NoGodBlog.com

We can tell those children that God was with his follower in charge of Russia.

Since Vladimir Putin left office in May of 2008, the new president of Russia has been Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, and just like Putin, Medvedev belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Wouldn't it be interesting if our mainstream media focused a bit of attention on the very Christian nature of the mindset of the leader of Russia right now. Which religion are Georgians now?

Wikipedia says that the Jewish community of Georgia is one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world. Here's the breakdown:

Today most of the population practices Orthodox Christianity of the Georgian Orthodox Church (81.9%). The religious minorities are: Muslim (9.9%); Armenian Apostolic (3.9%); Russian Orthodox Church (2.0%); Roman Catholic (0.8%). 0.8% of those recorded in the 2002 census declared themselves to be adherents of other religions and 0.7% declared no religion at all.

So this is basically theists against theists. Where is their loving god, indeed?

Russia has a long history of invading and controlling Georgia, along with several other republics it once had total control over. Now that it's not the USSR, but a smaller, leaner Russia we're talking about, we Atheists can point the finger and say "The Atheists aren't in charge there anymore. The Christians are. So when will the killing stop??"

The new Reds are Christians?!

Joe Zamecki
Austin TX

I am a Christian who is simply browsing through this website, and I happened upon this blog. I honestly find it sad that Americans, whether we be Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever the case may be, cannot come together on one simple fact- we are all AMERICANS!!! This war in Georgia is simply escalating tensions between the West and the Russian Federation, almost back to Cold War status! I'm not blaming the Atheists alone, I agree that many Christians are close-minded to other beliefs, such as Atheism. I, for one, have found it much easier to question nature and its forces less, and simply believe that God has control. I DO use logic and common sense though, and make sure I do things myself, because I know that God cannot fully control us for he blessed us with free will. Nonetheless, I believe that this never-ending argument of "there is a God" vs. "there's no such thing as God" has been going on for far too long! We should all get off of our high-horses, and simply accept each other for who we are! We should all love one another as brothers and sisters living here on Earth! Whether you believe this Earth was created by a Big Bang or by a God, we all inhabit it, don't we? It is truly saddening to see this divide widen. I believe that many people will agree with me on this- whether they be Christians or Atheists or any other faith/belief. In conclusion- we are all people living on Earth. We should feel sympathy for these refugees, and do what we can to help them. I hope the U.S. starts sending significant amounts of aid to Georgia, and that Russia screws its head back on correctly. The balance of world relations is very shaky right now, and we may all soon be in WWIII. I wish everyone the best of luck in your journeys, and God Bless. And if you're not a believer, I hope you have the support of many around you.

Russia isn't doing anything that we wouldn't do (or haven't done). I really doubt any of this has anything to do with religion though.

On Dave's point specifically, I'm hard-pressed to disagree. On this other hand, I don't know what good putting their trust in themselves -- and not the sky faeries -- would have done them in this case, so it doesn't merit a good illustration of the dangers of operating with their head in the clouds.

Well many Christians say that we can only get morals from religion, and in every action and decision we display, our morals shine through. Many Christians insist that they do everything better because they have this moral compass that no one else has or has figured out.

Sure our government might've done this sort of thing too, but I wouldn't support it. Russia has attacked several border nations now, and added up, it amounts to bad political and military decision making with terrible consequences.

If doing something really really bad can't be considered a reflection on the religion of a devout Christian, then what's it take?

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Obviously morals have about as much to do with this "god" of theirs as, well, you supply the analogy -- I can't think of anything sufficiently distant!

Are we so sure what the Russians are doing is out of line though? Osettia was an independent nation before they were, er, brought into the USSR. They were granted independent status again shortly before the break-up of the USSR. Then Georgia decided they wanted them for their own and attacked. S. Ossetia fought back and had been treated as an independent since 1992 -- that's 16 years, a long time to get used to the idea of being independent by anyone's measure.

So we've got this independent nation, who is pro-Russia, a large percentage of whose citizens also have Russian citizenship. On the Russian border. Except for the irrelevant say-so of the UN, they are a sovern land -- that Georgia officially claims them isn't particularly relevant, right?

So Georgia recently decides to start attacking again. Russia defends it, then decides to ensure that Georgia isn't in a position to do this again for a while.

How is this different than the first gulf war? They're the Russians, so they "must" be wrong, right? This action on their part has been completely mild compared to that. What's more, S. Ossettia involved their OWN citizens their OWN border.

It's absolutely mind-numbing how utterly hypocritical the US government is being on this matter.

Another mother kills her kids to protect them from evil:

"She told the court and the psychologist that she had heard voices threatening the children and she wanted to protect them. She killed them because she believed she was protecting them from these evil powers,"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404041,00.html

Greatbean,

I think you missed a really important memo about atheism:

I believe that this never-ending argument of "there is a God" vs. "there's no such thing as God" has been going on for far too long!

Who exactly is trying to argue that there is no God?

There is a huge difference between "I believe that no God exists" and "I don't believe that a God exists." The first is a negative assertion that can never be proven and is completely illogical to accept as fact. The second is the default position that we're all born with. It is one that asks for evidence and withholds judgment until there is sufficient evidence either way. I've never met an atheist who accepted the first statement (though I'm told they exist, they're called Strong Atheists, note the capitalization), and I've never met an atheist who rejected the second.

The only reason the debate continues is because theists attempt to force their views onto the general public and onto their children. If we ever dropped the issue, we'd all be atheists in 2 generations.

never met an atheist who accepted the first statement (though I'm told they exist, they're called Strong Atheists, note the capitalization)[...]

Now you have. I believe that no deities exist. I also believe that no invisible pink unicorns, smurfs, leprachauns or elves exist.

It is no more an illogical statement to say such than it is to agree that no operational definition of said deity(ies) can be formulated.

History illustrates that the number of places that a god could be hiding is decreasing as more information becomes available. (The god of the gaps)

If there were a "scale" of discovery that was similar to the scales we use for temperature, we can extrapolate that there is no god in the same way we extrapolated the position for the 0 value of the Kelvin scale.

Unless you can prove it to a certainty, Atomictesting, you might want to just concede the point.

It seems to me that Atomic is correct.

My reasoning is that no God, as defined by human beings, could possibly exist because by simply defining what a God is, contradicts the concept of a God and our understanding of what it is to exist.

God(s) can't exist, because by definition, they cannot not meet the criteria for our understanding of existence.

Oops...

"they cannot not meet" =
"they cannot meet"

Cynic:

I really doubt any of this has anything to do with religion

Nothing has anything to do with religion. Religion is just an excuse people use for doing what they want.

Atomic & DVanWechel,

I think most atheists suspect you're right, and there is no god, but it's still illogical, and rash, but jump to any unsubstantiated conclusion unnecessarily.

God(s) can't exist, because by definition, they cannot meet the criteria for our understanding of existence.

If a god did exist, it would be beyond our understanding of anything.

Comment from: Joe Zamecki

If doing something really really bad can't be considered a reflection on the religion or non-religion of a devout Christian, atheist then what's it take?

The knife cuts both ways...

If you want to blame current conditions in Russia on religion, because the leaders are a certain faith, then you must also use the same argument when the past leaders of Russia were non-religious...

So Joe...how many millions did the communists kill?

And Joe...anyone who doesn't believe Putin is STILL a communist and a member of the KGB is a moron...

DVW

My reasoning is that no God, as defined by human beings, could possibly exist because by simply defining what a God is, contradicts the concept of a God and our understanding of what it is to exist.

I agree that nobody has ever given an operational definition of the words "god" and "exist" that make the question "Do gods exist?" anything but nonsense. I think the logical conclusion is that the question is nonsense and that's all. So existence questions - and the various flavors of atheism based on existence questions - are BS because the question is BS.

Dave

Your post title "Where was god?" lends credence to the validity of the question "Do gods exist?" because it assumes that the word "god" has been operationally defined. I know of know accepted useful operational definition of the word. Do you? I suggest you don't play the theists game at all.

know accepted -> no accepted

OT, but possible thread topic:

The July issue of _Reader's Digest_ published some survey results, in an article titled _Why We're Happy_, which concluded that the #1 predictor for happiness is faith. "In 2004 the General Social Survey found that 43% of religious folks said they were happy with their lives, compared with 23% of secularists. Religious people were a third more likely to say they're optimistic about the future. And secularists were nearly twice as likely as religious people to say 'I'm inclined to feel I'm a failure.' While 50% of married people of faith who have children consider themselves to be very happy, only 17% of nonreligious, unmarried people without kids feel the same way."

As an unmarried secularist with no children, I am very happy, optimistic, and don't consider myself a failure at all. This holds true for my unmarried, childless, Atheist friends as well, so I can't help wondering about the accuracy of such surveys, and wondering why I am never asked to participate in one.

I have yet to see a definition of a god that doesn't at some point defy logic. The problem is, you're assuming that logic is a system that must hold in reality, but without logic, you cannot prove that -- and in the lack of it, you cannot prove anything.

So, logically, you cannot state for certain that a god of some description -- logical or not -- exists or not.

So far as the survey is concerned, I've always considered faith to be first an foremost an exercise in dishonesty. The more evidence one can gather to support one's conclusions the less faith is required -- and vice versa.

Given that, is it a stretch to suggest that this survey reflects dishonest, self-serving responses? Other studies suggest that that the religious are more prone to divorce, prison, etc. They're more likely to be poor, downtrodden, etc. Yet here, they're happiest.

Self-report surveys are notoriously useless -- and the dishonesty (intentionally or not) of the participants is one important reason.

My favorite argument against the existence of god goes something like this:
For a god to have knowledge of the entire universe it would have to be able to observe the universe as a whole. This can not be done from inside the universe, but only from a perspective from outside could one observe the functions of the universe as a whole. Sense, by definition, the universe contains all that there is, it is impossible for said observer to exist outside of it.

Cynic

I have yet to see a definition of a god that doesn't at some point defy logic.

I don't understand that. Definitions, of anything, are completely independent of logic.

The problem is, you're assuming that logic is a system that must hold in reality, but without logic, you cannot prove that -- and in the lack of it, you cannot prove anything.

A different logic may describe and predict better than that which we currently use but "proving" that is not dependent upon any form of logic. It is a matter of observation. Observation is independent of logic.

So, logically, you cannot state for certain that a god of some description -- logical or not -- exists or not.

I think you participating in maddening tail chasing. If one can not give useful operational definitions of the words "god" and "exist" that would make the question "Do gods exist?" have meaning then what more is there to say than the question is nonsense ?

jstacykeith

I disagree with your analysis. Theists will tell you that there "god" operates beyond your/our comprehension and therefore our "proofs" are not applicable.

Once again the way to get beyond this tail chasing is to demand operational definitions of the words "god" and "exist" from theists.

there "god" -> their "god"

Demands for absolutes are absurd. One has to proceed on best evidence.
I am certain that I am going to die. Now, using the logic which some have suggested, I am rash to claim this fact as a certainty.
There is a possibility that I will live forever but it is about as likely as the existence of a supernatural being.
Best evidence indicates that there is no god, of any kind.

What,

I agree that any amount of logic or evidence will not convince most theists that their deepest held believes are wrong, but it worked on me. I was raised in a fundamentalist southern baptist church. When my tenth grade biology teacher tried to touch on the topic of evolution, I disrupted the class to the point he had to change the subject. I don't know what changed in me, but in my late teens I started to realize my believes did not make sense. After a few years of introspection and contemplation I renounced my believes, and I have been a happy and content atheist for twenty years now. My point is, sometimes reason wins out.

Dagny3, Readers Digest is just government propaganda. They encourage faith, then attack the past with 10/10 vision (generally oversimplifying things), then say that there is a new "high" that killing your kids. Its all bullshit. Thanks to the new "buzz", I'm not allowed to buy spray whipcream because I could use it to get high.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go "cloud out".;)

jstacykeith

I agree that reason sometimes wins. My suggestion to you and others is that your time would be better spent demanding that theists operationally define the words "god" and "exist". Their whole delusion is based on a question that becomes exposed as nonsense when one demands that they simply give such definitions.

Most people are culturally conditioned to argue about the god question from a theists perspective. This conditioning takes many forms. One of the fundamental forms of this insidious conditioning is that most people accept the notion that the question "Do gods exist?" has meaning. Big mistake.

A relevent subject to the human condition is brought up, and What wants definitions of god and existence.
I guess, for all of us, it's the eyes through which you see the world.
Atheists say that the world of life around us is an accident. I cannot reconcile that in the reasonable part of my psyche. Christians say we were meant to live forever and the devil messed it all up. Orders of factors more rediculous.
Have you people read anything about what it was like to live in the dark ages? People lived in cities, not because they didn't stink like hell, but, it was the only place you weren't vulnerable to sudden attack by warring tribes or theives.
Without minimizing the suffering of the Georgians, remember the citizens of London during the Battle of Britain. Imagine the condition of the residents of Hanoi as Nixon bombed them into poverty. Now consider all the nations in political unrest in Africa. Victims of a horrendous hurricane can't get help because the ruling faction is suspicious of supply carriers. No food nor medicine for the dying. Maybe some can't see that in their minds, but I can.
No, God was not there when Georgia was attacked. God was not there when the Isrealites sacked Palestine. God was not there when a cro magnun tribe killed the last of the neanderthals. God didn't intervene when a comet wiped out the dinosaurs.
His genious and creativity may be obvious as we look around us, but he couldn't care less whether any of us live or die before our time,whatever that might be.
He's kicking back and watching chaos unfold, and he can't hear your prayers, and wouldn't if he could.

NeoWolfe

What,

I disagree with the notion that there can be more than one form of logic. To me, either it applies or it doesn't, and if it does, a thing either is or isn't.

That said, definitions aren't excluded from logical scrutiny by default (or by definition -- which would be circular!). Definitions can violate logic by failing to be internally consistent. With definitions of gods, this usually comes into play with inclusions like "my god is really cool because he's both omnipotent and omniscient!" Since those are mutally exclusive capabilities, we don't even need to bother hashing out how those capabilities might exist on their own.

Cynic

I disagree with the notion that there can be more than one form of logic.

It isn't a matter of contention or a notion. There is more than one form of logic. Dewey's ears are burning.

That said, definitions aren't excluded from logical scrutiny by default (or by definition -- which would be circular!). Definitions can violate logic by failing to be internally consistent.

Then they aren't definitions and my assertion stands.

"my god is really cool because he's both omnipotent and omniscient!" Since those are mutally exclusive capabilities

Huh? How so?

Neowolfe

A relevent subject to the human condition is brought up, and What wants definitions of god and existence.

I can't make any sense of that sentence. Care to clarify?

Neowolfe

Atheists say that the world of life around us is an accident.

Really? Who?

Definitions are subject to interpretation. I assure you all, god is dead, as if god ever really existed, I mean other than within some peoples minds. Sound like a contradiction? Well, Christians are a contradiction. Pro life my ass, I see thru you all like a piece of dirty glass.

Frank Rizzo, Obeah, What, neowolfe, jstaceykeith, everybody, yes, yes, all good food for thought. It sometimes is correct to argue from a culturally conditioned perspective. When in Rome speak as the Romans do. Gods do exist in many peoples minds but I assure you god is dead and dying and nonexistant and never was. Say it ain't so.

What is happening in Georgia is a prelude to the invasion of Iran by America, Israel, France and Britian. The Russians are jockying for position. America is presently maneuvering more naval battle groups into the Gulf which will rival the first gulf war. Hope you've enjoyed gas at a lousy $3.68 a gallon because if it jumps off in Iran, you'll soon be coughing up a chunk of change to roll down the highway. You confused Christians may get your Armageddon after all.

I, for one, have found it much easier to question nature and its forces less, and simply believe that God has control.

It's this mindset that created the dark ages; however, in the dark ages, ignorance was a tool the church used to maintain control; most people were it's victims. Greatbean actually CHOSES ignorance when knowledge is available. Greatbean, your mind is a terrible thing to waste. Stop it!

Does anyone else hipocrasy in the USA advising against warlike activities?

Correction-Does anyone else SEE THE hipocrasy in the USA advising against warlike activities?

What,

There is no room for the arbitrary in logic, and everything you're proposed so far contains it.

Cynic,

I assert that I absolutely disbelieve in the Easter Bunny given the definition that it is a member of the order lagomorpha and that it is the only known monotreme belonging to said order, it lays eggs identical to those of a chicken in every way exept that they are dyed in a way aesthetically pleasing to humans and naturally come hard-boiled, and it is capable of visiting nearly every home in America simultaneously.

I assert that deities are transitively related to the Easter Bunny. Equal amounts of evidence exist for both. Both are equally likely to be conceived purely by humans, both are equally likely to have had lies concocted by humans to "prove" their existence, and all artifacts that are used to support the existence of either are all made by humans.

I concude that neither exist on the grounds that they the transitive relationship between the two.

I've always prefered the ones that lay Cadbury Eggs myself. The problem atomictesting is that there is a very clear and important difference between confidence -- even extreme confidence -- in the existence or non-existence of something and the certain knowledge of it. Because it is necessarily practical to place limits on what we accept or don't accept, I agree with your reasoning that there isn't an Easter Bunny.

But, as they say, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. With gods, elves, and the Easter Bunny, all we can do is invalidate categories of definitions -- disprove claims of miracles, account for the actual source of colored eggs, etc. When it comes to attributes that border on the supernatural, all we can really do is be confident -- not certain.

Cynic,

Magic is supernatural, the tooth fairy is supernatural, and so is picking pockets. After reading the bible I can assure you there is no god, never was a god and never will be a god except within some peoples minds.

When lack of evidence falls on someones shoulders it will be Christian shoulders. Some of the evidence I have is everything Jesus Christ has not done and never will do because he doesn't and never did exist.

The ignorant, hate filled men afraid of the dark just happened to borrow and embellish other peoples folk tales and place themselves as the central characters. It's malarky, there are few positive morals in the bad book.

There were no doubt other creation stories, which preceded the plagerized Jewish folk tales, that were then burned by Christians. Christianity gives guilt, fear and sorrow in an attempt to sell salvation. With certainty, god does not exist. I'll be back Thursday.

Cynic

There is no room for the arbitrary in logic

What are you talking about. I simply can not understand your posts. Are you saying once again that there aren't multiple logics? If you are then you are wrong. See for example Quantum Logic. The famous philosopher Dewey rightly pointed out that the rules/axioms of logic are not self evident. We use them - just like any other tool - because they have worked well. That is, they give us predictive power. Other logics could do better.

All "logics" are based upon a certain foundation, and that foundation is what I refer to. The rest are build from this, and pointing out the limitations of one formulation over another cannot invalidate root of both. Otherwise you'd have to concede things like "a=a" as merely opinion.

Cynic

You don't make any sense.

russia has every right to secure its border.nato broke its word not to expand now it is trying to bring in georgia,ukraine.to hell with bush he supported kosovo seperatists so why can't russia support osettian seperatists.i love america but i also love my better half who is russian.the neocons are turning the whole world against us with their insane lust for power.

Reason

Ditto!

The neocons have been working hard to pin this all on Russia. Just reading Wikipedias entry on Georgia should make the situation clear to Faux News viewers.

John "Keating Five" McCain said last week: "We are all Georgians now." I have never seen a presidential candidate as stupid as McBush on foreign policy issues.

So you'd accept a "logic" that stated "a!=a"?

Cynic

Did I say I would? You are not making sense.

Cynic

To me, either it applies or it doesn't, and if it does, a thing either is or isn't.

Our present understanding of the universe says that "a thing either is or isn't" is not a valid statement. Things exist in a superposition of eigenstates. An ideal measurement forces them into one of the set of eigenstates. Since no measurement is ever ideal things are always in superposition states and the measurement process simply decreases the "spread" in the state of the thing.

Things can exist in a superposition of "is" and "isn't" states.

What you're talking about are interpretations, not logic, not facts. Interpretation isn't evidence, but the result of what we learn from evidence. Whatever the realities, at any given point in time (and time is another subject altogether), it may be A, B, C, or A, B, and C, or anything you might want to dream up. And at that point in time, it is what it is. At some other point in time, it may be something else. At each point, equal to itself.

Without a consistent form of reasoning, we are powerless to interpret evidence. Therefore, redesigning the way that a logical system works based on what evidence you discover is madness. Logic is a tool, nothing more -- and nothing less. Toss it out and any interpretations made are inherently arbitrary and useless.

No doubt you'll think that makes no sense, but I assure you -- that's all you.

Cynic

What you're talking about are interpretations, not logic, not facts.

Huh!? Interpretation of what? You contrast interpretation with logic and facts as though logic and facts are the same thing. Huh!?

Interpretation isn't evidence, but the result of what we learn from evidence.

No its not. Interpretation is a useless and futile exercise that attempts to assign meaning to a theory beyond what the theory actually states.

Whatever the realities, at any given point in time (and time is another subject altogether), it may be A, B, C, or A, B, and C, or anything you might want to dream up. And at that point in time, it is what it is. At some other point in time, it may be something else. At each point, equal to itself.

What the?

Without a consistent form of reasoning, we are powerless to interpret evidence.

You really should take a class or read a book on classical logic.

No doubt you'll think that makes no sense, but I assure you -- that's all you.

and the greatest philosophers and scientists of the past 200 years. I'll take it!

There's obviously no point in discussing this with you, What, until you understand that philosophy is defined by the fact that what is produces cannot be proven, that a theory is defined by the idea that it tries to explain "why" and not "what" (which is the job of laws), and there is no circumstance in which a logical fallacy can be ignored (regardless of what some philosopher you admire told you to allow his pet notion to advance).

I've had the logic class you suggest and then some, What. Your problem is that you didn't understand what you took.

Hmmm... where was their god here? They go to church to praise it, and then it takes their child:

The county coroner said Jan and Chris Starr were returning to their home in Brogue from church with their four children and accidentally left their 15-month-old daughter asleep in the van for three hours.

http://www.wgal.com/news/17223479/detail.html

just me

The coroner said he doubts there will be charges filed.

The video said "in the hustle and bustle of collecting their belongings and herding the older children into the house, they forgot their 15 month old daughter sleeping in the van."

HOW do you collect other belongings, but forget your baby?!

And no charges are being filed? Not even negligence? It could be negligent homicide! Are they being easy on them because the dad is an asst. pastor? Or because the family is devastated?

If they had left the baby in the bathtub alone and she drowned, it would be no different. I'll bet someone would be charged then. Why do people get off for baking their children alive in a hot car?

But I guess it's OK, because she wasn't a fetus.

It's wearing off a little, but when I was a newer parent, reading stories about people forgetting their children in cars used to scare me because I sort of see myself doing it. It's like locking your keys in the car (only far more horrible). You'd have to be an idiot to do it, but you know, it happens.

Cynic

until you understand that philosophy is defined by the fact that what is produces cannot be proven,

Really? Show me philosphy text that defines philosophy as such.

that a theory is defined by the idea that it tries to explain "why" and not "what" (which is the job of laws),

Wrong again. Theories answer the question "What predicts?". The "Why?" question is for folks, like religious freaks, that like to contemplate the untestable and therefore less than wrong hypotheses.

and there is no circumstance in which a logical fallacy can be ignored (regardless of what some philosopher you admire told you to allow his pet notion to advance).

Point out where I have ignored a logical fallacy and under which logic it is a fallacy?

Learn about two state quantum systems (eg. a spin 1/2 particle in a magnetic field) and then get back to me about the "is or isn't" question. It isn't difficult to understand and I could help you if you like :-).

What,

We have a system of thought that produces proof. It's called science. Time was, most of what we call science today used to be lumped into "philosophy", but gradually the distiction became clear. To most.

In science, a theory attempts to explain why one thing happens and not some other thing. A law merely explains what does happen, as it has been observed. Note the relationship between the laws of gravitation and the theory of relativity -- and the notable lack of a coherent theory of gravitation. Laws cannot tell you why things happen, only that they do. Theories attempt the why.

What?

Law: An apple will bonk you on the head if you sit under it long enough.

Why?

Theory X: Because the collective mass of the planet has warped space-time, producing an potential energy gradient in which you were sitting at a lower point before the stem disconnected.

Sure, there's always another "why" to ask, but that doesn't make them all some philosophical nonsense questions.

Given your propensity for generating said logical fallacies (fallacies of defintion, hasty generalization, slippery slope, Loki's wager -- just to name a few recent ones), I needn't bother looking any further than your own words. Either you commit them without knowing it, or you know it and ignore them. Damned either way, yes?

The fundamental problem with most QM scientists (and, apparently, you) is that they fail to recognize that just because they don't know the answer to both location and trajectory doesn't NECESSARILY imply that it doesn't have one. It only means that because they can't know that, they have to resort to other methods of investigation.

Somehow along the way to learning all of this, people get turned around and start thinking that because the results are seemingly chaotics, that they underlying reality must be, in fact, chaotic. But you cannot prove that logically. Randomness is an illusion, the number 12345 being potentially equally "random" as 14253.

That's why, if you're going to play the lottery, it's a waste of time to pick the number by hand. And that's why it's a waste of your time to throw quantum physics at me in a futile attempt to explain why logic fails: because the only path that leads to such a conclusion is via logical fallacy in the first place!

Cynic

Where do I start. You are wrong about the difference between laws and theories. They are all theories.

The fundamental problem with most QM scientists (and, apparently, you) is that they fail to recognize that just because they don't know the answer to both location and trajectory doesn't NECESSARILY imply that it doesn't have one. It only means that because they can't know that, they have to resort to other methods of investigation.

Thanks for clearing that up for all us physicists. Read about the Stern Gerlach experiment and get back to me about your profoundly ignorant statement "doesn't NECESSARILY imply that it doesn't have one" and "It only means that because they can't know that, they have to resort to other methods of investigation". I realize that QM is difficult for some people.

Cynic

Somehow along the way to learning all of this, people get turned around and start thinking that because the results are seemingly chaotics, that they underlying reality must be, in fact, chaotic.

The "underlying reality" is not chaotic. It is governed by the DETERMINISTIC Schrodinger equation (for NRQM).

This one is funny:

Given your propensity for generating said logical fallacies

Count the things that you have stated above that are simply not factual. There are multiple consistent logics. Do a little work and read up on them.

Do yourself a favor and don't bother communicating with me about QM until you have taken a few graduate courses or have read Dirac, Messiah, and Cohen-Tannoudji's books on nonrelativistic QM. Then read Mandels and Zee's books on QM Field Theory. Then get back to me to talk.

Actually, you can't prove that the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic. I expect determinism is a reasonable default assumption supported by parsimony, but an assumption it is and must be.

I'm not going to chase after every QM bone you choose to throw until you can state in a logical argument -- using whatever bit of physics you want, but no hand-waving shortcuts -- how it is that logic has been ever shown to been falsified.

If you want to cite a bit of evidence, go ahead -- but don't just assert the thing, demonstate how it implies something. I expect when we're done here that what this is all going to come down to is you've assumed something so deeply and so thoughly that even you don't realize it.

Cynic

Actually, you can't prove that the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic.

QM is deterministic. I don't know what you mean by prove. The word has little precise meaning outside of mathematics.

I'm not going to chase after every QM bone you choose to throw until you can state in a logical argument -- using whatever bit of physics you want, but no hand-waving shortcuts -- how it is that logic has been ever shown to been falsified.

I didn't say that logic has been falsified. What I have said is that there exist alternative logics each will be judged by their utility in our quest for predictive power. I brought up the Stern Gerlach experiment simply to demonstrate that your understanding of QM, as demonstrated in your above statements, is to put it plainly severely lacking.

If you want to cite a bit of evidence, go ahead -- but don't just assert the thing, demonstate how it implies something.

Since you don't know QM or the language of QM it will be difficult but not impossible to do this here. How would you suggest I proceed? Should I spend a few months here making posts with the hope that you will learn the basics of CM and QM? Should you do some assigned reading as I suggested and then get back to me? What is your mathematical background? What is your physics background?

I expect when we're done here that what this is all going to come down to is you've assumed something so deeply and so thoughly that even you don't realize it.

That is a bizarre statement coming from someone that has made numerous unfactual statements about QM.

To be 100% clear,

Deterministic:

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

Prove:

To show with 100% logical certainty. (Math and formal logic are offshoots of the same line of thinking, even if they appear to be unrealated.)

Most physicists point to QM and swear up and down that it shows that that universe MUST NOT be deerministic. You're different, which is curious. I'm wondering how it is you know.

Cynic

Prove: To show with 100% logical certainty.

That statement is meaningless.

Most physicists point to QM and swear up and down that it shows that that universe MUST NOT be deerministic.

Once again what I said was that the Schrodinger equation is deterministic. The Schrodinger equation governs the dynamics of a QM system (ie. how a system evolves temporally). This was written in response to your assertion that "Actually, you can't prove that the universe is deterministic or nondeterministic.".

You're different, which is curious. I'm wondering how it is you know.

Anybody that tells you that the dynamics of QM is not deterministic should have there degree taken away. Ask, if you can, the person/persons that have told you otherwise the following question. If you are given the Hamiltonian of a NRQM system for all time and the initial state of the system will the Schrodinger equation allow you to calculate the state at any time? That is what a physicist means by deterministic and the answer to the question is yes. If they give you any other answer make them a huge bet.

In the interest of straightening this out once and for all I have the following questions for you. Do you know what it means for a system to be in a superposition of states? Do you know the difference between a statistical mixture of states and a superposition of states?

One more thing with respect to Quantun Logic. Imagine yourself to be a microscopic being and your are observing your daily surroundings. What QM tells us is that what you would see is systems in superpositions of states. "Is" and "Is not" states would not be separate states with an excluded middle. What you would usually see are superpositions of is and isn't states. Now why would such a microscopic being adopt anything but a quantum logic?

The finally part of my post was not to suggest that classical logic is invalid. It is merely a "thought experiment" to open ones mind to the realization that classical logic is not self evident - nothing is - and that more than one consistent logic s possible. The question for logicians and mathematicians is are these alternative logics anymore useful than classical logic. This is a very difficult question to answer and only a few researchers with the propensity to ask such questions and the balls (sorry ladies) to spend there time investigating them.

With certainty, there is no god, there never was a god, and there never will be a god except within some peoples minds. With certainty, I tell you, there are no leprichans at the end of any rainbow anywhere. With certainty, I tell you there are no demons pushing me to error. There are no guardian angels maneuvering me to be a good human being. I assure you, I am responsible for my actions. With certainty I tell you, religion represents insanity. Lunatics rule the world. All war is a byproduct of economics. The economics of today are biblical. You don't need interpretations of definitions or locations or trajectories and quantum physics don't reveal anything about the reality of economics. With certainty this is not the American Gnostic blog. God does not exist.

Mark Farris

Please give me an operational definition of the "god" and "exist". In order to make your claim that gods don't exist we/you must know the operational definition of those things that you say do not exist.

I don't mean to keep hand-waving all that, but after all of these posts, I'm still not sure what you're opinion on this is:

Do you think 100% for certain that the universe as a whole is deterministic with that determinism implies (no freewill, everything that has happened or will happen is set, every circumstance results from the prior circumstance, etc.

If you're not 100% certain, do you think that there is more evidence for or reason to think this is the case versus the alternatives?

Cynic

Do you think 100% for certain that the universe as a whole is deterministic

I would not have a clue how to test the hypothesis that the universe is deterministic. Without a test a hypothesis is less than wrong. Maybe cosmologists have proposed such tests. I simply don't know.

What I can say is that the dynamics expressed in CM, EM, and QM are deterministic and reversible. The dynamics expressed in our theories of thermodynamics are causal but not reversible.

Thanks for the question and thanks for helping me change the tone of the discussion.

From an existential point of view, we're born, we live and we die. Us individual humans don't really account for much except to the people who know us when whe're born and when we die. Unless we accomplish something in life it's not likely we end up in a history book anywhere.

If a big old comet were to just be looping around entering its approach path on planet Earth, and, let's say reach impact in a few hundred years destroying planet Earth, nothing in the universe, of consequence, will have happened. Absolutly nothing would change on the grand scale.

Now, is the universe deterministic? Of course not. Neither would a god have flipped his thumb to deliver that comet. And neither would that be an irreversable event. This is where alienation slips in the window. As long as humanity clings to the concept we have dominion over nature we are the problem. We will have to at some point learn to reintegrate ourselves with the natural environment or destroy ourselves.


The concept god is subject to interpretations of others definitions. There have been many different gods. Not in human history have there been as many gods as there are today though. The human mind fabricates much. The subject is malarky. God only exists in the minds of confused people who attribute extreme coincidence to the magic of their particular god.


Is all human activity just a result of prior human activity? Well, if that were the case I would have no choice but to give up and adhere. There would be no original ideas and that is pretzel logic. When in Rome speak as the Romans do. Where I live god doesn't exist any more than the tooth fairy.

Quantum physics is explored with the language of mathematics but mathematics probably does a poor job clarifing what is going on in Iraq or Georgia. The mathematics of the Christian economic structure bestowed upon us has nothing to do with the mathematics used to examine the cosmos. Two plus two does not equal five. Infinite economic growth on a finite planet is impossible. That is logic. That is as clear as the sunshine in China.

Why you Christians would come to this site and suggest I should wonder if the bogeyman exists is absurd. You really should be wondering why pews are empty at your church.

You'll have to excuse the poor spelling. I'm not looking to get a paper graded here. I'm sure you get my drift.

and the comet event WOULD BE irreversable.

Mark

Now, is the universe deterministic? Of course not.

Please explain.

What

Excuse my delayed response, just did an Atheist two day campout. Fifteen adults, four kids, four dogs, plenty of skunks. Gonna be a whole lot bigger next year.

I'm under the impression, too often, when someone refers to the universe as deterministic they are suggesting consciousness is involved as if there may be some sort of intelligent design. I am not suggesting that is your point.

A cue ball is deterministic like that big old comet would be deterministic. Of course the xians would argue the person holding the cue stick determines the outcome of the game or at least sets it all into motion. The xians do argue god is holding the cue stick. That is my point.

Determinism when applied to humanity implies a reactionary mindset from humanity. If we are all just reacting to each other then no one is proactionary. If that were the case there would be no use in struggling. We may as well be xians waiting for our slice of pie in the sky.

You will have to overlook my constant use of the word god because I'm usually just trying to get under the skin of the xians. Like the time I ran god over in the dark with my car and threw it into reverse backing over him smacking him right in the head with the muffler leaving an indentation of the Midas logo above his right brow. Ouch!

For my part, when I say the universe is deterministic, I mean that there is a cue ball behind every action, and stick behind every cue ball, and another cue ball behind every stick.

Cynic

Thats good enough.

Just to add a bit more clarity to the above discussion. As I mentioned earlier the dynamics of NRQM, as expressed by the Schrodinger equation, are deterministic. That is, the state of the system evolves in time in a deterministic manner.

When some folks say that QM is indeterministic they are referring to the quantum measurement problem. Whether you refer to the measurement process as deterministic or not is a matter of interpretation and there are many physicists that do not understand that it is indeed a matter of interpretation. It's all about the "questions" we ask of systems through our measurements. I could go into more detail on this if you like.

Mark

I'm under the impression, too often, when someone refers to the universe as deterministic they are suggesting consciousness is involved ...

Not me!

What

I never doubted you for a moment.

Dave

This blog is like trying to carry on a conversation on a fast moving escalator. I think when a thread takes off with many posts, wait a day or two to post a new topic. That may even reduce spelling and grammatical errors by many of us.

Furthermore, I wonder, rather than kicking around esoteric arguments about metaphysical reality amongst ourselves, shouldn't we be debating the masses of confused people in our local newspapers. The majority of people are on the edge in regards to belief and the handful of xians hanging around an Atheist site looking for converts are wasting our and their time.

Mark

Cynic and I were talking about physics - not metaphysics. It is important for people to understand what is known about their universe. Such knowledge is a filter to nonsensical thinking. How many times have you heard an ignorant theist try to misuse the Second Law of Thermodynamics in an argument for ID? How many times have you heard a theist misuse the word random in connection with evolution? The list goes on and on.

Its just a point of view, nothing more, but reading your posts is like trying make sense of chaos.
And that is my argument. As a thinking, open minded individual, to ask me to look at nature and conclude it is an accident, I will not, especially since no evidence exists to prove it.

But, to ask where was god in Georgia?? It's kinda like where was god when my grandma died? Why not ask where god was when one hundred thousand people died in Thailand and Malasia in the tsunami.

If you are one of those free thinkers open to the idea that nature is not an accident, you may find me standing with you. If you think he gives a damn whether we live or die as a species, you stand alone. Ninety eight percent of the species who have ever existed on this planet are extinct. Our turn is coming up next. Free thinkers are the last hope and the most irrelevent question you could ask is "where is god?"

NeoWolfe

Neowolfe

What does this mean:

... to ask me to look at nature and conclude it is an accident ...

For the life of me I can't make sense of it.

Neo,

I'll second What's statement!

Sounds like you haven't given up the tenets of religion quite yet - as if there is some "purpose" to the universe.

666

Did you see the movie "The Jerk". I don't think I can hear the word "purpose" without thinking "special purpose" because of that movie? Damn I hate that.

"special purpose" and "Jerk" in one paragraph. Too funny.