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]

What if we look at a balance with a weight on either end. Say one end has a downward force due to gravity of 10N while the other end (with twice the weight) has a downward force of 20N. Now let us define a physical event as any movement of the balance from its position which start at the horizontal. If we were to "stop time" then the net 10N force on the heavier side of the balance would not move the balance but any progression of time would show a corresponding movement downwards. This force is constant upon the weight and is caused completely by the mass of the objects involved. Now isn't this material causation?

Not necessarily. Material causation would be the case if there were no laws of physics that were non-regulative. If the laws are purely regulative, then one would need to explain why it is that the net 10N force on one side of the balance (the + side) causes the balance to move downward on the + side. In the case of there being non-regulative laws that exist, the cause is accounted for by the extra mass on the + side and how the laws of physics differ for objects possessing more mass. If the laws of physics are eventually found to be necessary implications of information theory or category theory (for example), then the cause is due to some direct mathematical underpinnings. I don't see how in principle you could have material causation, I think that rules strongly against any material causation.

[Curious]

What if we look at a balance with a weight on either end. Say one end has a downward force due to gravity of 10N while the other end (with twice the weight) has a downward force of 20N. Now let us define a physical event as any movement of the balance from its position which start at the horizontal. If we were to "stop time" then the net 10N force on the heavier side of the balance would not move the balance but any progression of time would show a corresponding movement downwards. This force is constant upon the weight and is caused completely by the mass of the objects involved. Now isn't this material causation?

Not necessarily. Material causation would be the case if there were no laws of physics that were non-regulative. If the laws are purely regulative, then one would need to explain why it is that the net 10N force on one side of the balance (the + side) causes the balance to move downward on the + side. In the case of there being non-regulative laws that exist, the cause is accounted for by the extra mass on the + side and how the laws of physics differ for objects possessing more mass. If the laws of physics are eventually found to be necessary implications of information theory or category theory (for example), then the cause is due to some direct mathematical underpinnings. I don't see how in principle you could have material causation, I think that rules strongly against any material causation.

The laws are the same for both masses on the balance, we know this conclusively. If we take the attraction from the perspective of the two masses it is easier to explain so I will do that (obviously both masses and the earth exert force but this is a simplification). The effect on the surrounding space by the larger mass (on the balance) exerts twice the gravitational force upon the earth as the smaller mass so the larger mass moves towards the earth while the smaller mass moves away from the earth. Now we do know that this spatial distortion is caused by the masses involved and that no matter how small we make the period, we still have a force. If we stop time we still have the force but no period in which the force is able to act. When we progress time then this force becomes active (or is able to do work). You could also say that the larger mass moves towards the earth at the expense of the smaller mass due to it's greater inertia.

[harvey1]

The laws are the same for both masses on the balance, we know this conclusively.

The laws of physics are the same, but the laws determine how objects with different masses behave.

[The Happy Humanist]

Atheistic meaning those that heavily doubt the God hypothesis, of which I am one.

Oh, it's a scientific hypothesis? Can you show me the paper where this hypothesis was formerly presented before physicists? Who wrote the paper?

Red herring. Ignored.

Well, if you are saying that your interpretation of God's existence is like the agnostic's interpretation, then you are saying that the evidence for or against God is vastly incomplete. Everyone agrees that the evidence is incomplete since the evidence is incomplete about everything that is claimed in terms of what exists. In fact, this is the weakness of agnosticism in that the arguments for extreme skepticism is based on the incomplete nature of knowledge. If you are only saying that your interpretation is incomplete (e.g., how the theist would agree), then you have more in common with the theists than you do with the agnostics.

Harvey, instead of trying to untangle another of your Rube Goldberg constructions, I'm going to make a prediction.

Ten years from now, you will be an atheist.

I'm serious. Mark the date.

You are obviously highly intelligent, and you have correctly surmised that the answer to this lies somewhere in some logical path, which you seem bent on forging yourself. Unfortunately, along that path lies a lot of philosophical quicksand, gobbledy-gook that you've picked up from here and there, that amounts to no more than bisecting a sneeze. But you're incisive and inquisitive, and an independent thinker - of all the theists I've debated, you're the first who has not fallen back on the usual Pascal's Wager nonsense or prophecies or "I just know." I came to this forum looking to see if anyone had any really original defenses for theism, and you, of all the people here, showed me that there is some original thought out there. I have enjoyed sparring with you, and I learned quite a few things. Thank you.

And mark the date. You will be an atheist within ten years.

[harvey1]

Ten years from now, you will be an atheist. I'm serious. Mark the date.

Is this the atheist version of Christ returning in 10 years? Or, let me guess, you were once a Christian and came from a fundamentalist church where they set dates. Back to the old guessing mill.

In any case, THH, you miss an important point here. You exchange rational argument for wishful thinking. I would say the thinking goes a lot like this:

Oh, this guy is a pain in the butt. Rather than me work through a good response, I'll wish him to be an atheist within 10 years. Hmm... that's a good idea because it takes the onus of me having to respond to him, and what the hell, I'm pyschic anyway (even though I don't "believe" in being pyschic).

You are obviously highly intelligent, and you have correctly surmised that the answer to this lies somewhere in some logical path, which you seem bent on forging yourself. Unfortunately, along that path lies a lot of philosophical quicksand, gobbledy-gook that you've picked up from here and there, that amounts to no more than bisecting a sneeze.

If you were famous do you realize every astrologer, every fortune teller, every psychic would be repeating your words in every argument from here to eternity that tried to discount their beliefs? Do you see how dangerous it is to offer such a view as an argument? Sometimes philosophical views create the views of those for the next generation (e.g., Marx and Engels). If your view were to ever catch on, I could see the 22nd century as being a world where rationality has respect no longer. Well, of course, you're psychic so you know that would never happen.

But you're incisive and inquisitive, and an independent thinker - of all the theists I've debated, you're the first who has not fallen back on the usual Pascal's Wager nonsense or prophecies or "I just know." I came to this forum looking to see if anyone had any really original defenses for theism, and you, of all the people here, showed me that there is some original thought out there. I have enjoyed sparring with you, and I learned quite a few things. Thank you.

That sounds like a goodbye. You haven't heard my other arguments yet. Don't leave...

And mark the date. You will be an atheist within ten years.

I try to stay humble, so I make no predictions for the future. I realize the dark force is out there and as Yoda would say, "ready he is not for the dark side." So, I'll just take those 10 years one day at a time and listen to Master Yoda on staying clear of the dark side.

[Curious]

The laws are the same for both masses on the balance, we know this conclusively.

The laws of physics are the same, but the laws determine how objects with different masses behave.

The laws do not determine the behaviour, it is the behaviours that determine the laws as we see them. Laws is not a good choice of word really as this suggests that the objects adhere to the laws rather than the more correct view of objects having distinct behaviours that we interpret as the laws of physics. Matter has particular properties depending on its type. These properties determine it's behaviour and interactions. Matter is not compelled to act in the way that it does, it acts that way because it is it's nature to do so. Matter does not distort space for any other reason than it is a property of matter.

[Cathar1950]

The Happy Humanist wrote:

Red herring. Ignored.

I am not going to.
The God hypothesis isn't necessarily Physics.
There are many. Some are just a little strange.
harvey1 wrote:

It seems one of these statements must be false since they are not all compatible, please tell me which statement you see as false:
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.


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

.
I have to agree with who ever said it may be none of them are correct.
Pitting two opposing ideas don't make one of them right.
I as watching something on tv about mental states being alike when experience or remembered. In a sense all experience are memory. They(events) happened before we notice them.
It seems that the world and are senses are not a one to one relationship. There is something going on that seems outside ourselves yet we are a part of it and it is represented in our minds.
harvey1 wrote:

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.

Honesty is a possibility.

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.

Which biblical belief in God. There are many.
It is your conclusion based on you statement not mine.
I would say that having a bible based faith is impossible, contradictory, and silly.
It is a buzz word some Christians use. That is a "Bible based faith".

[Cathar1950]

Do you just make up stuff as you go? I notice you put a lot of words into other peoples minds.
harvey1 wrote:

Is this the atheist version of Christ returning in 10 years? Or, let me guess, you were once a Christian and came from a fundamentalist church where they set dates. Back to the old guessing mill.

where did you come up with that. What does THH have to do with your guessing game?

In any case, THH, you miss an important point here. You exchange rational argument for wishful thinking. I would say the thinking goes a lot like this:

Quote:
Oh, this guy is a pain in the butt. Rather than me work through a good response, I'll wish him to be an atheist within 10 years. Hmm... that's a good idea because it takes the onus of me having to respond to him, and what the hell, I'm pyschic anyway (even though I don't "believe" in being pyschic).

i think we know who missed the point harvey1.
"deleted un-civil remarks"
As jaba the hut would say
'don't use your mind tricks on me young jedi' or something like that.

[Curious]

Do you just pull this crap out of your butt or what?
As jaba the hut would say
'don't use your mind tricks on me young jedi' or something like that.

C'mon Cathar1950, let's keep it civil.

[Cathar1950]

Sorry.
It dosn't seem very civil sometimes.
Bashing liberals Atheist and gays seems to be some peoples pass time.
I am not sending anyone to hell.
I will try to be good.