Monday, November 20, 2017

Refuted: Sacerdotus Is (Even More) Stupid (Than Previously Thought) Pt. 2




Here is part 2 of Atheismnthecity's poor attempt to refute my refutation. I will easily refute his/her restatement of his/her errors. Again, notice how atheismnthecity resorts to ad hominem and never actually touches my refutation. My replies will be in bold. 

<<Author's note: I know I just wrote that I'd be spending more time writing about social issues and lay off atheism for a bit, but a recent attempt to rebut my blog post on why I'm an atheist got my attention and prompted me to make a response. I'll get back to social issues when this is done.



A supposed "philosopher" who challenged me on my post Why I'm An Atheist, wrote a follow up to my follow up, and in it he claims again, that's he's refuted me and that I'm ignorant of science and philosophy. The exact opposite is true and I can easily show why. His arguments are so bad, they are laughable. And I don't mean this to be facetious, I mean this with all seriousness. He makes so many common argumentative mistakes and factual errors that I cannot take him seriously that he has a degree in philosophy and science. If he does have a degree, he should get a refund, because he apparently learned no serious critical thinking skills because of it. His arguments are on the caliber of the same old tired internet apologist, like the many wannabe William Lane Craig clones out there. Only he's at the low end of the spectrum.


Here I continue with part 2 covering arguments 3, 4, 5, and 6.Starting with his response to argument 3, his words are in block quotes:>>

Sacerdotus:

We have seen the many failed attempts by atheismnthecity in his/her posts. This author has even gone to the extreme of placing him/herself as an authority above those holding a Ph.D.!  This is absurd and disturbing, to say the least.  The author's refusal to accept facts is also extremely disturbing.  It seems to me that the author believes that philosophical thought experiments trump empirical studies.  In reality, they do not. Do not misinterpret me. I am not against philosophy. I love the field. However, we must acknowledge that philosophy is not a field of empirical study.  One cannot use the philosophy of time and its axioms as scientific law.  Philosophy is mainly a field that is for debate and intellectual discourse. It was not meant to push axioms as scientific fact.  We see how atheismnthecity does exactly this.  He/she pushes thought experiments as science when, in fact, they are not.  Ideas such as eternalism, presentism, block universe and so on are not scientific. They cite science in order to supplement arguments, but they are not in themselves science.  If we start to take philosophical axioms and thought experiments as science, then we will have to believe in ideas such as the universe being a simulation created by advanced aliens.  Yes, this is a topic in philosophy!  I have demonstrated what real science says.  It is clear to me and others that atheismnthecity is not well educated in the fields of science or philosophy.  This is why he/she resorts to puerile commentary regarding my degrees and knowledge. Recall what Socrates stated about losers in a debate and how they resort to slander.   

<<3) Causality doesn't exist in the way we think it does


He writes,

Yes, the author does not understand causality.  

I understand causality way better than Sacerdotus does. Notice how he doesn't even bother to attempt to define causality. And notice that his assumption of causality presupposes presentism, which he has not ever even attempted to justify (because he's too ignorant to know he's even presupposed it!).

Yes, there is a consensus that the universe had a cause. This is taught in all cosmology, physics and astronomy courses.  Clearly, the author has never taken any of the aforementioned.

Prove it. Prove the universe had a cause. I asked him to show evidence for that in my last response post, and he still has provided no evidence. Better yet, he needs to define what he means by "causality." I defined what I mean by it, he has not. He's begging the question. This is an utter failure on Sacerdotus's part to demonstrate he's logical and knows how to debate. I've provided ample evidence for my claims, he's provided very little or none for his. Also, I took physics and astronomy courses. There was no mention of the universe having a cause. None. He's also not understanding the usage of "cause" in the colloquial sense versus what it really means to most physicists. He's confusing the colloquial cause with the scientific cause in the same way creationists confuse the colloquial "theory" with the scientific theory.

The author claims that I showed no evidence, yet in my previous post I provided the paragraph the author quoted with a hyperlink. Once again, the author misapplies the argument ad populum. The aforementioned is coined for criticism against common belief, not scientific fact. In science, a consensus is needed. This is why the peer review system exists. This is how science checks and balances itself. We see once again that this author simply is aloof to the facts.

Sacerdotus never provided any evidence that the universe had a cause, which is the thing in question. He provided a link to an article from Cern saying the universe shouldn't exist, but that's completely irrelevant. Yet another failure on his part to be logical and rational. You can't tell me I'm out of line with a consensus when you provide zero evidence for a consensus. My views are actually the mainstream view. Sacerdotus is too ignorant to realize that because all he knows is popular level apologetics.

The author then appeals to Sean Carroll in order to avoid addressing my reply. He/she does not realize that Sean Carroll is giving his personal opinion and does not even offer data or statistics to back up his claims. If you look at the pdf file linked, there is no data. It is just an essay that he wrote. Give me a break.

Carroll is just giving his opinion. He believes that events do not have purpose or causes, but does not show why. 

Wait, so when I quote a scientist, I'm just giving his "opinion," but when Sacerdotus quotes a scientist, it's somehow scientific fact? Give me a break. Look at that double standard. Carroll isn't giving his option. He's explain how, from his decades as a physicist working on cosmology and a fundamental understanding of the universe, there is no causality in the way people normally define the term. He explains this in the paper he wrote, that what we think of causes are really just

a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions....If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time “caused” the state to be what it was at the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first.

Carroll further explains this in his excellent book, The Big Picture, and in his many talks and lectures. See here where I fast forwarded his talk to the relevant section on causality:



Sacerdotus continues his demonstration of ignorance:

He says, "they simply conform to the laws of nature." He does not answer how nor where these laws came from, nor why these laws exist and why they exist in the way they do. Laws need a lawgiver if we are to think logically here. 

How or why these laws exist are technically irrelevant. All one needs to do is show that all physical matter conforms to time symmetric patterns which we describe as the laws of physics. Event A doesn't cause event B to exist, because event B already physically exists in spacetime. It just precedes event A. This is what science says is the case, as Carroll describes in the above linked talk. And given eternalism (which after 3 attempts at explaining Sacerdotus is still too ignorant to understand) those laws do not come into existence; the laws of physics are just human-made descriptions of the physical regularity eternally imprinted in spacetime (which never begins to exist), they exist eternally like the rest of the universe. They cannot have a law giver. He's conflating man-made laws with laws of physics. The laws of physics are just descriptions of physical regularity and patterns in the physical universe. Human laws are things we create to run a society. They are two different notions of "laws." This is a common mistake almost every theist makes. Continuing on,

Ironically, the author bolds a quote that attacks eternalism: "these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings, but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world." This pretty much is what I wrote in my previous reply regarding eternalism. The irony...

There is no irony here because Sacerdotus is ignorant, yet again. Eternalism is an accurate description of the nature of time derived from special relativity. There is no comparison to "causality" in its colloquial definition. Sacerdotus is just too stupid to realize this because he can't seem to understand things that are complex and non-intuitive. This is actually why all people think god is real. They just can't understand many the reasons for why god isn't real because they're too complex and non-intuitive. But here it gets really fun.

Once again, eternalism is not part of science. Science does not confirm this. I already showed that nothing in the universe is determined and even embedded a link of my former physics instructor, Dr. Kaku explaining why nothing is determined by nature. The author as expected failed to address them.

The relativity of simultaneity is part of science, and once you have that, you have eternalism! Furthermore, on his own logic, presentism is not part of science, and he's pressuposing presentism (but too ignorant to realize this). So on his own logic he's doing the very thing he claims I'm doing. To quote Sacerdotus: "The irony..."

He.she cannot do so because he/she does not understand anything being discussed. Minkowski spacetime shows that space and time are not determinate for every observer that has existed and will exist. For each event in A, there are many who will disagree as to whether or not they are determinate from the constant. Here is an equation to show this which I know the author will not understand, but I demonstrate it anyhow to show I know more than this author. v = –c to +c represents the acceleration of uniformity of a person in life. With this pattern, the hypersurface parameter of the person project in a non-linear fashion. Because of this, none of the hypersurfaces interact simultaneously showing that the patterns are not indeterminate.

I don't understand anything being discussed? Please! Everything he just said here is either completely irrelevant as to whether or not eternalism is true, or makes a mockery of the science. All that equation says is velocity equals the speed of light in one direction, to the speed of light in another direction, and nothing about that disproves eternalism, or proves presentism. This is pathetically easy to understand. I challenge him to produce this equation from any reputable source and explain how it is at all relevant to eternalism and special relativity. It seems that he copied a bunch of nonsense from a cheesy site called Soul Physics that makes the same exact argument using the same exact equation (which I've seen before). This site is based entirely off of the Rietdijk-Putnam argument, but I've got my own argument for eternalism. He has to refute my argument in order to show I have not made the case for eternalism. I know he can't do so because it is painfully obvious he doesn't understand special relativity, despite his supposed physics degree (which I can tell is a lie). And what constant? Light? And the "acceleration of uniformity"? That is not a term in special relativity or anywhere in science either. If Sacerdotus wants to debate me on whether or not eternalism is true, I will gladly do so, and whoop his as*. None of this makes any sense to a person who understands special relativity. I guarantee he can't even define what determinate means in this context let alone explain how it's relevant to eternalism.

The bottom line is this: in order to deny that special relativity entails eternalism you have to assume certain things for which you will never and can never have any evidence for. Presentism is based on faith, just like religion is. It's no wonder most theists tend to be presentists.

The non-zero Weyl curvature has nothing to do with what the author thinks it does. They have to do with the gravitational waves that exist in the vacuum of space. The author shows he/she is completely clueless about physics and philosophy. Any reader can see the fallacies in the author's claims without possessing a background in physics or philosophy.

I mentioned that gravitational waves have a non-zero Weyl curvature. If he disagrees, he can show why. I mentioned that a non-zero Weyl curvature is only possible in 4 dimensions. If he disagrees he can show why. I mentioned that a 4 dimensional world is not compatible with presentism, because presentism is 3 dimensional. He shows he's completely clueless of the subject matter and is very desperate to try and show he's smart, but is instead having a much easier time showing his ignorance.

Verdict: Sacerdotus has made no case for causality. He doesn't define causality or prove it to be true. He literally just asserts a consensus. Not only does that make a logical fallacy of an argument ad populum, he doesn't even provide evidence for the consensus! He hasn't shown in any way that causality exists the way people commonly think of it. He doesn't make a case for his views. Bad reasoning all around. He can't possibly have graduated college.>>


Sacerdotus:

The author clearly does not understand causality. His/her own words demonstrate this. Note how his/her response is to state that he/she knows causality better than me. This is not a rebuttal. It is a childish response.  Again, the author is simply repeating his/her errors. It seems that he/she is not even bothering to read my refutations. Had he/she read it, he/she would not be repeating his/her errors.  Perhaps he/she does not understand my refutations. If this is the case, the author should inquire instead of just repeating his/her mistakes. Repeating myself is becoming silly now. The author needs to actually address my points, fix his/her points or just give up and face the fact that he/she ran out of defenses.  He/she claims that I did not prove that the universe had a cause. This is silly. This is taught in every physics, astronomy and cosmology 101 course. Then again, this author does not have college credentials so I can see why he/she is not aware of this fact.  Next, the author lies by claiming that I did not provide evidence when I did. I wrote and even provided a graphic:




"Here is what we know about the universe.  The graph above illustrates it and provides some basic facts.  Hopefully, the author will understand better via visuals.  The orange sun-like image on the graph is the "big bang" or the moment of it.  Prior to this was nothing.  There was no space, time, matter or energy.  We do not know, scientifically speaking, what was this state or how to describe it. Some believe this "nothingness" was just primitive quantum fluctuations.  We simply do not have the data to concretely give a scientific explanation.  This is why we smash particles at the Particle Collider at CERN.  Hopefully, we can learn more based on how these particles behave when separated.  As demonstrated in the graphic, eternity is not possible for the universe.  There were no "moments" as the author erroneously assumes.  It was just a bang and then expansion took hold leading to the formation of the universe as it exists today.  Now, the universe will end eventually. This is a fact.  How it will end will most likely be via the loss of usable energy which will create a cold and inert universe that will go dark (heat death).  This is the most likely end based on the law of conservation.  There are other theories out there such as the "big crunch" which I described in my previous reply.  In this theory, the universe will just contract back to the point of the "big bang."  All will be destroyed in the process.  Whether or not the universe will expand afterward is unknown and highly unlikely due to lack of entropy.  As you can see, there is no room for eternity in the state of the universe."  

Again, this is not something I made up. This comes from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, and physics. If this author took an astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics or physics course and writes on an exam that the universe is eternal, had no cause and so on, the professor will fail him/her.  It is no wonder why the author in his/her frustration due to his/her inability to refute my points resorts to ad hominem. Furthermore, we see the author's confusion regarding the words causality and theory. He/she is relying on a straw man argument by misrepresenting my statements. This is a defense mechanism meant to deflect from his/her lack of knowledge in the fields of philosophy and physics. The author then resorts to quote-mining in order to mask his/her inability to refute my points. He/she claims that I dismiss quotes from scientists and opinion while presenting mine as fact. This is not so. The quotes I provided entail scientific facts. If you look at the quotes, you will notice this. The quotes provided by the author show the scientist's opinion, not scientific fact. The paper the author cited from Carroll is not peered review, nor is it in a physics journal. 

Once again, we see atheismnthecity's poor understanding of how science publication works. Not everything a scientist writes is scientific research.  Books written by Sagan, Krauss, Dawkins or Carroll are not scientific research. These works are not peer reviewed nor subject to scrutiny. They are the author's opinion. This is why Krauss, Carroll and Dawkins cannot publish a scientific paper stating that God does not exist. They can not do this because 1). Science does not touch this topic and 2) It is not scientific research.  The author does not realize that causality in physics means the same thing everyone who knows the world understands it to mean. There is no difference. Causality is the relationship between triggers and their effects, or cause and effect. For example, the causality of a human being stems from conception. The causality of conception stems from sexual reproduction.  The causality of digestion stems from ingestion. The causality of respiration stems from inhalation.  We can understand this using mathematics:

m1  d^2r1 = - m1m2g(r1-r2)
   ________________________  etc.   
     dt^2     |r1-r2|^3 

I doubt that atheismnthecity will understand this equation due to his/her lack of a college education.  Nevetheless, I put it out there for those who do understand and can see how mathematics proves the author to be incorrect. Again, atheismnthecity is just googling random things in order to splice them up to create his/her sophism. Notice, his/her appeal to Sean Carroll's book The Big Picture. I have read this book and can tell you that this book is mostly opinion. Carroll provides a philosophical take to life based on his understanding of physics. It is not meant to be a book for scientific instruction. You will not see professors in physics using it in classes as a textbook.  Next, the author provides a video of Carroll speaking on time as a pattern. This is where the author goes haywire. Carroll is not saying that the universe did not have a cause. He is saying that time is a succession of patterns. What the author fails to understand is that all that Carroll is speaking about began at the big bang. The fact that we use the word began shows that the universe had a beginning and whatever begins to exist has a cause. Carroll is welcomed to have his own opinion, but he cannot push it as science, nor should others such as atheismnthecity rely on it as scientific law.  

Any science student (such as myself) can tell the difference between a scientist speaking scientifically and when he/she is giving an opinion.  Unfortunately, atheismnthecity does not have the credentials to tell either or. This is why he/she makes a mess when trying to rely on science and philosophy to push his/her errors. Note how he/she completely ignores my statement regarding the fact that he/she does not answer how the laws of nature came about, why they exist and work in the way that they do. This is crucial to the debate. He/she claims that matter conforms to a time-symmetric, but this is not true nor does he/she show evidence for this.  Then he/she goes on stating that A does not cause B to exist when in fact this is how things in the universe work. Galaxies cannot exist without gasses collecting together via gravity. Expansion cannot occur without entropy. I can go on and on, but you get the point.  We see again the ignorance atheismnthecity has regarding science. Note his/her ignorance of the laws of physics. He/she claims that these laws do not come into existence and are just human-made descriptions. Is he/she serious??  

Physicists understand the laws of physics originated after the big bang. The theory of relativity shows this via the fact that they break down as we rewind back to the point of expansion.  Moreover, atheismnthecity claims that spacetime never began to exist and that they cannot have a law-giver. This is just wrong and contrary to physics. Space-time did have a beginning after the big bang. Moreover, how does the author know that the laws of physics did not need a law-giver? He/she provides no evidence for this and contradicts logic. If a law exists, logic dictates that said law had a law-giver. We can see in this paragraph how the author is just confused and giving any simple response in order to give a response. We can see this by his/her insistence that eternalism works with special relativity. This author does not realize that space-time is interconnected. They had their beginning with the big bang. Eternalism cannot work because of this connection. Atheismnthecity shows his/her ignorance by believing that space and time are things that work independently of one another. Special relativity shows otherwise. We see here how the author contradicts him/herself and is simply making things up as he/she goes on. Notice how he/she changes his/her stance on eternalism by now claiming that relativity of simultaneity is part of science.  In reality,  relativity of simultaneity is not part of eternalism. It entails the perception of two events in different spatial parameters and whether or not the events happened simultaneously.  It has nothing to do with eternalism. We see again how atheismnthecity is simply pulling things out of a hat and does not understand what he/she is pulling out. Moreover, the author attacks presentism when in the video of Carroll he/she posted, Carroll is actually describing presentism as the norm of the universe.  Next, atheismnthecity restates his/her error and use of Weyl's curvature. I have already explained to him/her in a previous post. Notice how he/she did not even address it.  






<<4) The big bang does not say the universe came from "nothing"

Continuing on with his parade of ignorance and stupidity Sacerdotus writes,

The author begins with a laughable remark, "Vilenkin, Kaku, and Krauss all make the mistake of calling the quantum vacuum 'nothing.'"  This is just ridiculous.  The author claims to know more than Ph.D. physicists. It is Dunning-Kruger at work. I think Krauss would get a laugh out of this. The author failed to logically show anything other than he/she does not have a strong grasp of cosmology and philosophy. The author now is working on a strawman claiming that I stated that physicists literally present "nothingness" and literally nothing. I wrote in my previous reply-post, 

A quantum vacuum isn't nothing. You know why? Because it's a quantum vacuum. It's a field with physical properties. That's something, not nothing. Sacerdotus is really confused about my argument here, and this is because it is too nuanced for your average person to understand. I'm using the philosopher'sdefinition of nothing, not the physicist's. Krauss has been called out by numerous people that calling something "nothing" is fallacious. So yes, I know more than a PhD. And of course when I quote a PhD to reinforce my point, somehow Sacerdotus knows better than the scientists I quote! Look at the irony and double standard.

The whole problem Sacerdotus has in understanding my argument is that to describe the universe as "coming from nothing" is false. As I explained, nothing never existed. To "come from" something assumes that something else exists independently of you. If I "come from" Chicago, it means Chicago is a thing that exists independently of me that I can come from. This cannot apply to the universe because the universe is the totality of physical existence. It cannot "come from" anything else because that would imply something else exists apart from it. The universe just has a first moment when time = 0. There is nothing prior to that because time cannot exist prior to time. It's like being north of the north poll. It's impossible. If Sacerdotus thinks it can, he's even more stupid than I already think of think of him, and the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate and prove (not assert) nothing once existed.

When scientists say "the universe comes from nothing" they are making this semantic mistake because of the convenience and limitations of language. This is a problem of language, not reality. Our language is not tuned to describe how the universe really works. That's why I quoted physicist Brian Greene because what he's saying is extremely important and accurate of the limitations of human language. Sacerdotus is ignorant of his, just like Krauss, and many other physicists. He's taking human language and confusing it for reality. In other words, he's confusing the map for the territory. Once you critically think about the big bang, you will see that my view, and the view Sean Carroll has (who has a PhD in physics), is the correct one.

Verdict: Once you understand that I mean the philosopher's definition of "nothing" and not the physicist's definition of a quantum vacuum, then you will see my argument makes complete sense. Sacerdotus is too ignorant to get this.>>



Sacerdotus:

Once again, the author shows his/her lack of understanding regarding how physicists use the word "nothing."  Quantum vacuums exist now in the current state of the universe, however, prior to the big bang, we simply do not know what was there. I tried to help the author understand the difference since he/she clearly did not understand the use of the word and why Krauss and other physicists use the word "nothing" to describe quantum fluctuations. It is apparent that he/she felt triggered and resorted to another ad hominem believing my attempt to educate him/her as an insult. Krauss has been called out by philosophers, but rarely by his own peers in the physics community. This next response made me laugh. Atheismnthecity wrote, 


"So yes, I know more than a PhD,"

seriously?  Atheismnthecity has no college degree. He knows as much as a high school child, probably less based on his/her blog. There is no way he/she can even have small talk with a Ph.D. holder.  If he has struggled with me, imagine with a Ph.D. holder!  This claim itself shows the author is incapable of properly reasoning, he/she stated, 


"As I explained, nothing never existed."  

How does he/she know this? Not even a cosmologist makes such a claim. Scientifically speaking, we simply do not know what was before the big bang. We call this "nothing" because there was nothing since everything began after the big bang. All space-time, matter, energy and the laws of physics came into being after the big bang. Since the aforementioned are "something," we describe what was before it as "nothing." It is not a difficult concept. It is like a glass or a cup. If it has water, we say it is a "glass or cup of water." If it is empty, we say it is an "empty glass or cup."  The words are more of a description rather than a concrete explanation of the state. Moreover, we already know the universe came from nothing. I explained this before.  I wrote, 


"The idea of something coming from nothing seems mindboggling. However, it is not. Since gravitational energy is negative, it is, therefore, zero in a closed system. Matter is naturally positive and when added to the energy of gravity, it is equal to zero.  Because of this, the existence and formation of a closed system universe where something comes from nothing is possible and does not violate the laws of conservation." 

There is no semantic mistake. Claiming scientists make a semantic mistake is ridiculous and shows Atheismnthecity will say anything to try to come across as correct. The truth of the matter is that science contradicts him/her. We can see this in his/her attempt to claim that Krauss, myself and other Ph.D. scientists are ignorant. Think about it: Here we have an anonymous blogger who has no college education claiming that he/she is more knowledgeable than me and those with PhD degrees and who are respected in their fields. Does that sound kosher?  Again, atheismnthecity would not last in an entry-level college course with this attitude. He/she will be embarrassed by the professor and will flunk. 



<<5) Argument from core theory


In response to my response of the 5th argument he writes,

Science has made no such statement. One can search on Google Scholar for such a peer review paper and will find none. You will find a few scientists; namely, in the psychology field who wrote papers on the soul. If the soul were defined via science as in the case of evolution, it would be taught in school as a scientific fact.

Scientists have certainly said there is no soul, and when they say that they are not merely giving their opinion. They're stating that science as we know it now refutes the idea of a soul. If Core Theory is true, there is no soul. In order for Core Theory to be false, quantum field theory has to be false. And that fact that a soul is not taught in science class, unlike how evolution is, shows there is nothing in science demonstrating a soul. (And before you go saying a soul is immaterial, and therefore cannot be described by science, thinking again. Anything that has an effect on physical matter can be studied through science).

We see again that the author is simply not a friend to the facts. He/she demonstrates this by his response to Penrose's studies on microtubles in neurons and how they relate to quantum physics. The author clearly did not understand or is being willfully ignorant on the topic. This is why he claims no evidence was posted, when in fact, they were. He/she simply chose to not address it, for obvious reasons. He does not have the credentials to engage in such difficult topics.

Sacerdotus never linked to any evidence on Penrose's claim. Penrose is also far outside the mainstream in physics and neuroscience where the majority of people do not think there is a soul. Materialists dominate the field of neuroscience as they do almost every field of science.

Moreover, it was the author who makes conclusions about the number of fermions and bosons (5%). He never provided evidence for this. I simply corrected his/her claims. I wrote that the number changes because matter particles produce and absorb many particles during their existence. Therefore, we cannot pin down an exact number. That is what I wrote. The author is so aloof that he/she does not even remember who wrote what. That is funny.

It's technically irrelevant to my argument from core theory what percentage of the universe makes up fermions and bosons. And he never provided evidence that their percentage fluctuates. Something can be produced and absorbed at a constant rate, leaving it's percentage the same. I don't cite the 5% estimation because it is common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about the universe that it's rounded out to be 5% (or 4.6% technically).

Sacerdotus has to show how the percentage of fermions and bosons is relevant to my argument first.

He/she claims that I do not understand the argument, but we all can see that he/she does not understand the response. He/she makes another ridiculous statement here, "We don't need to know all the forces and particles in the universe.  All we need to know is all the forces and particles relevant to human beings..."  Is he/she serious?  We are all particles in the universe and vice-versa!  Human beings are not distinct substances that exist aside from space-time and matter!  This guy is so ridiculous, for crying out loud!  The knowledge of all particles that may exist is vital to understanding human beings because we are those particles!  The author shows his ignorance by claiming that we are not made up of quarks.  Atoms make up our bodies. These atoms are hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen.  However, these atoms have protons and neutrons in the nucleus which in turn are made of quarks.  Again, the author shows his/her science illiteracy. 

Sacerdotus demonstrates again how ignorant he is of my argument (something he does rather easy.) I never said we aren't made of atoms. I said the whole time we are made of atoms. And we know all the forces and particles those atoms are made of (in Core Theory) and that understanding of those atoms in the Standard Model rules out any additional forces that are not accounted for that a soul would require, if it had any effect on our physical bodies. Hence there is no soul. By him reasserting that we are made of atoms actually makes my point! In fact, to believe we have a soul requires one to believe human beings have a distinct force that applies to the atoms that make up human beings and not inanimate objects like rocks or water. This we know for a fact is false. All atoms behave according to the 3 forces in the Standard Model and gravity. Period.

We can pretty much rule out his/her arguments are faulty due to a lack of strong base on facts. So it is not that anyone misunderstands the Core Theory, it is that he/she has no idea what it is and is misrepresenting it.  What this author is doing is like pushing the idea that 2+2=5 as fact while calling those who disagree the ones who "misunderstand."  The Standard Model is not set in stone. As I explained, it is constantly being challenged. Note how the author did not even address the rest of my reply regarding Meson particles, Wilczek himself, patients who are declared dead and come back after cells begin to die etc.  Could it be that he/she has no rebuttal?  Note that all he/she has done is say that I do not understand. He/she does not offer any rebuttal.

I have offered a clear rebuttal, and Sacerdotus has foolishly helped make my argument for me above. He just doesn't understand my argument and seeks to have the most uncharitable interpretation of me as possible, guaranteeing he will always attack a strawman, and never my real argument. If one actually believes in a soul, I've got some questions for you. Let's see if Sacerdotus can answer these:

  1. There needs to be a way that "soul stuff" interacts with the fields of which we are made-with elections, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge?
  2. Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated?
  3. Is there "virtual soul stuff" as well as "real soul stuff," and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles?
  4. Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes?
  5. Is the soul a kind of "hidden variable" playing an important role in quantum ontology?

Of course he can't.

Verdict: He hasn't understood my argument and has (as usual) attacked a strawman. Thus he has not refuted my argument at all. He further demonstrates his ignorance on physics, which is a recurring theme with him.>>



Sacerdotus:

No scientist has claimed that the soul does not exist. In fact, I have shown how they are trying to find it. Atheismnthecity will find no peer review study claiming that the soul does not exist. This is not science. Science works with evidence, not with blanket statements. I have already explained what the Core Theory is and why Atheismnthecity does not understand it.  Because of this poor understanding, he/she has come to all kinds of fallacious conclusions which distort the Core Theory itself. What atheismnthecity does is like saying thunder exists because God is playing bowling. These kinds of conclusions that ignore scientific facts hurt atheism. As a former atheist, I would have called out a member of my humanist/atheist club in college if he/she came up with the ridiculous arguments Atheismnthecity has come up with. They simply do not make sense and ignore the facts. 

Penrose's study on the soul is evidence that the issue of the soul is not closed. I provided evidence of Penrose's study to atheismnthecity and do not understand why he/she is claiming that I did not. The claim that Penrose is far outside the mainstream of physics and neuroscience is unfounded and is a claim that originates from atheismnthecity's ignorance. It is clear to me that he/she learned of Penrose after I mentioned him. Again, had atheismnthecity taken the time to properly do research, he/she would have been better informed and would not have written the fallacious post on 13 reasons why he/she is an atheist. I have demonstrated that those were really 13 reasons why atheismnthecity is uneducated. Materialists do not dominate any field in any science. This is another false claim by the author who also made a false claim that philosophers were atheists by citing a Canadian statistic from a non-profit organization unaffiliated with the Canadian or American Philosophical Association.

Moreover, atheismnthecity claims that it is technically irrelevant to his/her argument what percentage of the universe makes up fermions and bosons.  However, he/she was the one who brought it up. I was simply correcting his/her error and provided evidence of it.  If atheismnthecity is requesting physical evidence, then he/she would have to contact CERN as I do not have a particle collider in my residence. Next time, he//she should reserve comments regarding percentages instead of throwing out random numbers without understanding what he/she is referring to. Take me for example. I do not have a degree in chemistry. Because of this, you will not see me throwing out chemicals or chemical formulas out there because I do not have expertise in this field. I will simply cite experts on it or as a friend who has a degree in it for assistance.

Furthermore, atheismnthecity claims that I stated that he/she wrote that we are not made of atoms. This is a lie. I never stated this. What I did was mock his/her statement regarding the forces and particles in the universe and how they relate to human beings. Atheismnthecity makes it clear how disingenuous he/she is and how ignorant. Neither the Standard Model or Core Theory negate any other forces.  Why? Easy, because we do not know all the particles and forces out there. This is why CERN exists! Atheismnthecity is under the false impression that we know everything there is to know about the universe.  We are barely scratching the surface. These models do not rule out the souls.  Moreover, newsflash: Physicists do not search for souls. This is not what the field is about. The soul has not been ruled out because there is still much we do not know. 

No scientist, no amateur blogger like atheismnthecity can account for what keeps the atoms in organisms animated during the period we call "life." In other words, why do our atoms "live" while others do not? Our atoms come from the cores of stars that exploded billions of years ago. To quote Sagan, we are "stardust." However, these atoms became "alive" during our conception. Why is this?  Atheismnthecity will never be able to answer this, neither would Carroll or any other physicist. There is clearly an x-factor that accounts for this. There are studies on this one can read regarding consciousness and how it may exist even after death.  However, that is another heavy topic which I doubt atheismnthecity will be able to follow since it is heavily based on scientific research and he/she has a disdain for it.

Lastly, atheismnthecity claims that he/she has offered a clear rebuttal. In reality, he/she has not. I have demonstrated using science and philosophy that atheismnthecity's conclusions are not based on or supported by philosophy or science. Atheismnthecity is simply pushing his/her sophism as fact. While in the process, he/she has demonstrated to us all his/her ignorance and stupidity. It has even brought about the mockery of other atheists as I have evidenced in part I of this refutation. Next, he/she presents questions which I will answer here:




"There needs to be a way that "soul stuff" interacts with the fields of which we are made-with elections, or photons, or something. Do those interactions satisfy conservation of energy, momentum, and electric charge?"
First, the author assumes that there "needs to be a way." This is special pleading. We simply do not know enough to make such a conclusion. Nevertheless, if a soul exists and is in us animating our souls, then clearly there is an interaction that satisfies the parameters of the laws of physics. If the system was not compatible, then it would not be.

"Does matter interact back on the soul, or is the principle of action and reaction violated?"
I would submit that the relationship between matter and the soul is reciprocal. Like with space and time, both would be interconnected. 

"Is there "virtual soul stuff" as well as "real soul stuff," and do quantum fluctuations of soul stuff affect the measurable properties of ordinary particles?"

This is a nonsensical question because it assumes that the soul substance behaves in the same matter as matter in the universe. The soul is by definition immaterial, therefore, it would not behave in the same matter as material.

"Or does the soul stuff not interact directly with particles, and merely affect the quantum probabilities associated with measurement outcomes?"

Clearly, if a soul exists it is interacting directly with particles. If not, we would not be conscious, we would not be able to control the bran and the body.

"Is the soul a kind of "hidden variable" playing an important role in quantum ontology?"
Define "hidden varible." The soul is simply an immaterial entity that controls and gives conciousness to the matter of the body until death. 



As you can see, I easily answered the questions.  Now I have some of my own which I know atheismnthecity cannot answer:

1). Why are the atoms in the human brain conscious and the atoms in a rock are not?

2). Atoms are mostly empty space, so why do they exist in the way that they do?

3). Since we do not perceive things directly, how can you prove that there is no soul?

4). Does quantum entanglement satisfy the ontological measures of consciousness in relation to the spin of mesons when interacting with gravity and low entropy?

5). Since atoms are the same in every organism, why are there differences in personality despite the ontological and physical parameters in monozygotic organisms?

I reckon that atheismnthecity will not be able to answer these questions and will simply resort to contrarian responses. He/she simply does not possess any grasp of physics or philosophy. Some of the questions are set up to show his/her ignorance.   Again, we are dealing with a person with no academic credentials at all.  



<<6) Libertarian free will is incoherent


There is a reason why only 13% of professional philosophers believe in libertarian free will: it's not only incompatible with science, it's conceptually incoherent. This is one of my favorite topics to debate, so this should be fun. He writes,

Our control is the cause.

What causes us to control the cause? He's just pushing the question back one step, which tells me he's never debated this issue before. You see, you can never escape the dilemma. Either human will is caused and determined by something prior to it, or it is uncaused. If it's caused it isn't free, because you cannot have control over something uncaused. This means that even if determinism is false, you still can't have free will (sorry Dr. Kaku, you're wrong and I don't care if you have a PhD. Degrees do not assure you will always be right. To think so makes an argument from authority).

If there is no us, there is not thought. Thought requires a conscious intelligence capable of assimilating stimuli, processing said stimuli and exporting it into a form of communication (verbal, physical, orthographical). Just because our control is a cause does not mean it is the absolute cause. There are different points of causality. Our bodies were caused by conception. But the eggs and sperm that because us had their cause. We can only define a cause within an ontological parameter as it currently exists.  

There is us, but "us" is just a lot of atoms, and those atoms follow the laws of physics which do not allow for free will. Free will would require a force that only applies to us that is not the 4 known forces in physics. On top of that, even if there was such a force, free will itself is incoherent. That's why my argument is a logical one, it is a priori, not a posterior. It doesn't rely on materialism. What's in question here is whether any given instance of thought or will has a cause. Like I said, you have only 2 options: yes or no. If yes, you have no free will. If no, you have no free will. Therefore you cannot under any circumstances have free will, regardless of materialism's truth or falsity. 

Moreover, the 4 dimensions are space, time, matter and energy. This is what we believe we exist in. There may be up to 12 according to M- Theory. We may not even be able to perceive them.  The science is still developing in this area. A 4-dimensional state of 4 does not mean there is no free-will. Notice how the author fails to prove his/her claim. 

Matter and energy are not properly considered dimensions. There are the 3 spatial dimensions, and time. Whatever dimensions M-theory suggests is completely irrelevant to the question of free will because again, the problem is logical, not physical. There is nothing for me to "prove" because the author is completely lost as to what I'm even arguing. He's still stuck on the idea that my argument relies on physics. It doesn't. It relies entirely on logic. The very conception of libertarian free will is blatantly self refuting because it would always boil down to choices that are simultaneously caused (else they wouldn't be volitional - due to the agent´s will) and uncaused (else they wouldn't be "free" in a libertarian sense) - and something being "caused" while simultaneously being "uncaused" is a contradiction for any model of what "causality" is. It's incoherent. The true sadness is that Sacerdotus doesn't believe in logic! Once you throw logic out the window there is no point debating anymore. I can just write "sdflkjsdfsdfjsdkjfnrere" as my response and that would be as rational as any argument.
Next, the author claims that Dr. Kaku does not know what he is talking about.  Seriously? A top physicist does not know what he is talking about? 

Yes. And somehow when I quote a top physicist and Sacerdotus disagrees, the same logic doesn't apply. See this double standard? This shows how crappy a critical thinker he is. I can quote a hundred PhDs who are atheists. And if Sacerdotus disagrees I can throw his own argument from authority right back at him and say, "Sacerdotus claims that Dr. Krauss/Carroll does not know what he is talking about on atheism. Seriously? A top physicist does not know what he is talking about?" Nonsense.

Electrons behave in a random manner showing that nothing is determined in this universe. If this were not the case, we all would be frozen in time. There would be no room for differences in nature because all would be set to a determined standard. String theory is very relevant here because it deals with the many vibrations in the "strings of life," so to speak. If this author would take courses on this, he/she would not come across as so ignorant of science.

No they aren't random. As Lawrence Krauss has said himself,

"Quantum mechanics is not indeterministic as many people think, it's a completely deterministic theory. It's second order differential equations with boundary conditions and they're completely determined. Once you give the initial conditions the wave function of a particle after some time is completely determined, so there's no indeterminacy. Now what happens when you measure the properties of that particle based on its wave function that's probabilistic."

So let me give Sacerdotus a taste of his own medicine. Dr. Krauss says quantum mechanics is deterministic and explains why and he's a top physicist with 35 years experience. If Sacerdotus disagrees with this I will says: "Seriously? A top physicist does not know what he is talking about?" 

And again, my argument doesn't depend on determinism being true! It is completely neutral on materialism vs immaterialism, determinism vs indeterminism. I already said that and this idiot is still completely clueless. Finally he writes,

To say that one should do something implies that one can do it otherwise one would not state so. For example, I will say that I can make a gold ring if I cannot do so.

Yes ought implies can but I responded to this already. I said we don't know the future. So if I say Sacerdotus should learn more physics and philosophy so he wouldn't be so blatantly ignorant in trying to refute an intelligent atheist like me, I don't know if he actually will or won't. All I do know is that telling someone to do something might increase their likelihood of doing so. Once you understand that, Huemer's argument collapses, just like free will and the soul has.

Verdict: Sacerdotus does what all people mistakenly do who think libertarian free will exists: he simply says "we" cause our free will. That only pushes the problem back one step: what causes us to cause our "free" will? It either is caused and isn't free or is uncaused and isn't free. It's obvious he's never debated this issue and he knows virtually nothing about it, and that's good evidence he's lying about his degrees. No one with a degree in philosophy can be this ignorant of the subject matter. The burden of proof is on him to outline a complete chronological ordering of events of what happens when free will occurs and show what causes what, if any, and explain how he gets out of the dilemma.

To be continued in part 3.>>



Sacerdotus:

Here the author shows his/her lack of knowledge of biology and cognitive psychology. We know that the brain is what controls the body. The brain is the organ that allows for consciousness, thinking, will and the physical direction of said will. The basics of this is taught in junior high school. I do not understand why atheismnthecity does not have any understanding of this. What atheismnthecity fails to understand is that free will works simultaneously with the workings of the brain. It is not a succession of steps. Human will exists in the fact that the human can act in any manner. This faculty is monitored by cognition and manifested by locomotion. The statement that one cannot have control over something uncaused is fallacious. We certainly do have control over "somethings" that are uncaused and can trigger a cause by interaction. A phrase that comes to mind is, "You have to get the ball rolling." This statement is said to encourage another to start something. Notice that the "you" is the person and "get the ball rolling" is the action. From the statement we can see that the "you" is a free person capable of getting the "ball rolling." Furthermore, we can surmise that the ball is in an inert state because the "you" is the one who gets it to roll. It is not a difficult concept. 

Atheismnthecity makes a fallacious point by claiming that if determinism is false then one cannot have free will. He/she then claims Dr. Kaku is wrong. Again, atheismnthecity is being extremely stupid here.  Dr. Kaku is correct. Because electrons have no set pattern, then we know that free will exists.  Nothing is static in the universe. The randomness of particles in the universe allows for multiple events to occur. What is funny is that atheismnthecity is using his/her free will to adopt atheism while rejecting theism. Why is this?  Because he/she has free will and exercised it. Atheismnthecity's own posts proves this. To claim 13 reasons why he/she is an atheists indicates that he/she contemplated the alternative and made a choice. His/her own post refutes his/her own claim that free will is not possible. Again, we see the stupidity that holds atheismnthecity prisoner. A Ph.d degree does not show one is right all the time, but it shows that one is an expert in the field. Moreover, universities will not hire Ph.d holders who do not have a strong grasp in their field. This is why degrees exist.  They exist to allow employers and others to measure the quality of an employee. I can guarantee you that Dr. Kaku will be hired by a university as a professor while atheismnthecity will be hired as a housekeeper.  This is because Dr. Kaku has academic credentials while atheismnthecity does not. 

The laws of physics allow for free will that is why we can see multiple events occur.  There is nothing in the laws of physics that does not allow for free will. Because electrons behave in an unpredictable manner, we can have different outcomes to an event.  Let us supposed atheismnthecity was correct in his/her erroneous claim that the laws of physics do not allow for free will, then when we roll dice, we would get the same number each time. This would be because electrons and other subatomic particles would have a constant behavior which would reflect in the observable universe. Luckily for us, the laws of physics do not work the way atheismnthecity thinks.  Chaos theory posits that there are huge and incalculable equations of minuscule differences that determine conditions which lead to random outcomes.  Free will does not need to be a force within the laws of physics in order to exist. Again, free will works simultaneously with the workings of the brain and body. It is a decision to act or not to act. So we see again how atheismnthecity falls onto a big pickle with his/her sophism. This is not a surprise. We see how atheismnthecity has demonstrated a poor grasp of science and philosophy. Again, we see this in his/her poor understanding of dimensions. This is why he/she calls the dimensions of M-Theory "irrelevant."  How convenient!  He/she refuses to prove anything and we know why. This author simply has stepped out of his/her range of thought and cannot engage the content. Logic is not applicable to his/her argument and I have demonstrated this. 

 The author again contradicts him/herself by claiming that there is no free will but then says that agent has a will.  Which one is it? Does the agent not have a will or does he/she have one?  It cannot be both.  This contradiction further validates my point that this writer is simply not well-educated in physics or philosophy. Furthermore, the quotes that atheismnthecity provided from physicists are not applicable to what he/she is trying to push in his/her points. This is why I criticize them. The author is distorting the content of the physicist's quote. This is what I have issue with, not the physicist's opinion, per se.  Electrons behave in a random manner. Atheismnthecity links a video of Dr. Krauss believing the professor to contradict this, he does not. Apparently, atheismnthecity did not understand the answer Dr. Krauss gave. In fact, around the 40 minute mark, Krauss describes the randomness of electrons. One can read these papers for more information:

"Quantum Theory of Non-integrable Systems" T. Petrosky, I. Prigogine and S. Tasaki Physica A 173, 175-242

"Extension of scattering theory for finite times: three-body scattering" T. Petrosky, G. Ordonez and T. Miyasaka Phys. Rev. A 53, 4075-4103

This is basic physics which atheismnthecity should have learned in junior high school. I do not understand why he/she is ignoring fact in place of nonsense. Dr. Krauss gave his opinion based on the question. Had the question been stated differently, Krauss would have worded it differently. Context is everything. Krauss does describe in his book on something from nothing that nature runs on random processes. Did he contradict himself? I doubt it. Again, context is everything. Atheismnthecity's cherry picking makes it seem as if Krauss is contradicting himself.  We see again how atheismnthecity's own statements are self-refuting and contradict science. However, I will give him/her a pass because he/she does not have a college degree. His/her content is based on random googling of terms and the splicing of quotes to make what he/she thinks is a coherent argument.  I have demonstrated that his/her content is void of facts and absent of thought. I hope atheismnthecity does decide to enroll in a university and actually study physics and philosophy in order to prevent these disastrous posts which have brought the criticism of other atheists.     

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.

Labels

Catholic Church (473) God (320) Atheism (252) Jesus (217) Jesus Christ (215) Bible (180) Pope Francis (166) Atheist (153) LGBT (132) Science (123) Liturgy of the Word (106) Christianity (88) Rosa Rubicondior (77) Pope Benedict XVI (73) Abortion (71) Gay (66) Prayer (56) President Obama (56) Physics (46) Philosophy (43) Vatican (39) Christian (38) Christmas (34) Blessed Virgin Mary (33) New York City (33) Psychology (32) Women (29) Biology (28) Liturgy (28) Politics (28) Baseball (26) Religious Freedom (24) Pope John Paul II (21) Space (21) Holy Eucharist (19) NYPD (19) Pro Abortion (19) Supreme Court (19) priests (19) Evil (18) Child Abuse (17) Pro Choice (17) Donald Trump (16) Evangelization (16) First Amendment (16) Police (16) Protestant (16) Death (14) Health (14) Astrophysics (13) Christ (13) Marriage (12) Priesthood (12) Blog (11) Pedophilia (11) Racism (11) Illegal Immigrants (10) Poverty (10) Apologetics (9) Muslims (9) Theology (9) Vatican II (9) Autism (8) Divine Mercy (8) Human Rights (8) Personhood (8) September 11 (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Easter Sunday (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Gender Theory (7) Gospel (7) Jewish (7) academia (7) Barack Obama (6) Humanism (6) Morality (6) Pentecostals (6) Traditionalists (6) Babies (5) Cognitive Psychology (5) Cyber Bullying (5) NY Yankees (5) Spiritual Life (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) CUNY (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Eucharist (4) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (4) Holy Trinity (4) Podcast (4) Pope Pius XII (4) Evangelicals (3) Hispanics (3) Massimo Pigliucci (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Sacraments (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Death penalty (2) Encyclical (2) Founding Fathers (2) Freeatheism (2) Hell (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Catholic Bloggers (1) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Eastern Orthodox (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1) Pope Paul VI (1)