Can there be real causation for a material atheist?

[harvey1]

Here is my argument against material atheism:

1. If a material atheist world exists, then there must be a material cause for every effect; there can be no effect without a material cause.
2. Slicing up time to the minimum slices of time, we see there cannot be material causes that materially connects time slice A to its effect in time slice B.
3. Therefore, a material atheist world does not exist.

Based on this argument, can anyone show that it is possible for a material atheist world to exist?

[harvey1]

The whole Atheist materialism seems trumped up.
You could have just dealt with Materialism. for some reason you had to toss Atheism in the soup.

Materialism is mainly defined in terms of reductionism of mental attributes, and there is no clear "materialism" defined for the nature of the universe. For example, one of the most classic materialists is David Armstrong, however he is not a materialist when it comes to the laws of nature. Therefore, I don't think the term "materialist" is an accurate depiction of this discussion.

The atheist delineation is important since the focus here is to talk in terms of the rationality of believing in God versus the rationality for not believing. Therefore, if atheism is hanging its hat on the possibility that God is not rational because God is not a material, then it is important to refute these particular type of atheists.

i don't belive he is saying there is no causation in the world. that seems rather silly. the problem is we don't know what causes anything until after it happens. There are many causes and many events.

I'm not talking about what in particular causes an event, I'm talking about whether there are "events" in principle. And, if so, then how is a materially cause possible which can connect the an event and the event which is its effect?

[Cathar1950]

harvey1 wrote:

The atheist delineation is important since the focus here is to talk in terms of the rationality of believing in God versus the rationality for not believing. Therefore, if atheism is hanging its hat on the possibility that God is not rational because God is not a material, then it is important to refute these particular type of atheists.

I don't see that an Atheist is hanging hi/her hat anywhere.

The claims That God is not rational or material is a Theist argument. An Atheist would not need to make any claims. i don't see where it is need ed to refute these kind of arguments. The definitions of God that are held by Theist may have to defend their position. Is God material, spirit , beyond time/space. It is such a hodgepodge or gallimaufry that making sense of it would be a irrational chore. This coupled with he need or desire to make it Bible based could only come up with a salmagundi theological catch all.

I'm not talking about what in particular causes an event, I'm talking about whether there are "events" in principle. And, if so, then how is a materially cause possible which can connect the an event and the event which is its effect?

I think events do happen at least what we think are events. How would that be different for an atheist vs a theist?

[QED]

Asking how one event (i.e. measured change) causes another seems ludicrous to me. The transfer of kinetic energy is caused by the exchange of photons travelling at a maximum of the cosmic speed limit c. If there was no speed limit everything in the cosmos would happen at once. Maybe it does (for the photon) but from our frame of reference it's all spaced-out.

If no event causes another event, then why didn't you just say that you do not think that there is causation in the world?

What on earth did I say to make you think I don't believe there is causation? Was it because I said your question seemed ludicrous? In this case I thought that by following the sentence with a description of my understanding of the mechanism for the transfer of kinetic energy, it would be clear that I view the linking of events (or causes of change) as the exchange of photons. This applies to most of the atomic pushing and shoving that accounts for the obvious notion of cause (that seems to escape this debate) such as colliding cue balls or images of my words making their way to your consciousness.

[harvey1]

An Atheist would not need to make any claims.

Why would you think that? Someone is making a claim that God does not exist, are you suggesting that an atheist has no stake in that claim? If so, then I would be more than happy if all the atheists on this board said that all the pertinent evidence is on the side that God exists.

i don't see where it is need ed to refute these kind of arguments. The definitions of God that are held by Theist may have to defend their position. Is God material, spirit , beyond time/space. It is such a hodgepodge or gallimaufry that making sense of it would be a irrational chore.

So, the atheist is saying that an immaterial God possessing knowledge might exist and have created the universe in some capacity given the definition?

This coupled with he need or desire to make it Bible based could only come up with a salmagundi theological catch all.

So, in other words, the Bible is largely false with regard to God's existence therefore anything that justifies this biblical belief of God is largely false too? Just one problem, how do you know that biblical beliefs about God are largely false? It seems your premise is also your conclusion.

I think events do happen at least what we think are events. How would that be different for an atheist vs a theist?

Okay, you think events happen, does that mean that events have identity (even in principle)? In other words, does there exist a finite or infinitesimal moment that states categorically that this event "happened" here which separates it from all previous events and all events that followed it?

[The Happy Humanist]

So, the atheist is saying that an immaterial God possessing knowledge might exist and have created the universe in some capacity given the definition?

In a word, yes, Harvey, that is what most atheists are saying. There MIGHT be a God who created everything, in the same sense that its possible that SpongeBob SquarePants created the Universe, and sent his only begotten son, Patrick, to die for our sins. We can't prove otherwise. The only claim most atheists are making is that you haven't sufficiently backed up your claims, to make them stand side by side with the explanations that we perceive as much more likely.

[harvey1]

What on earth did I say to make you think I don't believe there is causation?

Well, there was this...

Asking how one event... causes another seems ludicrous to me.

Was it because I said your question seemed ludicrous? In this case I thought that by following the sentence with a description of my understanding of the mechanism for the transfer of kinetic energy, it would be clear that I view the linking of events (or causes of change) as the exchange of photons. This applies to most of the atomic pushing and shoving that accounts for the obvious notion of cause (that seems to escape this debate) such as colliding cue balls or images of my words making their way to your consciousness.

Okay, let's analyze your atomic pushing and shoving metaphor. It seems one of these statements must be false since they are not all compatible, please tell me which statement you see as false:

1. Events are real in that they actually occur in time (e.g., C at t1, E at t2, etc.). There is no further subdivision possible of event C after having identified the event that actually causes (an)other event(s) E.
2. Events are not real in that an event C at t1 is composed of an uncountable number of sub(C) events, and any particular sub(C) event is composed of an uncountable number of sub(sub(C) events, and so on without end

Now, it seems to me that both statements cannot be true. One statement is false, and the other is true. It also seems to me that no matter which statement is true, material causation cannot explain either possibility. In the case of (1), you have time slicing and therefore non-material causal gaps between event C and event E. In the case of (2), you do not have events at all, and therefore you cannot have any form of real causation since there is nothing in principle to be the cause of an effect.

[harvey1]

In a word, yes, Harvey, that is what most atheists are saying. There MIGHT be a God who created everything, in the same sense that its possible that SpongeBob SquarePants created the Universe, and sent his only begotten son, Patrick, to die for our sins.

Do you really think that? Do you really allot for the evidence of nature to be reasonably interpeted such that SpongeBob and SquarePants created the universe?

We can't prove otherwise. The only claim most atheists are making is that you haven't sufficiently backed up your claims, to make them stand side by side with the explanations that we perceive as much more likely.

That's what agnostics claim against both theist and atheist. Why are the agnostics wrong in saying that atheists haven't sufficiently backed up the atheist claim that theists are wrong about their conclusions?

[The Happy Humanist]

Do you really think that? Do you really allot for the evidence of nature to be reasonably interpeted such that SpongeBob and SquarePants created the universe?

Reasonably interpreted? No. Same for God. (By the way, SpongeBob SquarePants is all one...er, person. Or sponge. Or whatever...)

That's what agnostics claim against both theist and atheist. Why are the agnostics wrong in saying that atheists haven't sufficiently backed up the atheist claim that theists are wrong about their conclusions?

[/quote]

There you go getting hung up on your own definitions again. Atheist vs. Agnostic is of no moment in discussions like these. We are all non-theists, which means we do not accept your interpretation of the universe. Convince one sub-group, atheist or agnostic, and you will convince the super-group, non-theists.

[QED]

In the case of (1), you have time slicing and therefore non-material causal gaps between event C and event E.

What's this "you have time slicing"? Yes you have have a measurable change that can be labelled wih a local clock, but this is purely a labelling exercise. A photon making its way from C to E does so according to Schrödinger equation in a continuous manner. I've never seen a treatment that suggests gaps of the sort you speak of.

[harvey1]

There you go getting hung up on your own definitions again.

I knew Ronald Reagan, and you are no Ronald Reagan. Must we live in the 80s, Jim? I hated the 80s.

Atheist vs. Agnostic is of no moment in discussions like these. We are all non-theists, which means we do not accept your interpretation of the universe. Convince one sub-group, atheist or agnostic, and you will convince the super-group, non-theists.

Funny, because theists and agnostics agree, we are all non-atheists, which means we do not accept your interpretation of the universe. Convince one sub-group, theist or agnostic, and you will convince the super-group, non-atheists.