I think mass and what happens to mass, motion is predictable and mass isn't affected by quantum weirdness. For instance, an electron's position may be a probabilistic wave function but its mass is always whatever it is — TheMadFool

No, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that the mass-energy of an electron that exists for a short time is uncertain. See Bruce Schumm, Deep Down Things, Chapter 4, under the heading The Living Vacuum.

Schumm's book is readable by the layman, yet goes into considerable detail. I have intentionally avoided discussion of these details because I know I don't have a good grip on them. What Schumm makes clear, and every author I have read makes clear, is that we know nothing about what goes on when particles interact with each other. We only measure the results, and only as statistics in the aggregate.

What humanism has to forfeit is the immortality of God. If we go, then all of our myths and living community spirit goes with us. Outside of the realm of spirit (which for me is culture and community), there does indeed seem to be a nature that is utterly indifferent to us. But declaring kindness meaningless because we can't find it in our physical calculations is questionable. It accepts science as the one true metaphysics. I don't think the choice is between traditional religion and a physics driven nihilism. I do confess that philosophical humanism doesn't offer everything that traditional religion does. And we live in surreal times. Hegel and Feuerbach lived in a century that believed in endless human progress. We live under the threat of climate change, nuclear war, capitalism run amok, etc. — softwhere

There is a lot to think about in this final paragraph, and in the rest of the post. I'll need some time to work through it. It may be a few days before I give a full response, as this is a busy time with family and (I'll use your word here) community.

In many respects, we share a common set of values. You speak of kindness, justice, honor, freedom; of ideals and goodness. We are, as you might put it, connected as human beings, our fundamental philosophical differences notwithstanding.

Yet this particular difference matters a great deal, because of its implications: I consider that true goodness must be something more than a shared favorable opinion. A good act must be good, and a bad act bad, in and of itself, regardless of whether I like it or not. Otherwise, on what basis do we heap reproach on the Nazis, who believed they were doing humanity a favor by ridding the earth of the Jews? On what basis do I restrain myself today from rationalizing an act which six months ago I condemned as treachery? On what basis do we punish people with loss of property and freedom when they violate the community consensus of good behavior?

In short, morality must be absolute. There must be a Law-giver; there must be a Judge. There must be a real God whose essential nature is good. Jesus of Nazareth must be truly Christ of God, or he is (as has been said by others) a charlatan or a lunatic.

I may gain a better understanding of your position as I review your posts. I'll post again after I've had a closer look.

I, too, am enjoying the conversation.

Well, perhaps it's an issue of viewpoint. Predictability, where it's exhibited (the macro world), is "always" about mass, velocity, acceleration, volume, etc which aren't affected by unpredictable quantum properties of particles. — TheMadFool

The question is why the observed quantities of the macro world are unaffected by the unpredictability of quantum particles.

To me humanism is a continuation of theology. — softwhere

Hmmmm. As someone who converted from an atheistic, human-centered, and essentially selfish worldview to a God-centered life of service to God and my fellow man [aside: however poorly executed that life of service may have been so far, the 180 degree turn in outlook is real and genuine], I find it difficult to understand and impossible to accept that humanism is a continuation of theology. I understand from your final statement in this post why you say this, but I cannot agree.

I insist that God as theoretical object is a bad framework. For me this is religion infected by scientism. To use logic and science to 'prove' God is to make logic and science primary and God a merely piece of bad physics. — softwhere

I don't consider that the existence of God can be proven.

No scientific experiment can prove or disprove his existence because science is by definition limited to demonstration of natural behavior. (Which is why scientific materialism as a method of eliminating God is a dead end, even if the human race were to achieve full comprehension of the natural world.)

Logic cannot prove his existence because his primacy requires that his existence be at the start of any chain of logical propositions, not at the end.

So I think we agree that God's existence cannot be proven, and for somewhat similar reasons. And I think this agreement means that I also agree that "God as a theoretical object is a bad framework."

On the other hand, it is not unscientific or illogical for someone to consider the question of God's existence and conclude that he is. Indeed, the Scripture asserts that the evidence compels the conclusion that he is.

As I see it, we try to incarnate God (the highest values) and imitate Christ. For me these terms are mythical and metaphorical, but then I think the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical. While this may sound like a demotion, I don't think it is. Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives. — softwhere

I read all of your post, and perhaps ten minute's worth of the web page on Feuerbach. My impression is that your view (and Feuerbach's view) makes sense—to a point—if one begins with the assumption that the spiritual realm is mythical and metaphorical.

As I see it, your view stops making sense when you say, "Such myths and metaphors help us create good communities and live honorable lives."

You speak of 'good' and 'honorable' as if these characteristics exist for humanity as a whole. If there is no spirit, there is no more connection between one human being and another than between one rock and another.

The notions of 'good' and 'honorable' are meaningless in a spiritless world. In a spiritless world, one nerve impulse is as good as any other, whether the impulse is to help an old woman across the street or throw her under a passing bus. None of it matters. The universe doesn't care whether the collection of particles we call "that woman" continues in its current configuration, or is dispersed from one end of the galaxy to the other. There is no such concept as 'value', no means by which such a quantity might be measured.

In a spiritless world, humanism is an illusion.

I welcome your response.

I think the way forward here is to investigate the ideas of causation and explanation. We sometimes say that we've explained something when we have fit it into a pattern or law. Often enough these 'laws' are 'true for no reason.' That's just how things happen. — softwhere

I can go some distance down that road. The critical point in this discussion is that there is no knowledge of cause or reason for the predictable behavior of the collection of unpredictable particles that constitutes the macro world. And that means that scientific materialism has failed to explain the natural world in terms of cause and effect, and so has failed in its attempt to eliminate God as cause. Again, this does not prove the existence of God. But it does open the door to the possibility of his existence for those who felt the door was closed by scientific knowledge.

It seems to me that humans will always end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no reason, brute facts. What do you make of this? And how do notions of God/god fit in with this? Can the idea of God be more than another 'true for no reason' terminus for inquiry? — softwhere

I agree that we humans will often end up against principles or patterns or laws that are true for no known reason; they are brute facts so far as we can tell.

It seems to me that the "is" of the universe (as opposed to the "does") will always be in that category. We are not likely to find out how the universe was built such that massive bodies distort time and space, for example.

And yes, I suppose the existence of God is true (or not true, depending on perspective) for no reason that we can ever know. (The theist might add, in this life anyway.)

The question of practical importance is whether he does or does not exist.

I just thought I'd add that I think that gods function as emotion-generating community-binding symbols. The temptation for many is to somehow take religion literally and be scientific. IMV this results in awkward attempts to prove God's existence as a physical object of some sort. — softwhere

Well, if you will pardon me for saying so, that is just bad theology from a Christian (and Jewish) perspective. In the Scripture, God presents himself first to our reason; emotions will follow as, when, and if appropriate.

What does 'God is a spirit' who 'must be worshipped in spirit and in truth' mean? Well it's a text that remains endlessly open to interpretation. — softwhere

Taken by itself, the interpretation might be very broad. But even as a stand-alone statement, the interpretation is not open-ended. "Spirit" is separate and distinct from "physical", so an interpretation that makes God into a physical object of some sort is clearly outside the limits.

Taking into account the context of the statement and the Scripture as a whole, the sentence parses something like this:
"God is": God's existence is asserted as fact--as one of those things that just is. His existence is not asserted as an axiom to be mindlessly accepted. In the Scripture, God himself gives reasons for people to recognize his existence. But his existence is asserted as factual whether or not that recognition is given.

"God is Spirit": God is spirit, not physical; he exists apart from the physical world that he created. I won't try to give a comprehensive definition of "spirit." I will say that a major component of spirit is moral character. The physical world (atoms and such) is amoral. Spirit is moral: It is good, loving, truthful, faithful, and so on. These moral traits are real, not just electrical impulses in our brains.

"those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.":
"worship": God is worthy of our honor and obedience; our full commitment and devotion.

"in spirit": Human beings, though obviously physical, are also moral. Our honor, commitment, and devotion to God is moral in character, just as he is moral.

"and truth": Our worship must be genuine. No holding back, no acting nice on Sunday morning and then lying, cheating and stealing all week.

What are the bases that you say that the universe is made of a collection of completely unpredictable particles? — god must be atheist

From the original post:

Every high level event in the universe is the sum of many individual particle events. (Gravity can be ignored in this discussion because there will be no gravity events without massive particles, and massive particles are the result of quantum events.)

Science knows of no cause for the outcome of any individual particle event. So, any given high-level event that has a known cause is the sum of many individual particle events, not one of which has a known cause. (Or has no cause at all, if the prevailing theory of quantum mechanics is correct.)

In a later post I supported those statements with references to John Wheeler and Kenneth Ford. I could add more references, but really there is nothing controversial in those two paragraphs.

Everything we observe in the natural world resolves to individual quantum particles, and those particles are completely unpredictable so far as anyone knows. The prevailing theory, as described in Ford's book, is that the behavior of individual particles is fundamentally probabilistic--there is no cause. Some doubt the assertion of fundamental probability and leave room for future advances in physics to reveal a cause. But as things stand, no cause is known and the particles are completely unpredictable.

This is not a valid proposition to say that because we don't understand individual particle behaviour, we have no way of understanding why the macro world behaves as it does. — god must be atheist

I did not mean by this that we have no functional understanding of the macro world. As I mentioned, I work as an engineer; I make use of the laws of physics as I design electro-mechanical eqipment. My livelihood depends on the predictable behavior of the macro world.

I do mean that the predictable behavior of the macro world is in itself an astonishing thing. There is no reason for the macro world, which is a collection of unpredictable particles, to act in a predictable way. It's as though the output from a random number generator were to present as a set of logarithm tables.

Why does the macro world behave predictably according to mathematical laws, instead of randomly as one would expect a collection of unpredictable particles to behave? That's what we don't understand, and in that fundamental sense we do not understand reality.

Firstly, if you're going to use the lack/absence of causality in the quantum world to attack scientific "knowledge" — TheMadFool

I am not attacking scientific knowledge. Not in the least. I work in the applied sciences, as an engineer. I make my living putting to use what the theoreticians have proposed and the experimentalists have demonstrated. I doubt anyone has more respect for those people than me.

which is, as you presume, about causal relationships and then use this gap to introduce god — TheMadFool

I haven't actually introduced God; I have not presented an argument for the existence of God. I have argued that the refutation of God on the basis of knowledge of the natural world has failed. This opens up the possibility of a real God for some who previously considered his existence impossible. Positive arguments for God are for a different discussion.

you might want to investigate the reasons behind why there's no definitive understanding of causality at the quantum level. I know next to nothing about quantum physics — TheMadFool

Knowing next to nothing, it is unwise to assume others know nothing without having done some reading on your own. (I did the same thing when I first became interested in relativity, and made a fool of myself on the physics forum.)

but I can tell you that there are mathematical equations in that field and equations are, in my opinion, causal relations. — TheMadFool

No, the equations are not causal. They describe probabilities of states, not causes of states. No cause for the state of a quantum system is known.

"A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it."
(emphasis mine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function

See also the references I cited earlier, John Wheeler and Kenneth Ford.

Please note that I don't know enough math to understand or use the equations, so of course I only know what respected experts say about them. I certainly do not challenge them.

Also, as a side note, the equations of non-quantum physics are causal for the purposes of understanding the observable behavior of the natural world, but they contain no information about the cause of the behavior itself. For example, the equations of general relativity describe the warping of space and time in the vicinity of a massive body, but they say nothing about why a massive body has the observed effect upon space and time. In engineering terms, the equations are a functional specification, describing the behavior of the universe. Missing is a design specification, describing how the universe is built so as to produce the observed behavior. This is something to think about, if one is under the impression that modern science has a good understanding of what the universe is, as distinct from what it does.

there's a difference between the behavior of individual particles and aggregates of particles. We may be uncertain about causality in the former but causality is well-established in the latter. — TheMadFool

There is certainly a difference in predictability. The behavior of individual particles is completely unpredictable, while the behavior of particles in the aggregate is predictable to within some very small (but greater than-zero) percentage.

However, it is precisely this difference in predictability that reveals the complete lack of understanding of physical reality. What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior?

For instance each particle inside a billiard ball behaves in accordance to quantum physics but the billiard ball participates in a causal chain when somebody plays it. — TheMadFool

For all practical purposes, you are correct, of course. Technically, however, the location of a billiard ball is not known with certainty. The wave equation for the ball only describes the probability that it will be at some specific location. It's just that the range of uncertainty is extremely small, smaller than our ability to measure. (As I recall, it is even smaller than a single atom, but don't quote me on that.)

The god of the gaps has mainly been about the macro, human-scale world where causality applies and in this domain, science has clearly identified and described causal relationships. The fact that you're trying to use quantum physics, a smaller region compared to what was initially all phenomena, is an indication that, indeed, the god of the gaps is shrinking in relevance. — TheMadFool

On the contrary, the complete failure to comprehend individual particle behavior means that we have no understanding at all of why the macro world behaves as it does.

The universe is a collection of quantum particles. Again: What causes a collection of completely unpredictable particles to exhibit highly predictable behavior?

Here's one that's not so easy, unless you understand it: what do you mean by "cause"?
To avoid being mysterious, I'll observe that you're trying to put reality into the language. The reality has no problem with itself, but language certainly sometimes has problems with reality. So what does "cause" mean? — tim wood

Science is in essence an attempt to comprehend reality in terms of natural causes and effects. The underlying purpose is to achieve full comprehension.

Scientific materialism asserts that full comprehension of natural causes and effects constitutes full comprehension of reality; there is no need for consideration of a supernatural cause.

The assertion fails on its own terms because reality cannot be explained in terms of cause and effect--or in any other terms--because there is no understanding of individual particle events.

That's just false. It does so through statistics. — khaled

Statistics (as you point out) show some understanding of particle events in the aggregate. The obvious question is, "What makes the individual particles behave as they do, so that they produce the aggregate behavior?"

For example, if 100 coins are thrown in the air and allowed to land on the floor, there will be about 50 heads and 50 tails. If the actual numbers are 52 heads and 48 tails, we might ask why that is so. The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes.

The classical laws of physics can, in principle, provide the answer so long as the initial conditions of the coins, and the environmental conditions, are known. The outcome is predictable and comprehended.

There is neither comprehension nor predictability for individual particles. The operation of the universe is not understood.

The materialist can say "No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any event so God didn't cause this either"

Is what banno is saying I think — khaled

I don't see how the clause following "so" is supported by the preceding clause.

I have no idea how an absence of causality leads to a refutation of materialism. There's no inconsistency in believing materialism and also that causality isn't real. — TheMadFool

The absence of causality does not refute materialism. It refutes the proposition that knowledge of natural causes refutes theism.

So the ‘laws’ of physics aren’t evidence for materialism anyway. — leo

True. That's why I said "the [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect."

The appeal to science for support of materialism is fallacious because comprehension of the operation natural world is not proof that the world was not created by a supernatural being. The Judeo-Christian assertion is that increased knowledge of the natural world leads to increased appreciation of the Creator's genius. No scientific experiment can falsify that assertion. Therefore, the appropriate question to ask is whether the natural evidence is better explained by the materialistic or theistic position.

The above is an argument from outside of science. I want also to show that science itself does not support scientific materialism, because science has to date completely failed to comprehend the operation of the universe. All events in the universe resolve to individual particle events. At the level of individual particle events, the universe is a black box. We have learned how to push the buttons and read the gauges on the face of the box, but we have no idea what is going on inside the box.

Then god does not cause any events in our universe, either. — Banno

The context is a discussion of scientific experiment, which by definition seeks natural causes for natural events.

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", the materialist cannot point to the experimental evidence and say, "No, this is the cause of the event."

Scientific materialism states that everything CAN be explained in the physical world, by physical laws. It does not say everything IS explained.

Scientific materialism is a philosophy, and therefore it does not require evidential support to the tune of, let's say, attributing causes to an effect in the physical world.

The OP is right about science not offering support for scientific materialism.

Scientific materialism is a philosophical concept, and as such, it could exist even if all scientific experiments were unable to point at cause-effect movements in the physical world.

So while it is true that science does not provide complete support to scientific materialism, the OP regretfully omitted that scientific materialism does not REQUIRE any such support by science. — god must be atheist

The [alleged] strength of scientific materialism is in the experimental demonstration of cause and effect. Without demonstration of cause and effect, there is only materialism.

Perhaps it will help to present the statement from which the proposition in the OP is adapted:

"All these [aforementioned] space-like concepts already belong to pre-scientific thought, along with concepts like pain, goal, purpose, etc. from the field of psychology. Now, it is characteristic of thought in physics, and of natural science generally, that it endeavors in principle to make do with “space-like” concepts ​alone​ [emphasis Einstein’s], and strives to express with their aid all relations having the form of laws. The physicist seeks to reduce colors and tones to vibrations, the physiologist thought and pain to nerve processes, in such a way that the psychical element as such is eliminated from the causal nexus of existence, and thus nowhere occurs as an independent link in the causal associations. It is no doubt this attitude, which considers the comprehension of all relations by the exclusive use of only “space-like” concepts as being possible in principle, that is at the present time understood by the term “materialism”."
Albert Einstein, “Relativity”, 1916. Appendix to 15th edition, 1952: “Relativity and the Problem of Space.”

The proposition is an adaptation of Einstein’s statement, rather than a condensation of it, because the proposition states explicitly what Einstein only implies: that it is possible in principle to scientifically eliminate God as the cause of any event.

For a single particle quantum effects result in massive uncertainties, but for a large enough aggregate of particles we can know that there is a 99.999999999999% chance that if this aggrigate of particles hits this aggrigate of particles the aggregates will bounce off of each other and not, say, teleport to the moon (which is technically possible for a particles since its wave function APPROACHES 0 but never reaches it as far as I know). So the thesis is then 99.99999999999999% correct for the majority of situations where we would apply it. Did it really fail then? — khaled

Yes, it completely fails to explain why the aggregate of particles behaves predictably even though not one of the individual particles behaves predictably.

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level.

I don’t see quantum mechanics as showing that individual particle events do not have a cause. — leo

The assertion of "orthodox" quantum mechanics is fundamental probability: the laws of physics are statistical only; there is no cause for the outcome of any individual quantum interaction.

See Chapter 6 of “The Quantum World”, by Kenneth W. Ford (Harvard University Press,2004)

John Wheeler put it this way: “Society charges science with the task of prediction.Science makes some progress with the task. In the individual quantum process, however,prediction comes to the end of the road. Science does not have to be ashamed of its finding. It only has to be honest about it. Why demand of science a cause when cause there is none?”
​(Article, Law Without Law​, in “Quantum Theory and Measurement”,Princeton University Press, 1983. The article is also available at:https://www.scribd.com/document/397679925/Wheeler-law-without-law-pdf)

However, I have been careful to found the argument on the current lack of knowledge as to cause of outcome of individual particle iteractions.

Except I can drive a nail with a hammer, and as well do other wonderful things. Not all gap, then. — tim wood

The question is not whether a hammer can be used to drive a nail. The question is what causes the nail to move when it is struck by the hammer.

Quantum theory holds that a force is transmitted from the electrons in the hammer to the electrons in the nail via photons. The total force, which is predictable to a finite number of decimal places, is the sum of many individual interactions between electrons and photons. Examined individually, not one of those interactions has a predictable outcome: the cause of the result of each and every particle interaction is unknown.

If no cause can be identified for the result of any single interaction in the set of interactions that constitutes the force, then no cause can be identified for the force. No one knows how the force comes to be. It is all gap. (And if the assertion of fundamental probability is correct, no cause can be known, and it will always be all gap.)

Who says it's orderly and beautiful? — tim wood

The order is expressed mathematically as the laws of physics. Its existence is demonstrated at every stroke of hammer against nail, and at every occurrence of other wonderful things.

Some folks see beauty in the abstract patterns of mathematics, and of course there are other kinds of beauty in the world. But the success of the argument is not dependent on the existence of beauty.

<<<<
However, Hume’s objection is to claim that this “balancing” is not possible if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. If God is conceived as a perfect being, good and evil must be mutually exclusive, since a perfect being can allow no imperfection of any kind to follow from its existence. Accordingly, Hume argues that, if God exists, there can be no evil necessarily.
>>>>
The assertion in italics is an external restriction on God's activities. God has a perfect right to introduce imperfection into the world he has made if he so chooses. Who in that world knows enough to say that God cannot also have a perfect reason for the act?

God can create something out of nothing. Why can he not also create good out of the evil done by his creatures?

In Genesis, Joseph says to his brothers, "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." A theme in the Scripture is that God works good out of the evil works of men. A parallel theme is that evildoers will be punished; justice will ultimately prevail.

This is not a complete answer to the problem of good and evil. (Another consistent theme in the Scripture is questioning why things are the way they are.) But it does counter Hume's incomplete and therefore faulty logic.