Physicist

Well, all of statistical mechanics and thermodyanmics would fail if this were true. If the probability distributions of random variabless are known, then their expected values can be estimated. The larger the sample, the better the estimate.

Modern physics stresses 'relationships' between events rather than the classical cause and event concept. The latter can be ambiguous even without exercising QM. Relativity theory, for example, tells us that the order of events is dependent upon the selction of the reference frame.

Surprisingly, the relationship between coupled quantum events can be tighter than the classical mechanical causal model would allow.

Doctor X

I do not know . . . when I tried to [CENSORED--Ed.] Margaret-Mary in the back during math class, she slapped me and her brothers used my head for soccer practice. . .

. . . I must confess . . . at the time . . . it seemed like a pretty clear "cause and effect."

Perhaps it was just coincidence?

Perhaps there was a "higher power?"

What but design of darkness to appall
If design govern in a thing so small.

--J.D.

Theli

I wasn't aware that atheists had an obligation to present an alternative to god's magic wand.

Theli

I'm guessing you don't have electricity in your home. When I push the lightswitch in my room, sometimes the computer turns on and sometimes a bolt of lightning hits me in the face.
And sometimes the window opens and an alien spaceship appears filled with horny monkeys throwing canned meat at me. But I can't see them because I'm a Big Mac with a large Freedom Fries and a medium cup of Donkey Drool.

:notworthy

Jobar

"Donkey Drool"? What, they've changed the drinks menu at McD's again?

Normal, your 'question' is disingenuous; we do *not* ignore the fact that we do not understand every single bit of the universe we see.

It's not true that all scientists are atheists, though many are. Whatever an individual scientist may believe, they are all dedicated to the search for complete understanding; we atheists cheer that search on, and realize that clinging to any ancient dogma is antithetical to the spirit of that search.

You posted this in the EoG forum, and not in Science & Skepticism. I take this to mean that you think that this, the fact we do not have a precise understanding of all the mysteries of the physical universe, offers some sort of support for, or vindication of, the religion you hold to. Can you say just how the lack of a Theory of Everything gives your God some toehold in reality? I seriously doubt it.

Normal, I have no faith at all, in the sense you mean. My confidence in the theories of physics and the results of technology is a purely practical matter; if some other system of organizing and understanding the world we live in were to be discovered, and proven more effective than what we have now, I would embrace it, as would all scientists, eventually. That sort of intellectual flexibility is a hallmark of science, and of skepticism. In most religions the exact opposite is true.

In Buddhism, the root cause of all suffering is thought to be clinging to things in the material world; refusing to let go and realize that all things change. Science does not cling to its ideas and theories when something better comes along; that is what makes science superior to religion.

Normal

Vorkosigan,

You could, although I'd expect similiar answers to the one's I'm getting here.

Bookwyrm,

That would be true if there was a deterministic solution to the quantum equations.

triplew00t,

It is NOT deterministic, the range of randomness implies this. The existence of randomness at all implies this.

Physicist,

The fact it doesn't fail is the interesting thing.

The classical model was completely deterministic, you can't get much tighter then that I'm afraid. If by tighter you meant "more accurate description of reality", then there's still the question of a practical-deterministic order with a non-deterministic base.

Theli,

They don't, which is part of the point.

The fact the universe seems ordered is exactly the point.

Jobar,

Jobar, the intent of this thread was meant to be light hearted (notice the wink in the thread subject). I didn't want this to be in S&S because it is more an attack of the basis for rejecting god then anything. Just because a person can't account for all the aspects of their faith (or lack thereof), doesn't mean it's wrong and should be dismissed. All these false analogies with pink unicorns (for theists) and inflated human pride (for atheists) and such get a little tired after a while. My original question was an honest one, however.

I'd have to disagree. Science does tend to cling to theories, and there are numerous examples in history that point to this. For a long time many believed light was exclusively a wave even though it went against certain observable evidence. Einstien didn't believe the universe was expanding so he implemented a "cosmological constant" even though it violated his own theory (although later changed it and admitted the blunder when Hubble proved the universe must be expanding).

I think it's also important to note that individual faith often has nothing to do with religion at all.

ComestibleVenom

No, as has been pointed out before, causation takes on a different aspect, a stochastic (not quite random) character, on the quantum level. It is a revision of causative theory. How you came to the wild conclusion that this naturalistic theory is at all at odds with methodological naturalism is totally beyond me.

Wrong, the relationships are real - merely not what we expected of them. If it was indeed purely chatotic, QM could provide no predictions. But it does. It, like evolutionary theory, shows that order can and does come from chaos.

Please don't apply scientific straw men to attack the philosophy underlying science.

Your attemt to turn the parsimony objection against god on it's head has not been argued for. You've simply misconstrued physics and then boldly asserted a conclusion for which no argument is evident.

ComestibleVenom

Originally posted by Physicist
Normal Replied:
Normal, you clearly have not bothered to think your position through. Stochastic elements are an integral part of many theoretical models. Neural networks, biological and chemical evolution, thermodynamics all successfully incorporate randomness into thier decidedly nonrandom predictions.

Just what is your point? None of this is at all incompatible with scientific study or asserting that "god-theory" commits all of it's interesting issues to hand-waving appeals to the ineffable.

Normal wrote:
The analogy of IPUs are very, very strong in relevant respects. There are only very silly reasons like projection to believe in IPU's andsuch. IPU's do not add coherently to our other world-theories. IPU's are highly complex which, when conjoined with the previous fact, make them highly unparsimonious like god.

Sue Sponte

I find it wonderfully ironic that the OP criticizes those who conclude that God is fiction due to lack of evidence by asserting that something with endless evidence is fiction.

Now, which should I choose? Let's review:

1. God's evidence: well, there is none.

2. Cause and effect: I observe this on a daily basis. Nearly every minute of each day, I voluntarily undertake an action with the expection that it will result in an effect and, remarkably, it works. I turn the key on in my vehicle, the engine starts. I hit the little buttons on my keyboard, these letters appear. I read the Bible, my head hurts.

Hmmmmm. Although it is very close, I think I believe in cause and effect just a tad more. Call me crazy.

PJPSYCO

Normal,

Quantum mechanical effects are not random. They are far from it. If they were random, chemistry wouldn't work. You'd pour two things together and always get something random. Spectroscopy and spectrometry would be imposible. Sorry for you, a misunderstanding of quantum doesn’t prove your god exists.

Suggested reading would include general chemistry books, quantum books, physical chemistry books (both thermodynamics, and kinetics/dynamics), and books on infrared and ultraviolet spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic immaging. In addition, inorganic and organic chemistry texts can be untilised as well.