The Absurdity of Atheism

[aclausen]

The Unmoved Mover argument isn’t working with ignorance, but with the fact that things move and are moved. Now, if moving things exist in the universe, then the universe, in part, is moved, which means it can’t be be the Unmoved Mover.

Movement has a rather specific meaning in physics, one that is considerably more precise than the one you seem to be invoking.

This is the definition that most modern people tend to have to use (Einstein shot the Newtonian specific definition down). Otherwise, they don’t have a definition, and a lot of scientists are saying meaningless things.

If, for example, you are correct that the universe isn’t the sum of things that move, you are saying that not everything follows the laws of motion, and that some things in the universe are timeless, which I don’t think a scientist would agree to.

Furthermore, you would have then simply defined the Unmoved Mover with moving things: you would just have shifted the meaning of the word universe to include what I called the universe with the Unmoved Mover, which just confused the point.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The universe, or at least the observable universe is defined as that which we can observe; more precisely all matter and energy that we can observe; the cosmos.

Movement, as in movement of particles and movement of space itself, are aspects of the universe, so it seems rather peculiar to pick them out as being special. Almost as if you’re invoking views on the universe that predate modern physics and cosmology. Why not talk about other critical aspects, like the relative strength of the various fundamental interactions? The latter is just as important as some vague notion of “movement”.

And even then, I still don’t see why I need to invoke an unseen unevidenced entity to explain any of it. I’m comfortable saying “I don’t know”, and not just trying to use circular reasoning to justify a particular view I hold.

 

[Lucretius]

Movement has a rather specific meaning in physics, one that is considerably more precise than the one you seem to be invoking.

The universe, or at least the observable universe is defined as that which we can observe; more precisely all matter and energy that we can observe; the cosmos.

Movement, as in movement of particles and movement of space itself, are aspects of the universe, so it seems rather peculiar to pick them out as being special. Almost as if you’re invoking views on the universe that predate modern physics and cosmology. Why not talk about other critical aspects, like the relative strength of the various fundamental interactions? The latter is just as important as some vague notion of “movement”.

Motion, to the Aristotlean, means becoming or change. To a modern, it specifically means changing location (modern people try to reduce all motion to spacial motions). The problem with moderns, regarding this, is that they don’t try to define motion, but rather just assume it, which is why they can’t solve the logical and philosophical problems with becoming, like Zeno’s paradoxes. In fact, if we take the philosophic assumptions of Newton’s calculus as real, we would have to conclude that Zeno was right: Achilles nor the tortoise move.

But to modern scientists, they don’t need to define motion, because they aren’t trying to describe reality in itself, but rather create a useful model to make predictions in order to create technology. Calculus might, if taken seriously, prove the non-existence of motion, but we don’t take it that seriously: all we need is to get the equations to spit out the correct numbers in the end.

And even then, I still don’t see why I need to invoke an unseen unevidenced entity to explain any of it. I’m comfortable saying “I don’t know”, and not just trying to use circular reasoning to justify a particular view I hold.

A Mover that is not Moved logically follows from the very existence of motion. It’s not a hypothesis, but a deduction. All cosmological arguments are.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[aclausen]

Motion, to the Aristotlean, means becoming or change. To a modern, it specifically means changing location (modern people try to reduce all motion to spacial motions). The problem with moderns, regarding this, is that they don’t try to define motion, but rather just assume it, which is why they can’t solve the logical and philosophical problems with becoming, like Zeno’s paradoxes. In fact, if we take the philosophic assumptions of Newton’s calculus as real, we would have to conclude that Zeno was right: Achilles nor the tortoise move.

But to modern scientists, they don’t need to define motion, because they aren’t trying to describe reality in itself, but rather create a useful model to make predictions in order to create technology. Calculus might, if taken seriously, prove the non-existence of motion, but we don’t take it that seriously: all we need is to get the equations to spit out the correct numbers in the end.

Generally physicists concern themselves with observations, and not with philosophical discussions. They use precise definitions to describe the universe, and they certainly aren’t in the business of giving aid and comfort to any theological or philosophical position. What is is, regardless of what it does for anyone’s particular worldview.

A Mover that is not Moved logically follows from the very existence of motion. It’s not a hypothesis, but a deduction. All cosmological arguments are.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I don’t actually buy that. It’s circular logic. We simply don’t know whether a universe requires a start. It may be part of larger infinite reality, or it may be bounded. Perhaps, outside of the context of the universe, something can indeed come from nothing.

All you end up with is an infinite regression that is only warded off with special pleading; “ah well, this Prime Mover is really Prime, the others aren’t…”

 

[Solmyr]

However, once you realize that motion per se is a reduction of potential to actuality, then the Unmoved Mover argument makes perfect sense.

The whole concept of “reduction of potential to actual” is nonsense. There is no such thing as “potential”. Motion is to change from one actual to another actual. You may call the as of yet unrealized “other actual” as being a “potential”… that is fine, it is just semantics. But the change itself is always physical - the exchange of some sub-elementary particles. And there in no need for some “unmoved mover”. Not to mention that the postulation of such “unmoved mover” is sheer “magic”. Just HOW is that unmoved mover supposed to perform moving the physical reality?

Motion, to the Aristotlean, means becoming or change. To a modern, it specifically means changing location (modern people try to reduce all motion to spacial motions). The problem with moderns, regarding this, is that they don’t try to define motion, but rather just assume it, which is why they can’t solve the logical and philosophical problems with becoming, like Zeno’s paradoxes. In fact, if we take the philosophic assumptions of Newton’s calculus as real, we would have to conclude that Zeno was right: Achilles nor the tortoise move.

I don’t think that you understand the “paradox” of Zeno. The ancient people did not understand the concept of convergent and divergent series. They simply could not imagine that adding up infinitely many numbers will result in a precise value. The number of 0.99999… equals precisely one. (The three dots represent an infinite number of digits.)

Here is a simple way to visualize it. Let’s take a chocolate maker who places a coupon into every box of chocolates. When you collect ten coupons, you will get one box free. So how much is one box chocolate worth? Well, it is worth one box plus one coupon. But one coupon is worth one tenth of box plus one tenth of coupon… So we can see that one box is worth more than just one; to be precise it is worth 1.1111… boxes. Seems confusing? It is not. Let’s say that you already bought 9 boxes and thus accumulated 9 coupons. You go to the store, take one box off the shelf, remove the coupon, so now you have ten coupons. You go to the cashier and present the ten coupons. Therefore 9 boxes of chocolates are worth exactly ten boxes. And 10 divided by 9 (10/9) equals precisely, not approximately 1.11111… to the infinity.

Calculus has nothing to do with discrediting “motion”.

 

[aclausen]

The whole concept of “reduction of potential to actual” is nonsense. There is no such thing as “potential”. Motion is to change from one actual to another actual. You may call the as of yet unrealized “other actual” as being a “potential”… that is fine, it is just semantics. But the change itself is always physical - the exchange of some sub-elementary particles. And there in no need for some “unmoved mover”. Not to mention that the postulation of such “unmoved mover” is sheer “magic”. Just HOW is that unmoved mover supposed to perform moving the physical reality?

I don’t think that you understand the “paradox” of Zeno. The ancient people did not understand the concept of convergent and divergent series. They simply could not imagine that adding up infinitely many numbers will result in a precise value. The number of 0.99999… equals precisely one. (The three dots represent an infinite number of digits.)

Here is a simple way to visualize it. Let’s take a chocolate maker who places a coupon into every box of chocolates. When you collect ten coupons, you will get one box free. So how much is one box chocolate worth? Well, it is worth one box plus one coupon. But one coupon is worth one tenth of box plus one tenth of coupon… So we can see that one box is worth more than just one; to be precise it is worth 1.1111… boxes. Seems confusing? It is not. Let’s say that you already bought 9 boxes and thus accumulated 9 coupons. You go to the store, take one box off the shelf, remove the coupon, so now you have ten coupons. You go to the cashier and present the ten coupons. Therefore 9 boxes of chocolates are worth exactly ten boxes. And 10 divided by 9 (10/9) equals precisely, not approximately 1.11111… to the infinity.

Calculus has nothing to do with discrediting “motion”.

My issue is to trying to assert rules and laws on an epoch where they might not apply at all. Physicists are willing to accept that there is a time where everything we think we know about the universe might not apply. Whether that’s the Planck length and time, or some even more primordial period where notions of causation which may apply in the Universe we know did not. All i see is the ancients, and many modern people, trying to place what they view as physical constants (whether they are or not) on to a time that no one, and certainly not the Greek philosophers or Hebrew theologians, let alone modern cosmologists, know anything about. It’s even possible that we may never be able to learn about the universe beyond a certain point, but even if we do, the universe is under no obligation to obey every day notions or philosophical assumptions.

 

[Lucretius]

The whole concept of “reduction of potential to actual” is nonsense. There is no such thing as “potential”. Motion is to change from one actual to another actual. You may call the as of yet unrealized “other actual” as being a “potential”… that is fine, it is just semantics.

Potency is another kind of being, otherwise you are arguing that nothing comes from nothing, which is absurd.

But the change itself is always physical - the exchange of some sub-elementary particles.

Is the change between a living being and a corpse just the exchange of some particles, then? Why doesn’t the mass change then?

And there in no need for some “unmoved mover”. Not to mention that the postulation of such “unmoved mover” is sheer “magic”. Just HOW is that unmoved mover supposed to perform moving the physical reality?

The Unmoved Mover isnt magic, but the explanation for motion. We deduce it’s existence from obvious, empircial principles.

I don’t think that you understand the “paradox” of Zeno. The ancient people did not understand the concept of convergent and divergent series. They simply could not imagine that adding up infinitely many numbers will result in a precise value. The number of 0.99999… equals precisely one. (The three dots represent an infinite number of digits.)

That doesn’t explain motion. Zeno’s paradoxes demonstrate that adding infinite numbers doesn’t create a finite one. There is a major difference between an infinite series coverging at a finite limit and an infinite series of zero lengths adding up to a nonzero finite sum.

In other words, we calculate the limit, and then pretend it’s a sum, because it is practically useful, even though ontologically it’s false, because limits are not actual things. No amount of nothing, in reality, can add up to something.

Heres a good article: docs.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieY3c1ZERGakhNZHc/edit

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

My issue is to trying to assert rules and laws on an epoch where they might not apply at all. Physicists are willing to accept that there is a time where everything we think we know about the universe might not apply. Whether that’s the Planck length and time, or some even more primordial period where notions of causation which may apply in the Universe we know did not. All i see is the ancients, and many modern people, trying to place what they view as physical constants (whether they are or not) on to a time that no one, and certainly not the Greek philosophers or Hebrew theologians, let alone modern cosmologists, know anything about. It’s even possible that we may never be able to learn about the universe beyond a certain point, but even if we do, the universe is under no obligation to obey every day notions or philosophical assumptions.

You are overcomplicating things. The Unmoved Mover is arguing from the facts of motion.

From there, it proves that, for things to move at all, they need an Unmoved Mover. That’s it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[aclausen]

You are overcomplicating things. The Unmoved Mover is arguing from the facts of motion.

From there, it proves that, for things to move at all, they need an Unmoved Mover. That’s it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I don’t accept the basic premise.

 

[Aloysium]

It is absurd to reduce everything to physics. Better to reduce it to power and politics, at least we are dealing with some of the most important components of the real world.

 

[o_mlly]

… Perhaps, outside of the context of the universe, something can indeed come from nothing.

You are almost there!

 

[Solmyr]

Potency is another kind of being, otherwise you are arguing that nothing comes from nothing, which is absurd.

“Potency” is a concept. “Nothing” is a concept. None of them exist as ontological entities.

The Unmoved Mover isnt magic, but the explanation for motion. We deduce it’s existence from obvious, empircial principles.

Explanation? An explanation should include: “so this is HOW it happens”. Otherwise it is just empty hand-waving… like “let there be light… and there was light”.

That doesn’t explain motion. Zeno’s paradoxes demonstrate that adding infinite numbers doesn’t create a finite one.

Of course it does. the sum of 1/2+1/4+1/8+… equals precisely “1”. That is what the ancient Greeks could not comprehend. But, then again the concept of “zero” is a very difficult concept. It took thousands of years before some people were able to understand the concept of “zero apple”. One or two apples were easy, a half apple was also relatively easy. Even a “minus one apple” could be comprehended as “I owe you an apple”. But “zero” was a very tough nut to crack.

No amount of nothing, in reality, can add up to something.

In reality, there is “nothing”. It is a useful concept, but it has no referent in physical reality …

 

[o_mlly]

“Potency” is a concept. “Nothing” is a concept. None of them exist as ontological entities.

Explanation? An explanation should include: “so this is HOW it happens”. Otherwise it is just empty hand-waving… like “let there be light… and there was light”.

Without the concept and reality of potential energy and its conversion to kinetic energy, how would one explain how I am able to move my fingers now dangling over the keyboard to strike the keys in this reply?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“The practice of quoting out of context …] is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Such as trying to misrepresent Stephen Hawking, the well-known atheist, as if he believes in intelligent design. No he doesn’t. He’s on record arguing instead for the anthropic principle - that believing the universe is fine-tuned for us is a selection bias. Whether or not we agree, and whether or not we think he’s an authority, that’s his view, and he shouldn’t be misrepresented.

Similarly, Sagan was a well-known atheist. Similarly, Weinberg is an atheist, and a quick google links to a talk he gave against fine-tuning (I’ve not read it all, but looking at a last paragraph, he’s not a fan of religion either).

The backfired on you then, since Hawking and Weinberg at the least both say fine-tuning is a myth. House of cards, always check the sources. But there’s no need for authorities, the argument is simply that physical constants are gaps in knowledge, parameters that have to be dialed-in for reasons not yet known.

You seem to think that an atheist must be against fine tuning. This is also a *non-sequitur *fallacy.

Francis Crick, who I believe was another atheist, was so amazed at the appearance of fine tuning behind the DNA that he speculated on life being seeded by extra-terrestrials on this planet. In other words, Intelligent Design.

Would you please supply quotes from Weinberg and Hawking that show they repudiated fine tuning. You keep arguing that any quotes taken out of context can be misleading. I am willing to be mislead if you will just produce the quotes.

You can’t or won’t. Which is it?

 

[aclausen]

You seem to think that an atheist must be against fine tuning. This is also a *non-sequitur *fallacy.

Francis Crick, who I believe was another atheist, was so amazed at the appearance of fine tuning behind the DNA that he speculated on life being seeded by extra-terrestrials on this planet. In other words, Intelligent Design.

Would you please supply quotes from Weinberg and Hawking that show they repudiated fine tuning. You keep arguing that any quotes taken out of context can be misleading. I am willing to be mislead if you will just produce the quotes.

You can’t or won’t. Which is it?

I don’t think Hawking even tried to repudiate it. What’s there to repudiate; we are here because the universe has a set of physical properties that allow us to exist. If it didn’t have those properties, we wouldn’t exist. But I’ve never seen how the Anthropic Principle is a very good argument for theism, because it also levels heavy constraints on any Creator Deity (I think we’ve had this discussion before), and in one Hawkings essays he discusses how it does not appear that God had much freedom in the starting conditions (I’ll have to look up the essay, it was in a book of essays he published in the mid-90s).

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think Hawking even tried to repudiate it. What’s there to repudiate; we are here because the universe has a set of physical properties that allow us to exist. If it didn’t have those properties, we wouldn’t exist.

You are assuming physical reality exists even though we infer its existence from our perceptions. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity for which the most adequate and rational explanation is the Supreme Mind.

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t accept the basic premise.

Which one? That there are things in motion or that things in motion are moved by another?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

“Potency” is a concept. “Nothing” is a concept. None of them exist as ontological entities.

Is truth a concept which exists only as an ontological entity? Do you regard physical entities as more fundamental? If so why? Is the mind derived from mindless molecules?

 

[Lucretius]

“Potency” is a concept. “Nothing” is a concept. None of them exist as ontological entities.

So what is becoming, if it is not potential reducing to act?

Explanation? An explanation should include: “so this is HOW it happens”. Otherwise it is just empty hand-waving… like “let there be light… and there was light”.

It is an explaination, and the only one put forward, to explain motion in itself. I’m doing ontology, metaphysics, first philosophy, etc. I’m not looking for mechanical causes. Motion can’t be reduced to mechanics, to the quantitative, as Zeno proves with his paradoxes.

Of course it does. the sum of 1/2+1/4+1/8+… equals precisely “1”.

You don’t understand series at all. The series’ limit is one, not its sum.

That is what the ancient Greeks could not comprehend. But, then again the concept of “zero” is a very difficult concept. It took thousands of years before some people were able to understand the concept of “zero apple”. One or two apples were easy, a half apple was also relatively easy. Even a “minus one apple” could be comprehended as “I owe you an apple”. But “zero” was a very tough nut to crack.

Most people still don’t understand it. Most mistake zero for nothing. And anyway, what you are saying is irrelevant.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Generally physicists concern themselves with observations, and not with philosophical discussions. They use precise definitions to describe the universe, and they certainly aren’t in the business of giving aid and comfort to any theological or philosophical position. What is is, regardless of what it does for anyone’s particular worldview.

I wish this was true, but it isn’t. The most obvious instance of where this isn’t true, in practice, is in cosmology.

I don’t actually buy that. It’s circular logic. We simply don’t know whether a universe requires a start. It may be part of larger infinite reality, or it may be bounded. Perhaps, outside of the context of the universe, something can indeed come from nothing.

Who cares? The Unmoved Mover argument still applies to an eternal universe.

Nothing can come from nothing. Otherwise, you are mistaking nothing for zero, which is a something. The difference between zero and nothing is the difference between an empty bank account and not having a bank account.

All you end up with is an infinite regression that is only warded off with special pleading; “ah well, this Prime Mover is really Prime, the others aren’t…”

One of the major points of the argument is that this is impossible, because then everything in motion wouldn’t have a mover, and thus something can come from nothing, which is absurd.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think Hawking even tried to repudiate it. What’s there to repudiate; we are here because the universe has a set of physical properties that allow us to exist. If it didn’t have those properties, we wouldn’t exist. But I’ve never seen how the Anthropic Principle is a very good argument for theism, because it also levels heavy constraints on any Creator Deity (I think we’ve had this discussion before), and in one Hawkings essays he discusses how it does not appear that God had much freedom in the starting conditions (I’ll have to look up the essay, it was in a book of essays he published in the mid-90s).

How would Hawking know that God had so little freedom in setting the properties of the Big Bang?

Just like an atheist to be telling God what he can and cannot do!