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]

I would like a clarification regarding terms: Namely, I'm looking for a definition of "material cause" that isn't ultimately self-referencing. I haven't seen it thus far in the thread, and figured that it might be helpful to all parties involved if we were working from the same definitions.

When I use the term "material" I am referring to spacetime and/or matter-energy fields. I won't define causation in terms of cause. Instead, I'll use "&^(" in place of "causes."

So, material causation means that a spacetime "field" or matter/energy field that we can index as A is an event that has a "&^(" relation to a spacetime or matter/energy field B (event B). Now, my question is how can A do "&^("ing to B unless A is materially identical or materially connected to B? By the term "materially connected" I mean that "&^(" is itself a spacetime or matter/energy field that shows that A and B are materially one identical thing (e.g., one whole spacetime thing or one whole matter-energy field thing). It would seem that the "&^(" relation cannot exist as a material thing without leading to the above paradoxes.

[Curious]

What do you make, for instance of the fact that the entropy of black holes is proportional to the area of their event horizons? If this is a general property of mass it implies that volume itself is somehow illusory: that mass occupies area, not volume -- hence the universe is really a sort of hologram. This might explain the classic particle wave duality and spooky action at a distance in the quantum world among many other mysteries. My point is that the mere fact we resort to words like duality and spooky only reflects our incomplete grasp of some underlying reality and should not be taken as a sign of some supernatural metaphysic.

Let's not forget Pythagoras and time dilation which also suggests a two-dimensional nature of space-time.
I have been away for a while due to other obligations and hope that you fine fellows have this as a watched topic. Harvey1, if you could, would you continue this thread. I have it on watch so a single reply would suffice.

[harvey1]

Harvey1, if you could, would you continue this thread. I have it on watch so a single reply would suffice.

Sure. It's good to see that you are back. Now, if only Spetey would return then my Christmas would be complete!

[Curious]

Harvey1, if you could, would you continue this thread. I have it on watch so a single reply would suffice.

Sure. It's good to see that you are back. Now, if only Spetey would return then my Christmas would be complete!

It's nice to be back, unfortunately other obligations have kept me away for a little while. Obviously I am not a material atheist, although many of my previous posts have leaned towards a not dissimilar position concerning causation. Although I have taken a contrary stance regarding your position in this discussion, I do not find your original assertion without some merit and I am not completely convinced by my own arguments concerning this issue.

[Bugmaster]

I've skimmed this thread, and I'm still not sure what Harvey means by "material". Do you mean, "things composed of atoms", in which case electrons are immaterial ? Do you mean, "elementary particles", in which case light is immaterial some of the time ? I've read your punctuation-based analogy, but it didn't really answer the question.

[harvey1]

I've skimmed this thread, and I'm still not sure what Harvey means by "material". Do you mean, "things composed of atoms", in which case electrons are immaterial ? Do you mean, "elementary particles", in which case light is immaterial some of the time ? I've read your punctuation-based analogy, but it didn't really answer the question.

No, I mean stuff composed of elementary quantum particles as explicated in the standard model. So, light is always composed of quantum particles since the standard model refers to photons as having both particle and wave properties. For the sake of argument, let's say that strings exist and that quantum particles are ultimately composed of strings, and that strings are the ultimate material substance of the world. These strings are material because they have kickable properties and can be shown in explicit ways that all reactions reduce to a basic set of string properties that is explicated by a current version of string theory (e.g., M-theory).