This is the thread devoted to the debate that Spiderman and Batman have agreed to undertake after much discussion in this thread.  The resolution to this debate is: The God concept as presented in the Bible is illogical; God being equated to the creator of the universe and is described in the Bible.

The rules to the debate are as follows:
1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. This debate will last five rounds. Spiderman will give the opening statement and Batman will then give a rebuttal.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

"Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct Him? He that reproveth God, let him answer it" ~ God.


For the sake of clarification, there are a few issues that need be addressed. Batman has challenged my statement that any deity is ultimately an illogical construct, and as such, has took me at my word by defining his deity as he saw fit to do so. I welcome the challenge. Indeed, I brought it on. And to Batmans' credit, he chose a very abstract definition - the creator of the universe, as described in the bible. This, of course, works fine for me, for any deified and/or personified creator of the universe falls under the same scrutiny, reguardless of where it's described. This being the opening statement, I intend to lay out the basics of what is being discussed, and the initial basis of my proposition.

The word incoherent will be used, I'm sure, quite a bit by me throughout this debate. In case anyone is confused on the definition, the most apropos (though all forms of the word are technically fitting) definition for our purpose here is - without logical or meaningful connection.


Creator

In the sense of this conversation, creator implies a few things. To begin with, it implies a 'being'. I use this term in the most abstract sense for now, the reasons which, if not currently obvious, I will stress later. Furthermore, at it's most abstract useage, it implies a being with intent, or at the very least with some degree of cognizance. If this much is not true, then the creator of the bible that Batman is arguing for is left to be nothing else but an impersonal force, which would place him squarely in my fun little atheist camp of 'god as allegory'. If that's the case, Bats, then welcome. Ain't nothin' but a party going on over here (1). And if that's the case, then I furthermore appologize for wasting everyone's time with what I'm about to write.

Suffice it to say, we all know that's not the case, though. Moving on.


The Universe

It was Carl Sagan who famously said "The cosmos is all that was, is, and ever will be" (2). Here, the word 'cosmos' is used instead of 'universe'. The two terms have the same meaning - they are, in fact, synonymous. My own guess is that Sagan chose his words wisely to try and do away with misconceptions born out of terminology alone, instead of in-depth study of the subject. You see, 'cosmos' implies an overall harmony, which I'm willing to bet he intentionally used to counteract the (grossly false) interpretation certain groups (3) had that science was suggesting something 'chaotic', 'random', 'disharmonious', even.

The universe quite literally means everything. Everything. All matter and energy, all forces. So - what is that, exactly?

To begin with, there's matter. This consists, by and large, of elements and photons, both of which come in quite a variety of forms. Elements, themselves are defined as a substance containing essentially identical atoms. I say essentially, because atoms themselves are defined and differentiated solely by the number of protons they contain. Electrons are more or less communal property, especially when concerning metals, who have a very lose association with their electrons. I specifically refrained from mentioning neutrons, because if you recall, the atoms of the element hydrogen contain no neutrons, whatsoever.

So, what is an electron, a proton, a neutron? Electrons are irreducible components with a charge that we (arbitrarily) designate as 'negative'. Electrons are standing waves (more on that later). Protons, on the other hand, are reducible, but are differentiated themselves by their own electric charge, which happens to be the exact opposite of an electrons, and as such we (arbitrarily) designate it as 'positive'. Neutrons are reducible, as well, yet have no charge whatsoever. The reduction game, I can continue until the cows come home, but for brevity's sake, I'll stick with what is important. What is important to keep in mind is that a 'particle' simply means the smallest ammount of a substance that retains the characteristics of that substance. That's it.(4) Furthermore, the behavior of all particles identifies all their components, like the electron, as waves, whose behavior is explained via wave functions (5) where the particle is defined as a vector existing in Hilbert space (6).

Photons are the fundamental particle that makes up light. Another way of phrasing that is, an indivisible piece of light, itself. Or more technically, an indivisible bundle of oscillating electric and magnetic fields, whose behavior is measured (and indeed, defined) as a wave (and thus, following the same criteria as all other particles). Photons are a vast class of particles, who all have one thing in common - they all travel at 'c', always.

I'm not exaggerating when I say a vast class. Photons cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum (actually, they don't just cover it - they ARE the entire electromagnetic spectrum!). The range is measured as all waves are, in Hertz (a unit of measuring cycles per second), and spans from lower than 10^5 Hz to higher than 10^20 Hz. Radiowaves are photons (which is funny, since sound waves are not). Microwaves are photons, too (larger than the holes you see on the door to your microwave). Gamma rays, x-rays, you name it. each of the above category covers a range far, far broader than the visible range, which is a tiny little strip around 10^14 Hz.

For brevity's sake, I'm going to save discussing the various types of energy and the fundamental forces for a later post, as they aren't really important for my opening premise (oh yes, there's a point to my ramblings). This debate isn't about physics, after all, but about whether a creator being of the universe is logical to posit.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." ~ Apparently written by some cat named John.

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence." ~ Wittgenstein

What can we say about a logical construction? In essense, it is a complete proposition with coherent parts. Lacking coherence, a proposition isn't complete. It isn't much of anything, really. Even with an abstract proposition, and the caveat that language is based on useage of the word, without coherence, an abstract does not hold.

Due to the incoherent nature of the beast, as it were, the deity cannot be a logical construct. Not being a logical construct (and in fact being incoherent), there is no rational way to entertain the concept (which would require coherence to do so). To not put undue importance on a logical construct, let me make clear that being a logical construct in no way means that construct is at all a possibility. Example -

A perpetual motion machine. This is, in short, a hypothetical machine that remains in a continual state of motion, without the addition of energy to its' system. Logical construct, total impossibility.

Aha, but! How is it that a perpetual motion machine is a logical construct, but a 'creator of the universe' is incoherent (thus, not a logical construct)? The simple answer is - impossible though it may be, no aspect of it is incoherent. A machine, as far as the perpetual motion machine is concerned, is a physical system. Remaining in motion refers to the machine, whatever it may be, being in an active state (this could be something as simple as a motorized turning wheel) that never deteriorates - it maintains the same activity without the addition of energy from an outside source. No additional energy added, that's coherent. But impossible. The concept itself is in violation of thermodynamics. Although coherent, it just isn't possible.

The same cannot be said of a creator of the universe. The term creator implying a cognizant entity of sorts, in this case. These very terms have no meaning outside of physicality (and I would implore you to attempt to show otherwise). They are thus not coherent in this context. Abstractly, a 'creator of the universe' can coherently mean 'whatever force set the universe in motion'. Since we aren't implying a creation to energy in that statement (which we know is a nonsensical suggestion), we haven't delved into incoherence. However, if that creative force is said to be personified, as all deities are, it very quickly jumps the coherent ship. How can we refer to a being outside of physicality? We can't - it would be akin to suggesting rain outside of physicality. How can we suggest intent, or any aspect of cognition outside of physicality? Again, we cannot, them being properties of physicality, and the necessary physical components not existing until well after that 'creation', if such an act can even be said to be coherent, itself (I don't think it can, and rest assured, my later posts will stress this very point).

What can we coherently say about the creation of the observable, material universe, then? Surely, elements can be created. A quick glance at the periodic table will give you a host of elements we created, ourselves (7). The process by which elements form via fusion is understood. The creation of photons, no problem. Start a fire, flip a light switch, you're creating photons. Any visible object not only reflects photons, but creates them, as well. This includes your body. Waves? Strum a guitar, play a piano, beat your hands on a surface, hell, whistle. You're creating waves. All of these examples, however, rely on pre-existing energy - a causal chain. To propose any of them without that is not just impossible like the perpetual motion machine (which still comes from pre-existing energy and is kicked off by pre-existing energy), but very incoherent. To propose something outside of a causal chain as the impetus for that causal chain is also understandably incoherent. I really don't see this one as a problem for Batman, since after all, the property of infinite regression is very much a coherent logical proposition. If he is able to demonstrate a coherent deity that fits that criteria, then there's no need to stress the point on causality. There is, furthermore, no coherent way to speak of the creation of the fundamental forces. A lot of people misinterpret the big bang model for doing so, actually, which is kind of funny. What it proposes is that those forces, themselves, were merged and became differentiated once the particular matter they act upon was present. In essense, they existed combined as an interference wave. Since this is largely irrelevant due to Batman and myself both understanding that big bang models are neither here nor there on the existance of a deity, nor do they contradict his deity, I'll wrap up this already long-winded opening (it's beer time for me, damnit).

My proposition should be clear, at this point. This is not a debate about the existance or non-existance of Batmans' deity concept, or any deity concept. We all know the impossibility of such a task. The issue at hand here is one of coherence, of whether or not a concept is a logical construct.





(1) Parliament. Funk band. P-funk, uncut funk, da bomb. You dig?
(2) Straight outta his book and subsequent tv show 'Cosmos'.
(3) Not-so-veiled reference to the disingenious nutcases of the world.
(4) The above definitions of atoms and their components are standard physics fare that you'll find in any existant modern physics book, and probably any dictionary that contains more than colloquial definition. These definitions work whether one uses a quantum theory where particles are actually existant or merely abstractions of an unfolding wavefront.
(5) Christiaan Huygens set the stage for explaining wave functions when he came up with what is known as Huygens' Principle, which he developed for describing the behavior of light, and is still a useful tool. It wasn't until the late 1800s when it was realized that his equation worked for particles as well, and indeed, was instrumental for the development of spectroscopes. Nowadays, wave functions are largely defined by two equations - Shrodingers' equation and The Guiding Equation.
(6) Wikipedia makes it so I don't have to write a goddamned textbook.
(7) And named completely boring titles like 'ununoctium'. Way to go, Berkeley scientists. Sheesh.

The Ubiquitous Spider ManWrote:


The word incoherent will be used, I'm sure, quite a bit by me throughout this debate. In case anyone is confused on the definition, the most apropos (though all forms of the word are technically fitting) definition for our purpose here is - without logical or meaningful connection.

This is a fair definition. I wonder why, then, you used your whole post to redefine the word? By the time Spidey was finished with his long, yet entertaining speech he had changed the meaning to "without logical or meaningful connection to physicality", which, it simply isn't. No matter how bad he wants it to be. It's like throwing a good pass to a "great" reciever and instead of catching it, he punts it into the air so it can be picked off. It just dosen't make sense.(1)

The rest of the time Spidey used a lot of words but said precious little. He tells us that God is incoherent but never gives us evidence of it. He might tell us about something that is coherent, but will then randomly assert, "Therefore God is incoherent". It does not follow. Spidey is begging the question and wagging the dog.

I assume, the next posts will tell us why he is incoherent and that this post was just a science lesson to reference for where this is going. I appears to me that Spidey does not like God to be first cause. In fact, he implies it when he assume, for no reason other than it suits him, that Creator God implies a "being", when "force" would work just as well.

Since Spidey decided that, no matter what, God can not exist because it's incoherent, he is going to have to provide much more evidence to support the claim. No wonder he begs the question, he is so set in his thought he doesn't allow a possibility for error. Not only is this thinking illogical, it's bad science. Something he thinks highly of, or claims to. It's this kind of thinking that will say, "There is nothing left to invent or discover. Anything new is clearly wrong". Poppycock.

I also challenge you to prove the perpetual motion machine as coherent using the same claims you use against Gods coherency.




(1) See: Immaculate Interception, Ravens vs. Steelers 11/20/05

Re-Definition, Turning your Play into a Tragedy (Black Star Keep Shining)


"without logical or meaningful connection"

I'm glad we can agree on the definition of incoherence. I must admit, I am somewhat confused on your statement that I have somehow altered the definition to include physicality. I contend that I have done no such thing. However, I must add a caveat -

Being a materialist, of course, I must also include that, though not a necessary aspect of the definition, the fact remains - there is no coherent concept of 'immaterial'. Quite plainly, the notion has no identity. Remember, the material universe in the sense that I refer to means energy and it's constructs.

So, while my definition of incoherence has nothing whatosever to do with physicality, it is, in fact, the case that anything 'immaterial' doesn't carry any meaning (what with lacking identity and all). Since apparently you beg to differ (though I'm not entirely clear as to why), and feel that I've included physicality as a prerequisite somehow (though I don't feel I have done so), I look forward to clarification on the matter on your part.



First Cause, Second Cause, Red Cause, Blue Cause


Truth of the matter is, I don't really care what one posits as a first cause. It's the issue of a first cause, itself, that I take issue with, not whether or not that cause happens to be deified. And with good reason. My position, in fact, is the exact same reason that you will find absolutely no notion of a 'first cause' to any degree in any aspects of physics or cosmology. By definition, it is both a violation of conservation of energy and momentum. By definition, it is a break in causality. By definition, it is a violation of Newton's Third Law. A 'first cause' is literally suggesting something from nothing. These are very crucial issues we're mentioning, here. These are large hurdles for any notion of a 'first cause', which is exactly why you won't find it theorized, hypothesized, or even tentatively touched upon as a flight of fancy by any physicist, cosmologist, or theist worth their salt. This really isn't a problem for physicists, cosmologists, or most theists (Batman included), since infinite regression works just fine.

That's right, I said it wasn't a problem for theists, including Bats. You see, Batman, himself, does not in fact believe in a first cause. Batman, in fact, also relies on a system of infinite regress. Unless, of course, I'm mistaken here, and he believes in a time where his god happened to not exist. If so, please, feel free to correct me here. Otherwise, we're both unavoidably on the infinite regress train.



Being, Force, Being


Batman's definition of god, in it's entirely, was 'the creator of the universe and is described in the Bible'. So, is it fair for me to claim that such a definition requires god to be a being? Let's see.

Now, far be it from me to suggest that there is a consistant definition of god to be derived just from the bible. Clearly, no. Ask ten different denominations, get ten different answers on the issue. For some, Jesus is one manifestation of god (clearly, we see why it's a being in that case). Not for those whacky j-dubbs, though. For others, god is as good as it gets (except for those mormons, who think god has parents, and the parents of god has parents). So, in all fairness and to his credit, since Batman hasn't clarified any further as to what his god-concept consists of, I'll stick with the main character in the bible, big g-dawg himself, instead of the counterparts plenty of denominations also consider g-to-the-three.

What is a being, in this context? I'm defining a being as different from 'life' in this case. Bacteria is technically alive, but do I consider it a being? Nope. My qualifiers are consciousness. Sentience. Awareness. Will and intent. Any of the above, to some degree. And I contend that the god described in the bible possesses these traits, no matter how abstract you choose to interpret it (unless, like me, you interpret it to the abstract point of it not even being existant, which we know well enough that batman doesn't do).

So, does god speak to people in the bible? Check.(*) He speaks a lot, in fact. A clear example can be found in Matthew, 3:17 - And a voice came from the heavens, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." Now, I think we can all agree here, the ability to speak is an indication of some form of awareness, emotion, will, and intent. People also speak to god, of course (unless Jesus was just trippin' on the cross with that 'father, why have you forsaken me' bit). Also, I opened my first post with a quote from god directed towards Job. I'm sure you studious bible-readers recognized it as such.

Does god display sentience, cognizance, consciousness, will, intent, in other acts? Check. Does anyone actually need references? I don't think so, but let me know if you do. I always find it kind of funny to have an atheist quote the bible.

So clearly, god qualifies as a being. But a force? Hmmmm. Let's see.

What is a force, exactly? There are two ways of looking at it - there is the notion of mechanical linear force, and there are the fundamental forces. Both are quantifiable. Both are are described via vectors. Now, every kid is quickly familiar with what mechanical force is, and can tell you how to equate it (ma=f). I cannot fathom that Batman is suggesting that god could actually be this type of force, but what of the fundamental forces? What are they?

Well, we know of four of them. In ascending order of strength, you have gravity, weak, electro-magnetic, and strong. Each of which has a particle constituent - in this case, meaning a smallest bundle of what that force happens to be. The exception, of course, being gravity. I will mention, however, that there is a theoretical (note, not hypothetical, theoretical) particle for gravity - the graviton - which should be empirically verifiable or falsifiable within the next decade or so, due to new advents like the particle accelerator at CERN. The shape of said particle carries a lot of interesting results in other areas, but that's also beyond the scope of this particular debate (unfortunately).

The fundamental forces act upon matter. The reason physicists are careful to state that only four exist that we know of, is specifically because there is matter in the universe that we can observe, but have no clear idea as to how it works. This is tentatively called 'dark matter'. It gets it's name from the fact that it produces absolutely no photons. None. Meaning, no radio-waves, no micro-waves, no gamma-rays, nothing. We're just not clear on how it operates, and the nearest batch of the stuff is too damn far away to reach at this point. So, it is possible that other forces perhaps also act on it. Of course, it is also possible that just the same forces act upon it, and it just has a different composition, altogether. We'll know when we can get a sample.

Which brings me to my next point, which I cannot stress enough - forces affect the material universe (meaning, energy and it's constructs). Indeed, forces are essentially constructs, themselves. If it didn't affect the material universe, it wouldn't be a force. If it didn't have some constituent, it wouldn't be a force. To equate god with a force, then, is to delegate god to being able to be mapped out as a vector, to be empirically verified or falsified, and essentially, to put god into a place that I don't think Batman intends to. To paraphrase a recent Newsweek article on how absurd ID is, if you put god into anything within the realm of empiricism, be it a flagellum, be it lightning, be it a force, or whatever - the problem becomes apparent when we discover what actually makes that thing tick. What happens to god, then? Where'd he go? (note - the article was very pro-theism, just very anti-ID, and with good reason).

So, to clarify, the problem with equating god to a force becomes apparent. God would be within the realm of empiricism. It would be possible to express god as an equation, as a vector. It would, in short, put a hell of a lot of limitations on god. On what god can and cannot do, on how god can possibly behave, and ultimately, it would mean that god could not actually possess awareness, consciousness, intent or will. Which, according to the bible, god clearly does possess.



Perpetual Motion, Fun, Fun, Fun


Now, naturally, I cannot do as Batman requested and prove the perpetual motion machine as coherent using the SAME claims I use against god's coherency. Since, clearly, I claim that god is INCOHERENT, and that perpetual motion is COHERENT. I think Bats overlooked that part. That said -

I must confess, I was intentionally misleading when I said that a perpetual motion machine is an impossibility. Such is not actually the case, as I'm sure the astute physicists in this group made note of (and to my knowledge, since the astute phsyicists in this group happen to share my position on the matter at hand, you more than likely know why I presented it as such).

A perpetual motion machine is conditional, not impossible. For example, in a total vacuum, damn near any machine becomes a perpetual motion machine. Since in a total vacuum, the machine itself is the entire system, energy and momentum in this case are neither lost nor gained (obviously, we're using the term 'machine' to fit a loose engineering concept of the word, not strictly, say, your car's engine). Now, since there is no local environment in our solar system that happens to be a total vacuum, the barrier for this type of perpetual motion machine lies in a current technological limitation on our part. We can create a total vacuum today, but we cannot as of yet sustain them for any extended period of time.

There are, of course, other examples of perpetual motion machines that meet proper conditional criteria. Most notably on this list lies a host of nanomachinery, especially those created utilizing the now-popular "bottom up" technique (note - popularity of said technique is delegated specifically to circles of uber-nerds and hyper-geeks). Since this is really beyond the scope of this thread at this point, if anyone is interested in the topic, I highly recommend reading the definitive textbook on nanotechnology, 'Fundamentals of Microfabrication', by Marcus Madou. I would suggest waiting a few months for the new edition to (finally) be printed, though. Yours, truly, got the opportunity to help edit parts of the new edition, by virtue of having known the author for about fifteen years.



Good Science, Bad Science


Don't forget - this isn't a debate on existance or non-existance, here. This is one of coherence versus incoherence. Though I do, indeed, believe that god is non-existant, and the incoherence of the concept does indeed play into that, it is far from the only reason I do not believe in a deity, any deity. Far from it. So please, let's refrain from you presuming to know my decisions on the matter.

Since you bring up my illogical thinking, though (without, I'd like to add, pointing out a clear example outside of you presuming to know what I think), I think it's fair to touch on this issue for a moment. I'm sure you do realize that illogical constructs are ones with incoherent propositions, Batman. Science, for example, not only relies, but depends entirely upon coherency in it's propositions. How could it not? Furthermore, each new proposition must account for all available data in a parsimonious fashion. There is no way to do such a thing if one is incoherent. You see, I certainly allow room for error in my thinking. In fact, being coherent lets one know exactly where your limitations on knowledge lie. Incoherence, on the other hand, has absolutely no place nor virtue in science.

By drawing a limitation at coherence, I am not placing a limitation on science, in the least. I am simply respecting the very grounds upon which it operates. As time has shown, those are very fertile grounds, indeed, wielding spectacular fruit.










* This holds true in any language, whether it be english, hebrew, ancient greek, portuguese, mandarin, swahili or pig-latin. Yes, Dave, this is directed towards you.

I am going to try to keep this as simple as possible. I know everyone here is enthralled by the science class our discussion has turned into, but let’s see if we can steer this ship back to “Can USM prove God is incoherent”.







Something from nothing?



First cause is not something from nothing. There was always something, the first something which always existed, in fact. God. You know this considering you bring up that fact that I don’t think there was a time God didn’t exist. You can continue to claim that first cause breaks certain things is physics, or you can prove it. Either way, don’t expect me to respond to it unless it actually has something to do with Gods (in)coherence.



Claiming infinite causal regression (ICR) works “fine” is ridiculous. The reason you won’t see first cause theorized is because we have no current method or knowledge of what the first cause is, or could be. If science has nothing to verify you won’t see it. That’s not a limit on anything it’s a typical boundary on what’s verifiable or not… and you know that.







More on ICR?



I want to stop here and give a layman’s example of what ICR is. It’s the idea that every cause had an event that caused it and before that there were and infinite amount of events that lead to causes. That’s where the term regression enters. You can regress the chain of events infinitely. Nothing ever started the process. It has always been going. It makes an infinite chain of events and the causes of those events.



This, in no way, involves God. God is not an event. ICR deal with event’s. God is only cause. There is no “regression” as it were. Once you hit “God” there is no further regression. Again, you subtlety change notions to include definitions that are not really there. Again, something, or Being, that is infinite is NOT necessarily an infinite regress.







Is a being that’s a being a being?



The current definition of being is fine with me. Consider that matter closed.







Perpetual motion in the ocean?



I am simply asking you to show how they are either both coherent and/or incoherent by the same standard since you brought it up. We don’t need science lesson about it.







He doth presume too much?



The reason I brought up your feeling about God non-existence was because this debate stemmed from that exact statement, I am paraphrasing, “I don’t believe in God because a God is an incoherent concept and therefore can not exist”.



You can have plenty of other reasons, that’s fine. That’s the only one I am taking issue with here.



So, did I? I don’t think so.







Bad science by any other name…



You claim to allow new thought on the issue of coherency and what it may entail, but like everything, the proof is in your words. I stand by my claim until you show us otherwise.



Lastly, are we going to get to where God actually is incoherent? I mean, you know I will talk about the semantics on your stance on science and I enjoy learning about science, but I think if you keep going in that vein we are really wasting everyone else’s time.