Difference between 'nothing' and a 'vacuum'

[warpspeedpetey]

Gaps in scientific understanding. QUOTE]

i mean what gap are you accusing me of filling with G-d? specifically.

So here you generalize the second law of thermodynamics to all nature, but not the first. If the first law is generalized to all nature, you’ve accepted an eternal universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A non-physical event certainly lacks physical evidence, so you rule out one of your own objections. As far as violating known laws of physics (I won’t go into philosophy), there is nothing that says nature can’t do this. Our understanding of natural principles is known to be both incomplete and imperfect.

indeed it does, it is a matter of logical necessity.

Of course we lack verification, and who knows what if any form it would take. We are going to need new physics that we just don’t have. I don’t think that makes it an impossibility.

we lack evidence and thats enough for me, i approach metaphysics like a hard science, i try to work from observation to principles.

i already have a religion

Years ago I used arguments near identical to yours to justify my beliefs and eventually when I thought through them at length the last reason I had to believe vanished. I was using them because in some sense I wanted to try to believe to please my family, etc. I’m not suggesting that these are your reasons for faith as they were in my case, or speculate if this is your principle reason for believing as it was mine years ago. Still, your arguments are so close to mine back then it’s like typing to a StarTrek-esque temporal anomaly of myself

since i made these formal arguments myself, i doubt you used them in the past, unless your reffering to Thomistics. but they publish that all over the place.

that said, i was an atheist a couple decades ago, to justify acting in manners i knew to be immoral, without guilt, i was using your arguments to make my family mad. after college i completely changed my mind. the arguments were weak and emotionally driven. i grew up to be a rationalist.

there was a thin veneer of rationalism at university, but it covered an ocean of anti religious fervor. i couldnt square rationalist examination of the arguments with and observations with logic. i eventually realized that when i pressed atheists hard enough, they held the position because of desire not rationalism. thats how i got here.

look, believing in an eternal universe is the ultimate end of these arguments for the atheist. it is the only way there could be a universe without cause. unfortunately it violates some physics, it violates our observations, it violates some philosophical principles, and it has no evidence, nor is it even logically necessary. only something that some wish were possible.

if you beleive in the eternal universe, how is that an different than an eternal G-d? the more you argue it, the closer you come to theism. your just calling the universe G-d.

boiled down we all believe in something eternal and uncaused, for me it is the logically necessary nonphysical, for you, its the universe.

you have no evidence, i only have logical necessity.

still the logical necessity outweighs an idea with no evidence, contrary to our observations.

I’m saying that we have empirical evidence to support the conservation of energy. It is one of the most powerful predictive principles of physics. We generalize through the uniformity of nature. It may be an incorrect or induction or over generalization. Any induction could be incorrect or an over generalization – that is the nature of the induction beast. So no, we don’t know.

and yet we see a creation in the BB, because FLOT only applies to physical entities as far as we know, and its specific to this universe. things prior cant be held to that satndard for that reason

However, I see no need to introduce an additional assumption of a first cause.

its not an additional assumption, everyhting lies on a causal chain in this universe, to say it didnt need a cause goes back to that special pleading

Even though both are at least at present unprovable, they are not on equal standing - at least from a physics perspective. There is nothing indicating either the requirement or the utility for a non-physical first cause.

except for the impossibility of self causation. thats why only a non-physical cause is possible.

something that doesnt exist cant act to cause itself because it doesnt exist, there is no possible scientific explanation for that reason. science only deals with physical phenomenon.

so physicists, unless they have some philosophy, are probably entirely unaware they are on a wild goose chase.

 

[aileron]

indeed it does, it is a matter of logical necessity.

The physics in no way require this logical necessity. The leading physicists of the 20th century, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, etc. rejected supernatural causes for nature. This is even more the case with leading physicists today.

since i made these formal arguments myself, i doubt you used them in the past

You may have formulated the arguments independently but they are common. In fact, your arguments are variants of St. Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument with attempts to tighten his premises with modern physics.

that said, i was an atheist a couple decades ago, to justify acting in manners i knew to be immoral, without guilt

Why would being an atheist justify your immoral behavior? You still have a responsibility to yourself and your fellow human beings to engage in moral behavior. You can do this without belief in an omniscient being that rewards or punishes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The physics in no way require this logical necessity.

not surprising, logic isnt based on physics, physics is based like all sciences on logic. thats putting the cart before the horse.

The leading physicists of the 20th century, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, etc. rejected supernatural causes for nature.This is even more the case with leading physicists today.

.

apparently they were wrong on that subject.

You may have formulated the arguments independently but they are common. In fact, your arguments are variants of St. Thomas Aquinas’s cosmological argument with attempts to tighten his premises with modern physics.

Thomism is indeed the basis for my arguments, though i dont think even he was the first person to state the general principles. and yes, i veiw it through the modern lens of education. but it is an attempt to explore the logical ramifications of of causality.

so i stand on the shoulders of giants, we all do.

Why would being an atheist justify your immoral behavior?

no G-d, no morals. i can do what i want.

You still have a responsibility to yourself and your fellow human beings to engage in moral behavior.

where does this responsibility arise from? what makes me stick to it, when i desire something that violates it?

ive never felt any such responsibility, im not sure that anyone does. there is no such responsibility.

You can do this without belief in an omniscient being that rewards or punishes.

sure, you can choose to follow any path of behavior. that doesnt mean that you will. no carrot, no stick, no motivation.

i would trust people to do so, but after a few decades on the planet, ive noticed that people dont pay more than lip service to such an idea.

 

[aileron]

no G-d, no morals. i can do what i want.

I do what I want. What I want is to live morally. Is that so hard?

 

[aileron]

not surprising, logic isnt based on physics, physics is based like all sciences on logic. thats putting the cart before the horse.

You’re brand of the cosmological argument adds physics in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of Aquinas’s cosmological argument. The problem is, physicists know the cosmological argument all too well. The physics you throw into the argument fails on a number of levels, which explains why it was and is so unpersuasive to physicists.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do what I want. What I want is to live morally. Is that so hard?

darn near impossible for most people. your an atheist, so what morality do you follow, one you make up?

how does it benefit you to live morally? much less by subjective morality each man makes up on his own.

with the history of atheistic regimes, killinng more than a hundred million in just the last century, violations of human rights, pogroms, re education camps, forced abortion etc

im not impressed with self directed morality.

yes, i know, you arent impressed with our morality either.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You’re brand of the cosmological argument adds physics in an attempt to overcome the shortcomings of Aquinas’s cosmological argument.

there arent any shortcomings in the original argument, he wrote them in light of his times understanding of the world. modern people, who havent any theological knowledge assumes there are problems because of that.

but let me be clear, the nature of G-d has always been described as spirit. non-physical.

that lack of understanding Thomism is what you consider short comings.

The problem is, physicists know the cosmological argument all too well. The physics you throw into the argument fails on a number of levels, which explains why it was and is so unpersuasive to physicists.

i am interested in these physics problems your talking about. if you have a new one that hasnt been dealt with let me know.

frankly i dont know any physicists who know the cosmological argument, i know plenty who believe in G-d in one way or another.

i also wonder why you keep refering to physicists as the standard of belief. they are empiricists for the most part, philosophy interests them little

but to be clear, the argument in the OP stands on its own merits, no one need believe for it to be true. science cannot provide a natural explanation for the universe.

at this point you seem to have run out of counter arguemnts, and now are making appeals to popularity.

when you can no longer rationally supprt atheism as an alternative to theism, and given that there is no natural explanation possible. there is no rational, natural alternative. what do you do? do you accept that theism is a logically valid, observationally consistent with the universe position.

or do you just find a new reason to be an atheist?

its my position that most atheists will cling to it no matter what, they are really anti-religion, not rational atheists, but thats just my opinion.

 

[aileron]

frankly i dont know any physicists who know the cosmological argument, i know plenty who believe in G-d in one way or another.

Sure they know it. They hear it from religious people frequently. It’s pervasive in our culture. It’s been around for centuries. They may not know the name, but they know the argument. They overwhelmingly reject it. For instance, the US is more religious than Europe, but only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Science report belief in God, 20% report doubt, and 72% report disbelief. Among physicists in the National Academy of Science, 79% report disbelief.

i also wonder why you keep refering to physicists as the standard of belief. they are empiricists for the most part, philosophy interests them little

I’m not using them as the standard. I’m rejecting the bad physics you’ve sprinkled in with the cosmological argument. For the record, some of the brightest physicists have also been very passionate about philosophy, Einstein for instance. It did not lead him to suppose that a supernatural cause was required.

science cannot provide a natural explanation for the universe.

Science cannot provide an explanation for a lot of things. That does not mean there is not a natural explanation for them.

at this point you seem to have run out of counter arguemnts, and now are making appeals to popularity.

First, my counter arguments really aren’t required because your argument fails on its own. In any case, it would actually be an appeal to authority not popularity, and yes I am making one. Appeals to authority can be fallacious or not depending on the circumstances. In this particular circumstance, I think they are warranted because you have made incorrect assertions about physics that if correct would have led most physicists to a different conclusion.

when you can no longer rationally supprt atheism as an alternative to theism, and given that there is no natural explanation possible.

No natural explanation possible? This is wishful thinking on a number of levels.

there is no rational, natural alternative. what do you do? do you accept that theism is a logically valid, observationally consistent with the universe position.

I’m sure Zeus, Thor, and Brahman among others will be happy to hear this.

or do you just find a new reason to be an atheist?

Why do I need a reason to be an atheist? Do you need reasons not to believe in things that are hypothesized but not reasonably proven?

 

[aileron]

darn near impossible for most people.

I disagree. As a group atheists seem no more or less moral than theists. To be sure there are degenerate atheists, but there are degenerate theists too.

your an atheist, so what morality do you follow, one you make up?

I don’t know what gives people this idea that without religion people can’t have objective morality.

how does it benefit you to live morally?

It benefits everyone for people to live morally. Why would atheists be any exception?

much less by subjective morality each man makes up on his own.

Except for the things on which most everyone has agreed since the dawn of civilization, the Church makes it up on it’s own too. They just claim they don’t. A review of Church history shows that clearly enough.

with the history of atheistic regimes, killinng more than a hundred million in just the last century, violations of human rights, pogroms, re education camps, forced abortion etc

im not impressed with self directed morality.

This is a classic “with this, therefore because of this”, so I tend not to bother with it.

yes, i know, you arent impressed with our morality either.

We’re all humans.

 

[jean8]

You are correct that a physical Creator would have a beginning. (As would a Creator capable of imaginative thought, which is precluded by Christian dogma.)

I know of no metaphysical principles or philosophical logic that would exclude such a possibility. It is worth noting that one of the fundamental laws of physics declares that energy cannot be created or destroyed. There is no metaphysical or philosophical complaint against this law of which I am aware. Do you have one, or are you breathing through a straw here?

There is, however, a religious complaint, since the first law of thermodynamics is contrary to the opinion that God created the universe from nothing.

Clearly there will be objections to the idea that God had an origin on religious grounds, but we should not be confusing religious dogma with metaphysical speculation.

I had this conversation with my late husband some time ago… He had sometining written in his bible about the word, ‘nothing’ So I asked him, “What is nothing?”
I believe there was always someting because God was there. On the other hand, many things were always in the mind of God.
This can be an endless discussion. ‘nothing’? what is ‘nothing?’

jean

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sure they know it. They hear it from religious people frequently. It’s pervasive in our culture. It’s been around for centuries. They may not know the name, but they know the argument. They overwhelmingly reject it.

knowing something exists is diiferent than understanding it.

as i pointed out, physicists as all good scientists are empiricists, they expect a natural answer, because that is what they can observe.

only problem is the huge assumption that such a natural anwer is possible.

that is the true target of my argument, it shows that no natural explanation is possible, as the formal argument in the OP of the “science is worthless” thread.

For instance, the US is more religious than Europe, but only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Science report belief in God, 20% report doubt, and 72% report disbelief. Among physicists in the National Academy of Science, 79% report disbelief.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree. As a group atheists seem no more or less moral than theists. To be sure there are degenerate atheists, but there are degenerate theists too.

i dont know, here is the line where we would have to divide those who practice theism, and there are a great many who only pay it lip service. theism provides a moral structure, atheim does not

so while ther are good and bad on both sides. if one sincerely practices theism they can act morally, atheism simply provides no such framework.

I don’t know what gives people this idea that without religion people can’t have objective morality.

look around, all over the globe people practicing relativism come to different answers about what is moral.

individuals apparently have a hard time coming to an objective morality, if there was an objective morality than shouldnt all people come to it? regardless of culture, personal preference, or circumstance?

but they dont, so it would seem that an individual deciding his own morality cannot reacjan objective morality for everyone.

It benefits everyone for people to live morally. Why would atheists be any exception?

how does it benefit everyone to behave morally? what motivation does an atheist have to act morally?

Except for the things on which most everyone has agreed since the dawn of civilization, the Church makes it up on it’s own too. They just claim they don’t. A review of Church history shows that clearly enough.

as far as i know all morality is based on Scripture and Tradition

we have objective reasons for our morality, it isnt just picked from thin air.

This is a classic “with this, therefore because of this”, so I tend not to bother with it.

you like math, lets do a little corrrelation here

china- oficially atheist

soviet union- officially atheist,

khmer rouge- atheist

vietnam- atheist

cuba- atheist

warsaw pact- atheist.

if you know your history and statistics, the correlation is simply to high not to have a reasonable suspicion of a causal or contingent relationship between atheistic states and repressive regimes, pogroms, camps, etc.

of course that isnt proof, there can be other factors, but where there is smoke ther is usually fire, so i think suspicion would be warranted here on the math alone.

We’re all humans.

indeed

 

[JDaniel]

Sure they know it. They hear it from religious people frequently. It’s pervasive in our culture. It’s been around for centuries. They may not know the name, but they know the argument. They overwhelmingly reject it.

To be sure, I doubt you can find a physicist who can adequately explain Aquinas’ arguments to me. 90% of the Catholics, on this forum, don’t understand them and can’t explain them. You don’t understand them and can’t explain them. Websites that profess to understand them don’t and can’t explain them. How is it possible, not understanding, say, the argument from causation, and be able to reject it, as you assert? If I understood that the Law of Entropy included living organisms, I could reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics, too. But, like so many physicists, I’d be wrong.

I’m not using them as the standard. I’m rejecting the bad physics you’ve sprinkled in with the cosmological argument.

Exactly where is Petey’s physics “bad”? I see that you enjoy writing those words quite a lot, but, have yet to provide the “what” (as in, what is it that’s wrong?).

For the record, some of the brightest physicists have also been very passionate about philosophy, Einstein for instance. It did not lead him to suppose that a supernatural cause was required.

Einstein has never been regarded as a major “philosopher”. Just because he was good at math and physics does not make him an par excellence philosopher. He dabbled in it much as you do.

Science cannot provide an explanation for a lot of things. That does not mean there is not a natural explanation for them.

How long must we wait? They have discovered the Big Bang. With the help of a Priest to help them put the Theory together in a meaningful way. They have not been able to destabilize the Big Bang from its throne as the “standard model”. Some rabid anti-theist “physicists” have been working on it for 50 years to no avail. The hypotheses coming out of them are pure science fiction conjecture.

First, my counter arguments really aren’t required because your argument fails on its own.

See! You love say those words, BUT, you don’t back them up with anything more than the droll repetition of the same words.

No natural explanation possible? This is wishful thinking on a number of levels.

Amazing. More baseless assertion.

I’m sure Zeus, Thor, and Brahman among others will be happy to hear this.

Absurd.

Why do I need a reason to be an atheist? Do you need reasons not to believe in things that are hypothesized but not reasonably proven?

But, that is not what is happening here - and you know it.

jd

 

[pete_29]

Nothing is what I do. Vacuum is what I should do.

 

[JDaniel]

I disagree. As a group atheists seem no more or less moral than theists. To be sure there are degenerate atheists, but there are degenerate theists too.

This is the single most absurd statement you’ve made. Show me a single practicing (honest) theist that is degenerate. I’ll show you many practicing atheists that are. You know this to be true. Your denial of it has just lost you - and your arguments, I should think - a great deal of respect. Might be time for you to try another Christian forum out.

I don’t know what gives people this idea that without religion people can’t have objective morality.

Because they have no standard of right and wrong. All they have is their personal whims. They can say that society is what keeps them on the straight and narrow, but, society has standards of right and wrong, put there via the natural law, by God. All the atheist is want to do is to stay out of trouble with the civil law.

It is atheists, non-Catholics, and fallen-away Catholics that are the causes of the explosion of illegitimate children, in this and other countries. It is the atheists, non-Catholics, and fallen-away Catholics that are responsible for the pain and suffering of the poor single mothers and their children because those atheists, non-Catholics, and fallen-away Catholics do not want to accept any responsibility for their actions. Were it not for unwed mothers this country would not have a welfare crisis. AND, were it not for the Catholic Church, that problem would be an extensively greater burden upon the taxpayer.

It benefits everyone for people to live morally. Why would atheists be any exception?

Even though they indirectly benefit, they side-step morality every chance they get - especially the younger ones.

Except for the things on which most everyone has agreed since the dawn of civilization, the Church makes it up on it’s own too. They just claim they don’t. A review of Church history shows that clearly enough.

More baseless assertions? Hmmm?

jd

 

[a_priori]

I do what I want. What I want is to live morally. Is that so hard?

Wanting to live morally is noble thing. Although some people think that they can be “moral” while supporting the pithing of babies of equal gestational age as their more fortunate hospital mates who will live to see sunsets.

The inclination to perceive that “good” and “bad” even exist comes from the preloaded software package God installed when He created us. Your purely mechanical universe has nothing to contribute on the subject.

“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

I know that quoting scripture to an atheist is like reading the Sunday comics. But nonetheless, it is one more simple piece in an amazing mosaic.

 

[aileron]

To be sure, I doubt you can find a physicist who can adequately explain Aquinas’ arguments to me. 90% of the Catholics, on this forum, don’t understand them and can’t explain them. You don’t understand them and can’t explain them.

Cosmological arguments are a class of arguments, and they’ve been around a lot longer than Aquinas. They all attempt to end an infinite regression. In fact, if one accepts the premises of cosmological arguments they’re so obvious they border on being tautologies. The point of contention is not following the argument, but agreeing on the premises. Physicists who concern themselves with cosmology directly or indirectly know the category of cosmological arguments very well. They simply reject one or more premises. It did not even take modern physics to end the appeal of cosmological arguments. Hume and Kant dealt them death blows in the Age of Enlightenment, even though Kant was still a faithful Christian.

If I understood that the Law of Entropy included living organisms, I could reject the Second Law of Thermodynamics, too. But, like so many physicists, I’d be wrong.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to living organisms. I’m curious why you apparently think it doesn’t.

Exactly where is Petey’s physics “bad”? I see that you enjoy writing those words quite a lot, but, have yet to provide the “what” (as in, what is it that’s wrong?).

I already specified the points where the physics are wrong.

Einstein has never been regarded as a major “philosopher”.

Philosophers can make all the conclusions they want based on physics, but if the physics is wrong their arguments are invalid.

Just because he was good at math and physics does not make him an par excellence philosopher. He dabbled in it much as you do.

I’m very impressed that you know my life history without ever having met me. In Einstein’s case, he was an ardent philosophy student and philosophers recognize his contributions to the field of philosophy of science.

How long must we wait? They have discovered the Big Bang. With the help of a Priest to help them put the Theory together in a meaningful way. They have not been able to destabilize the Big Bang from its throne as the “standard model”. Some rabid anti-theist “physicists” have been working on it for 50 years to no avail. The hypotheses coming out of them are pure science fiction conjecture.

This is a classic example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Do you really think that because science can’t explain something it proves that God is the only explanation?

 

[aileron]

This is the single most absurd statement you’ve made. Show me a single practicing (honest) theist that is degenerate.

So who gets to define “practicing (honest)”? You get to screen out whatever you want with your ad hoc filter. This is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[aileron]

The inclination to perceive that “good” and “bad” even exist comes from the preloaded software package God installed when He created us. Your purely mechanical universe has nothing to contribute on the subject.

Actually, the software can be explained better by evolution through natural selection, but we may have to agree to disagree.

I know that quoting scripture to an atheist is like reading the Sunday comics.

Why do you think so? Even as I dismiss their supernatural elements, I appreciate texts people consider sacred on a human level, as poetry, literature, philosophy, history, etc.