hidden local variables) that can reproduce all the predictions made by quantum theory, and you will basically sound the death knell of materialism. May it forever rest in peace.

It's called platonic forms (e.g. mathematical abstractions) and presupposes a universal mind (the idealism of Plato). If scientists make the argument that mathematics forms the structure of ultimate reality (rather than merely describing certain aspects of it), then they are making a tacit argument for some kind of pantheistic idealism. By the way, I have read that physicists and mathematicians have a much higher rate of theistic belief than their colleagues in the other natural sciences (e.g. chemistry and biology). I suspect this due to the argument I just made.

Your contempt for philosophical reflection probably explains why you have failed to acquire a basic understanding of the term "indeterminism" and what it implies.

On that, we definitely agree. (Except, I suspect, for our definition of "indeterminate." )

See, here's the problem: you are mistaking philosophical indeterminacy with quantum indeterminacy. They are not the same.

Quantum indeterminacy means simply that you cannot measure a unique state of a quantum system. You can measure a single property, but not the full, unique state. That is, it is "unknowable." If you read the Wiki article on quantum indeterminacy, you will see there's not one mention of "uncaused" events.

Scientists are not in agreement on this subject. For instance, the quantum decoherence crowd believes that every possible superposition is realized, resulting in the "multi-universe" concept. This essentially means that each instance of the superposition isn't random, but inevitable.

Another example:  Gerard 't Hooft proposes a model which is strictly chaotic, in which particles and their properties are composed of planck-scale artefacts.

Then there's your assertion that the Copenhagen Interpretation is non-causal:

The Copenhagen Interpretation specifies only that the system is statistical in nature, not that it is uncaused. The CI specifically does not provide "insight into the nature" of the randomness.

That has not even remotely been established. Not by you, not by any physicist. Not by anyone. That's what you're not getting.

Physicists studying QM can't even agree on the nature of the randomness, as I hope I have successfully established. Your constant assertions that they have is inconsistent with reality.

One of the reasons I gave you my "resume" was to provoke you into revealing you are a philosopher, most likely a philosophy professor. In my experience, they are the only ones who insist (as you do) that the "uncaused events" is the sole possible interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Although physicists often have their own beliefs (such as the many-worlds interpretation of quantum decoherence), most will admit that they have no proof (yet), and that other possibilities (espoused by other physicists) are also likely.

I agree that uncaused events is one possible interpretation. I get that. However, it's not the only possible interpretation; nor is it the one that is most accepted. (As I pointed out, the CI does not specify whether the randomness is "caused" or "uncaused." )

Therefore, you can talk of probabilities, and of potential consequences. However, you cannot state categorically that quantum events are uncaused and remain in the realm of the current ontology.

Now, our problem may be that we are simply quibbling over the meaning of "causal" events. But I don't think so, as you seem to get that chaos and "pure chance" are distinct.

"Scientific Wild-Assed Guess."

It definitely smacks of metaphysics. I agree. It's an outcome that is predicted by quantum decoherence, but there's no way to access data on whether or not these "other worlds" even exist.

Definitely sounds like metaphysics to me.

Bell's theorom rules out local variables. It doesn't rule out global variables. (Planck-scale energy variances, the same phenomena that potentially gives rise to virtual particles.)

I'll get to the others in a bit. Gotta run.

Eloise kicks ass

Truer words have never been said.

I told you this one Paisley. You cannot characterise quantum theory itself as non-deterministic, the formalism of the theory can be taken to infer that events have no preceding causes if that formalism is considered with a certain eye but there is no more evidence for this conclusion than there is for other relevant deterministic conclusions (ie Bohm is still kicking regardless of how you dismiss it, and the Everettian version is as brilliant as ever it was.)

This is a common misconception about MWI, and allow me to set you straight.  When you don't 'measure' the path of a photon it takes every path and leaves concrete evidence of having literally done so - This is called an interference pattern. Quantum interference patterns are formally the result of superposition states interacting with each other and in order to interact with each other each superposition state must somehow EXIST. Hence the foundation of the many worlds interpretation - IF this thing that does exist (important to note) exists universally also (which it should do, we have no evidence or concrete reason to suspect that it doesn't) then there is a multiverse. This is not a metaphysical world view, Paisley, this is a scientific hypothesis. Interference EXISTS, what does it exist as if not exactly what the wave equation supplies formally THAT it exists as? ie copies of the universe.

There are other scientific hypotheses that end up with MWI, but the good thing about this one is that it is so easy to show how scientific it is.

MWI simply states -

!. A exists (known)

2. A exists as the entity the relevant model predicts.

Huh? What is this all about?

To begin with, I have never stated that I believe that the CCC is the only correct interpretation of QM. In fact, I have never argued for the CCC. I don't know where you are getting this and why you are accusing me of this. That being said, I do believe that conscious-awareness is fundamental and I have publicly stated this. But this is not because of any QM interpretation commitment. My religious or spiritual beliefs are not founded on QM. It's based on faith or what I call a basic spiritual intuition.

Secondly, there are aspects of various QM interpretations that I like. However, I have not studied every QM interpretation that has been formulated. Therefore, I am not committed to any particular one. 

Thirdly, I was not arguing against the MWI per se. (Actually, the idea of many worlds appeals to my sensibilities.) I was simply suggesting that it was really a metaphysical position and not a bonafide scientific hypothesis (i.e. it's not really testable or falsifiable). No doubt, it is a metaphysical position that is grounded in rigorous mathematics - mathematics that is way beyond my level of understanding; nevertheless, it's only a metaphysical position. And I might add that Nigel agrees with me on this.

Fourthly, I am not against metaphysical belief - after all, I have openly professed belief in God. The only reason I am making the argument that MWI is a metaphysical belief is that atheists characterize belief in God as being irrational (at least the atheist materialists who subscribe to logical positivism...I will assume that both Nigel and Bob Spence fall into this category).  My argument is basically this: The atheist materialist who subcribes to logical positivism cannot subscribe to metaphysical beliefs when their philosophical commitment doesn't allow it. Certainly, the atheist cannot say that belief in God is irrational while permitting himself the luxury of believing in a multi-verse. This is what is ridiculous. They can't have it both ways. And I'm simply letting them know.

Fifthly, why are you taking this hissy fit about RQM? I have never said anything specifically against RQM. I understand that RQM is related to the MWI and that you may be somewhat offended that I called MWI metaphysics. But, as I said previously, I'm actually inclined to believe in parallel worlds. And I certainly have a relational or process worldview. In fact, I recently completed Alan B. Wallace's book entitled "Hidden Dimensions." He has a background in physics, philosophy of science, and Buddhism. In his book, Wallace presents a theory he calls the "special and general theory of ontological relativity." I found it very appealing and it seems to mesh with RQM. So, I'm not really attacking RQM.

Finally, I am happy to see that you are voicing your views. However, what are you really voicing. Are you making an argument for some kind of theistic or spiritual belief? Are you challenging atheistic materialism? Are you explaining how RQM relates to panentheism? If you are, I haven't seen it yet.

I explained this to you in the other thread, your argument for absolute fundamental indeterminacy explained by the caprice of a conscious will is precisely a CCC type theory, the only way it is possible that an 'elemental mind' can determine a unique outcome of a quantum measurement is via a post-measurement projection from the pure state into the measured state which prescribes that the rest of the wavefunction 'collapse'. Thus what you have stated is that you do favour CCC.

I have no objection to this in itself, you can favour any explanation you want and build whatever metaphysic takes your fancy from it, given the circumstances this is all quite reasonable in my estimation. Where you were mistaken most greatly was in then stating that a no collapse interpretation was without evidence, I'm afraid you forfeited the luxury of saying that when you chose to favour collapse with equally negligible evidence. You see?

The thing to note here is that many worlds is not merely a metaphysical position, at least it's not any more than saying 'colour is a wavelength of light and not a thing in itself' is a metaphysical position. That is to say, it's actually not really metaphysical at all, it is a very faithful analogue of formal Quantum mechanics. I hope I'll be able to clarify this for you.

I know you're not against a metaphysical belief, that is not why I argued back about MWI. When I say that MWI is mischaracterised by the word metaphysical it's because I mean it's mischaracterised by the word metaphysical, not because I take offense to the idea of a metaphysical position.

Okay, so the idea of parallel universe reeks of metaphysics, I concede that much but the MWI itself does not speculate that many worlds underlie the quantum phenomenon, it simple follows quantum formalism directly, avoiding assumptions, to that conclusion.

I understand what you are saying about the logical positivist line that god belief is irrational and I empathise with your feelings toward it. That said, it doesn't bother me much as I am far more interested in the general advancement of human knowledge than in getting heated over a small slight that is actually quite true in a great many cases.

Well clearly, then, it was inadvertant so I apologise for the hissy fit.

Here I was addressing a frustrating misconception about what it means to think the multiverse is a true theory, so no, it's not meant to say anything in particular about how RQM relates to panentheism, only, obviously, that it does in regards to my beliefs.

I used to do that also, but I got tired of finding out that things I presumed false were actually true.  Now, I instead presume that a thing is unknown until shown to be either true or false.  It seems, however, that the bright folks who brought us Battleground God (http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm) think that this would require me to consider all sorts of wild possibilities, like pink elephants living on the surface of Venus.  This is not true, however!  I can simply say that I don't care whether or not there are pink elephants living on the surface of Venus and go about my business.

God test: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm 

Hi Eloise. I Bit one Bullet too , so they say, quote;

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.  /////
_____________________________

No, you gave me only 2 options. You bite the bullet. Do I need proof I exist? Evolution basics is 100%  proven, not how life began etc.

Damn fucking nitpickers !  LOL ....   

I also think a "God definition" needs to be stated before the test. igod !

_____________________________

A question regarding the "Force": What came first Consciousness or E/M ?  Go philosophy science. Buddha answers, whatever, "don't "worry" about it, and please no dogma".  

I say it's ONE connected damn interesting "vibration" ! Let's party to the vibration ! 

    Seriously tho, seems C is a product of E/M , not the other way around. Just my lame guess     What Am I , (god of course), but what is that ?  

____________________________

For new readers, basics about Pantheism, Panentheism. Any objections Eloise etc to this wiki explanation ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

Thanks Eloise. Ahhh, "biting the bullet". I get it. Ha ha, I do alot of that, claiming you and I and everything is god ! You are a kind teacher ..... pretty too ....

Thanks for putting up with the theist badge. I really think RRS should include a "Pantheist" badge, because that non dogmatic God philosophy message is helpful to the people .... 

Hey girl, you is a "sexed up atheist" ! (Richard Dawkins)    You rock E !   LOL 

I took one bullet.  In the question regarding the proof for god I did not put it in the same category as the evidence that supports evolution.  I think that evolution and the proposition of god are categorically different.  I didn't bite the bullet in case I was actually wrong... I really don't think I was, but someone can tell me if indeed I am.  Evolution is a theory that is built upon laws and massive amounts of evidence.  A theory can necessarily be altered by new evidence in order to maintain its descriptive abilities.  God, on the other hand, exists or does not, the proposition is not a theory.  There is only one required piece of evidence to prove the existence of god, for god to tell me he exists -and that's a part from the other evidence I'd accept to make me really suspicious or even to make me believe.

I bit one bullet on saying if god exists he should be able to create square circles or make 1 + 1 = 17. Well, to me anything else wouldn't be omniscience.