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?

[Curious]

As I stated earlier in this discussion, Zeno's paradox assumes that motion is impossible on the premise that 1<1. The second half of the motion is always greater than the first half at any point in the simulation. This is just like saying you cannot possibly get to 1 by adding half, half of half, half of half half etc. Of course you can't but a journey is made up of half PLUS half, not half plus less than half.

This addresses only the Archilles and Dichotomy paradox. The paradox that Lynds addresses is the arrow paradox. This is a problem for any time discrete solution, which even Penrose has recently acknowledged with regard to much of the research happening in quantum gravity (specifically quantum loop geometry):


So, Zeno's arrow is still in motion, frozen in time if you don't mind that analogy...

Ok thanks, like I said I did only skim read (the document gave me a splitting headache after the first half page).
Yes the arrow is still in "motion". As I stated earlier with the application of a constant force, even "frozen in time" the arrow would still be subject to acceleration of a particular amount per second. In the same way, if we are to assume that we are measuring motion in only one direction, we can say that to be motionless, the arrow must have a velocity of 0m/s. (obviously velocity is motion in one direction so it is possible to still have motion if the motion is perpendicular to this and still be 0m/s in that one direction). Even frozen in time, an arrow travelling at 100m/s would still have a velocity of 100m/s. So where lies the problem with this?

[harvey1]

As you say, spiritual awareness can evolve quite naturally due to evolution just as eyes can. This does not mean light did not pre-date sensitivity to it. Do not think that this argument has even the slightest bearing on my own belief because it does not. It is not the nature of matter that makes me believe but the nature of spirit and my own experience and observations of this. As I said before, if you want to understand the physical then you study the physical but if you want to understand the spiritual then study this instead otherwise all you will ever learn is what spirit is not and not what spirit is.

I sympathize with your view, but there is no valid philosophical argument that can be constructed to support this. It is based on someone already having had an experience or someone already having the spiritual belief. You are preaching to the choir. But, if you don't hold those beliefs, then a number of reasonable philosophical/scientific explanations can account for the spiritual experience without suggesting there is a God, especially if we were to all agree that God is not necessary for the world to exist. To be frank, it is a much better philosophical/scientific argument in that sense to say that spiritual people are deluding themselves.

Of course, I agree that spiritual experience is added proof of God's existence, but that is only because I believe that I am not deluded. I can justify my non-deluded spiritual state because I see that a materialist account fails. Since you are not in a position to say so, it seems that logically you would be forced to admit delusion as a higher factor in account for your spiritual experience.

I'm not saying you should be an atheist, but I am puzzled by how you can believe what you do and not remain an atheist...

[harvey1]

Even frozen in time, an arrow travelling at 100m/s would still have a velocity of 100m/s. So where lies the problem with this?

In discrete time formulations, how do you represent momentum in frozen time in a physical way? For example, if I see a runner I can see that their momentum is represented by continuous motion. However, if time is discrete, which quantum loop gravity theories suggest, then momentum is not continuous on a discrete scale (i.e., space and time are both discrete).

[Curious]

I sympathize with your view, but there is no valid philosophical argument that can be constructed to support this. It is based on someone already having had an experience or someone already having the spiritual belief. You are preaching to the choir. But, if you don't hold those beliefs, then a number of reasonable philosophical/scientific explanations can account for the spiritual experience without suggesting there is a God, especially if we were to all agree that God is not necessary for the world to exist. To be frank, it is a much better philosophical/scientific argument in that sense to say that spiritual people are deluding themselves.

Of course, I agree that spiritual experience is added proof of God's existence, but that is only because I believe that I am not deluded. I can justify my non-deluded spiritual state because I see that a materialist account fails. Since you are not in a position to say so, it seems that logically you would be forced to admit delusion as a higher factor in account for your spiritual experience.

I'm not saying you should be an atheist, but I am puzzled by how can believe what you do and not remain an atheist...

That is my point Harvey1, my own experiences lead me to believe that philosophical argument cannot and will not lead to the accurate knowledge of God or spirit, nor will the study of material existence alone lead to any great understanding. If I was to formulate an opinion on the characteristics of a skyscraper by studying only anteaters that would not lead me to any great knowledge concerning skyscrapers but I could well become expert in anteaters. I could say that anteaters are incapable of act X so therefore might conclude that act X was performed by skyscrapers but this would not be a logical valid conclusion. If, on the other hand, I was to devote my time to studying skyscrapers I would have a far greater understanding of them and could then draw valid conclusions .

[Curious]

Even frozen in time, an arrow travelling at 100m/s would still have a velocity of 100m/s. So where lies the problem with this?

In discrete time formulations, how do you represent momentum in frozen time in a physical way? For example, if I see a runner I can see that their momentum is represented by continuous motion. However, if time is discrete, which quantum loop gravity theories suggest, then momentum is not continuous on a discrete scale (i.e., space and time are both discrete).

I think you mean motion rather than momentum here as momentum can be expressed easily even in the absence of any motion. Momentum is conserved in any case so If we were to talk about two oppositely travelling halves of the same system, the momentum of each would cancel the other out. If we were to say the total momentum of the system was 0 then even if time was discrete and both halves were to "stop dead" at some point (not something that I believe is likely), then the total momentum would still be 0 and momentum would be conserved. I have a real problem with believing at present the notion that time is discrete, for reasons that I have previously given. I am open to the possibility but I require much more supportive evidence before I can seriously consider it as likely.

[harvey1]

my own experiences lead me to believe that philosophical argument cannot and will not lead to the accurate knowledge of God or spirit, nor will the study of material existence alone lead to any great understanding.

When you dismiss philosophical and scientific argument, you are basically dismissing rational thought. Are you saying that one cannot be a theist unless they are irrational?

[harvey1]

I think you mean motion rather than momentum here as momentum can be expressed easily even in the absence of any motion.

What I mean is that momentum is dependent on velocity, however if time is discrete, then a discrete slice of time has no physical representation of velocity (i.e., motion).

[Curious]

my own experiences lead me to believe that philosophical argument cannot and will not lead to the accurate knowledge of God or spirit, nor will the study of material existence alone lead to any great understanding.

When you dismiss philosophical and scientific argument, you are basically dismissing rational thought. Are you saying that one cannot be a theist unless they are irrational?

Not at all. What I am saying is that you can't learn about by golf listening to somebody talking about football. You can study quantum mechanics for years and still know spit about the sexual practices of Brazilian transexuals. A slightly less ridiculous comparison would be to attempt to learn psychology by dissecting brains with a mallet.

[Curious]

I think you mean motion rather than momentum here as momentum can be expressed easily even in the absence of any motion.

What I mean is that momentum is dependent on velocity, however if time is discrete, then a discrete slice of time has no physical representation of velocity (i.e., motion).

I am a little confused with what you mean here. Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. If we are to assume a constant velocity then the mass would remain constant throughout. No matter how we might possibly slice time (if such a thing were possible) we would still have the same velocity. It is irrelevant whether we say the time slice is 1 second or 1 trillionth of a second, the velocity would remain the same. The moving object would still be in motion but instead of going 1 m for example it would travel 1/1000000000000m. The velocity would still be 1m/s and the momentum would remain the same. Even if we were to say time stood still, there would still be no change in velocity or momentum.

[harvey1]

Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. If we are to assume a constant velocity then the mass would remain constant throughout. No matter how we might possibly slice time (if such a thing were possible) we would still have the same velocity.

If we arrive at a discrete point of time where time freezes, then there's no motion for that frame, hence no velocity.