The illogic of Atheism

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cpt+symmetry

Anybody who cites CPT symmetry gets a hearty "hello" from me.  My limited and humble understanding of change, parity and time reversal - is modeled as computational output within deterministic processes.  However, jumping from CPT to it being a root cause of Universality is a far, far leap.  

The first counter-factual observation is that not all processes are shown to be time reversible! (humpty dumpty in thermodynamics)
From Wiki

it's been awhile but CPT, IIRC, is the theorem stating that any violation of the two must entail the violation of the third, albeit in specific ways. So time reversible processes, among other violations, are ok.

It still, to my knowledge, doesn't really explain why we have these regularities or why they remain constant. What enforces the symmetry is the first question I'd think to ask, as - again from memory - discovery of a violation would indicate some other issue within physics as currently known. So CPT itself is not inviolate, it can be falsified if memory serves.

Perhaps I'll have to Google some more, though we're if telling people to Google instead of explaining our arguments there isn't really any point in talking on a forum? 

This might help ->

CPT and Lorentz Invariance: Their Relation and Violation

Lorentz symmetry and the CPT invariance are two of the most fundamental symmetries of Nature, whose violation has not yet been observed. While the Lorentz invariance is a continuous symmetry of space-time, the CPT involves the discrete space- and time inversions, P, T, and the charge conjugation operation on the fields, C. Although the individual symmetries, C, P and T have been observed to be violated in various interactions, their combined product, CPT, remarkably remains still as an exact symmetry. The first proof of CPT theorem was given by L ̈uders and Pauli [1, 2] based on the Hamiltonian formulation of quantum field theory, which involves locality of the interaction, Lorentz invariance and Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian.

Later on the theorem was proven by Jost [3] (see also [4–6]) within the axiomatic formulation of quantum field theory without reference to any specific form of interaction. This proof of CPT theorem relaxes the requirement of locality or local commutativity
condition to the so-called weak local commutativity. Lorentz symmetry has been an essential ingredient of the proof, both in
the Hamiltonian and in the axiomatic proofs.

It still, to my knowledge, doesn't really explain why we have these regularities or why they remain constant.

Therefore God?

Therefore God?

You wouldn't be putting words in his mouth, would you, Malf?

Therefore God?

Not *just* God, but in fact it shows Mormonism is the One True Faith.



Seriously though it's not "Therefore God, QED". There'd still need to be ground covered beyond that where we have to ask questions like:

- Can we accept chaos/"hyperchaos"? Is our problem with "randomness" vs "determined" the former's arbitrariness or its arbitrariness across present succession of events?

- What explains causation?

- Does Pure Actuality need to be conscious? Does Universal Mind?

- What exactly counts as a "brute fact"? If God decides to make the universe one way instead of another, is that a brute fact?

Seriously though it's not "Therefore God, QED". 

The implication in Malf's question was, I'm assuming, God of the Gaps. It is standard fare in discussions with atheists and they are so used to arguing with religious types that the further implication is that the God in God of the Gaps is the Abrahamic God. We've been over the diversity in definitions earlier in the thread so this is just going in circles.

The implication in Malf's question was, I'm assuming, God of the Gaps. It is standard fare in discussions with atheists and they are so used to arguing with religious types that the further implication is that the God in God of the Gaps is the Abrahamic God. We've been over the diversity in definitions earlier in the thread so this is just going in circles.

I'm continually intrigued by the rush to invoke the "G word" in a vague non-theistic form, as a way to score points from atheists.

I'm continually intrigued by the rush to invoke the "G word" in a vague non-theistic form, as a way to score points from atheists.

Score points? Don't be childish.

The only reason you describe it as vague is because you can't argue against anything but the Biblical concept. To do so would require more than your trademark one-liners. At least here we try to include other philosophical concepts but you can't tolerate that. But you will perpetually try to drag the debate back to religion. If atheism were just an argument against the god of Abraham, then you would have most of this forum calling themselves atheists.

Score points? Don't be childish.

Look at the title of this thread.

The only reason you describe it as vague is because you can't argue against anything but the Biblical concept. To do so would require more than your trademark one-liners.

Pithiness is how I’d describe it.

 At least here we try to include other philosophical concepts but you can't tolerate that.But you will perpetually try to drag the debate back to religion. If atheism were just an argument against the god of Abraham, then you would have most of this forum calling themselves atheists.

That would be a start...

Pithiness is how I’d describe it.

In three one-liners, of course.