Question to Atheist:
Do you reject theist propositions?
Yes.
Do you reject the theist concept of a creating being which is non-physical?
Yes.
Do you reject the deity?
No. There is no deity.
So you don’t reject the deity, you just reject the concept?
Yes.
What is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept?
Why hasn’t it contacted me to prove to me that it exists?
Why do you think that because it hasn’t contacted you that it cannot exist?
It’s not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to yourself? Or not reasonable to the deity?
Not reasonable for a deity.
How do you know what is reasonable to a deity?
Because what is reasonable to me would also be reasonable to a reasonable deity.What is your evidence for that?
Because reasonable is reasonable.
Isn’t that just a tautology?
Yes. So? A tautology is not a fallacy.Isn’t a tautology a fallacy when used as a proof?
No. Your logic is messed up and fallacious.Under Aristotlian logic, a premise can’t be the same as the conclusion. So, fallacy is acceptable in your reasoning?
Logic can be twisted to mean anything. Fallacy is meaningless.
Even Aristotlian logic?
Sure why not?Isn’t Aristotlian logic based on disciplined processes?
Anybody can deduce anything to fool anybody.Isn’t Aristotlian logic based on axioms?
Axioms are just opinions: they can’t be proved to be true.Why can’t axioms be proved to be true?
There is no truth, only opinion.
Is that true, or is that opinion?
It’s my opinion that it is true.So it is only an opinion that there is no truth…. Because there is no truth, only opinion, in your opinion, and your opinion is true?
Yes.Isn’t that circular?
Yes. So?So fallacy really is part of your thought process?
No. My thought process works just fine. It’s your logic which is false. Your questions are full of Red Herrings.
If there is no truth, can there still be falseness?
Of course.
Wouldn’t everything be false, if it cannot be true?
Of course not; it could be just opinion, like I told you. You don't listen, do you?
Then opinions might not be false?
Yes, that’s… um, true.So some opinions might be true even though there is no truth?
Yes, that is true. Well, not “true” – true, but true enough for me.So there is no deity, but just for you, because that is true enough for you?
Right.
But there might be an existing deity for other people?
No. There would be evidence.
What kind of evidence?
He would do something to show himself. Something physical. Destroy a city; hand me a cheeseburger.
Are you certain of that?
Yes.
That is a necessary condition for the existence of a deity?
Yes.
What is your evidence for that degree of certainty?
I told you: it’s only reasonable. What is wrong with you? You are Gishing this conversation, which is full of your Red Herrings and Fallacies. Do you know how this looks to serious Atheists who just want a reasonable conversation about Atheism? You are the irrational one; you appear to be insane. And full of hate.
Seriously, what is your evidence for...
I told you: it’s only reasonable. What is wrong with you? You are Gishing this conversation, which is full of your Red Herrings and Fallacies. Do you know how this looks to serious Atheists who just want a reasonable conversation about Atheism? You are the irrational one; you appear to be insane. And full of hate.
52 comments:
@Stan: wow, can't say I have had that particularly neat a conversation with an atheist. Lucky you! The atheists I meet start out with mocking and insulting me for being stupid enough to drink the religious koolaid. No matter what I say, it has no validity - because it's coming from a guy stupid enough to swallow deism.
So the kind I meet start with the assumptions that (a) theism is false, (b) I'm ignorant, stupid or insane for believing it and (c) therefore every defense I attempt is defeated before it starts, because ignorant/stupid/insane people have nothing to the conversation.
At least yours comes clean eventually, admitting they're only voicing an opinion whose validity rests on the size of the gun they're holding to your head. No wonder they have such a Will to Power. It's the linchpin of their silliness.
Hi Stan!
Long time no see... I was taking a break from blogs but cannot resist anymore. I am weak :)
Anyway that's all the small talk I will make, especially since you apparently just turned moderation back ON so I will stick to the topic, and only the topic, to avoid distractions. It worked well on Martin's blog a few months back; we had some good exchanges imo (though not perfect) so perhaps he will also show up here to join the conversation as well...
Atheists want us to believe that they merely reject theist propositions.
It depends on which Atheist you talk to, but more importantly, it depends on whether or not you include Agnostics in 'Atheists'.
(Side comment 1)
logic and evidence which they claim to have their worldviews based upon.
That would be correct. I do consider my worldview to be based upon logic and evidence, with a foundation in the natural world.
(Side comment 2)
Do you reject theist propositions?
No; I think I accept most of them usually.
(Side comment 3)
Do you reject the theist concept of a creating being which is non-physical?
No, the concept makes sense. You take something that we know exists, 'beings', and then create a concept in your mind: a ' non-physical creating being'. At this point, the 'non-physical being' is purely conceptual. The goal is to show that this concept points to something outside of your own mind, which bring us to the next question:
Do you reject the deity?
Yes I reject the deity, assuming that the question means: 'Do you believe that the deity (non-physical creating being) exists?'
I don't believe that the concept point to something that exists. I cannot even possibly believe it does since I don't know what it is. I know it is capable of creation (creating universes I suppose) but that's it. I know nothing about why I should believe this deity exists.
That's not rhetorical or some sort of dodge by the way; I really don't know the reasons. I recall certain discussions I had with you, or other theists, but it's never exactly the same definition of a 'deity' nor the exact same logical argumentation, so I cannot say which one in particular I reject at this point. Attempting to do so would most likely result in me building a straw man that you also reject.
Therefore, I cannot go further without clarifying which deity we are talking about. Then only can I justify the reasons for rejecting that specific deity, and then only can you in turn discuss where we agree or not. Right?
(Side comment 1) Personal example: I have this very good friend, (smartest guy I have ever met; PHD in economics, member of this organization for the top 2% IQ, knows more random facts about anything than anybody I have ever talked to, etc...). He refuses to call himself an Atheist because he says that the god question cannot be answered. In order to press him a little, I asked him if he believes in a god, yes or no, and he says 'no', so to me this means he is an atheist, because I also don't pretend to 'know' whether a god exists or not, but he insists that he is not an atheist because he does not know... On the other hand, his girlfriend calls herself an Atheist because she has all the answers she needs. She flat out said that because of the Big Bang she can be an Atheist, since that's clearly a natural event that explains where the universe came from. I also disagree with her because we cannot 'know' if that's really a purely natural event... Anyway, all that is just an example of how I consider us 3 to be Atheists but of very different kind; none of use claiming to 'merely reject theist propositions'. What we do have in common is that it's the sum of our beliefs that makes us reject god beliefs.
(Side comment 2)
I say that my foundation is in the natural world because of the following assumptions:
- The natural world is defined as this place that my physical senses experience. It is synonym with material and physical world.
- The natural world existed before I did, and will continue to exist after I cease to exist.
- The natural world is an objective reality, which means that statements describing the natural world are either true, or not, regardless of my opinion.
What I don't assume:
- The natural world always existed and/or will always exist
- The natural world encompasses all of existence
- The natural world created itself out of nothing
(Side comment 3)
What is a 'theist proposition' exactly? Is it a proposition solely about a deity? Is it a proposition made by a theist? Is it a proposition that assumes that a deity exists? I would guess that it's something precisely about the justification of the belief in a god, but that still very vague. Without having these answers perhaps I don't get the question, but I would answer that I do accept most theist propositions. In other words, the reason(s) why I reject a particular argument for the existence of god is usually related to a tiny portion of the whole argument. I might accept something like IF A then B then C then D then E, but reject 'then F'. In that sense, I would accept lots of theist propositions (A to E) and reject only 1 (F). Theism usually fits with reality very well since it evolved over time to fit the other beliefs of the believers. Because of that, I usually agree with Theists on a lot of things and I am thus inclined to say that I do accept a lot of Theistic claims.
@ Steven
I am pretty sure that was a fake exchange :)
It is however representative of the perception Stan has of the Atheists discussing with him, and I am not blaming him for the funny post since the same thing happens the other way around... there are so many Atheists who joke around and write about their interactions with Theist just the way you described it: they assume you are ignorant, stupid or insane for believing.
What's the name of these loser you are talking to, Stan?
Ok, so this topic has been discussed a bajillion times before- but I'm gonna beat this horse again. It's like a tick or something.
Why do atheists insist that theirs is the "default position"? This view says that if God (and/or the "supernatural") has not been demonstrated, atheism is true until proven otherwise. The onus is on the one making the positive claim.
But, aren't atheists, in fact, making a positive claim- that there is no God? No, says the atheist, because atheism is the "lack of belief"- not a denial.
Now that could be true, I suppose, of someone who hasn't considered the question. But in that case, wouldn't that be more of an agnostic?
Atheism, as I understand it, is about belief. The belief that there is no God. When asked why that belief is held, the answer usually is because there is no evidence. But is it reasonable to use the tool of methodological naturalism to determine if metaphysical naturalism is true?
Can you smell what the tautology is cookin?
Chris,
Here is my experience:
The default position for a certain presupposed ideology is automatic and purposeful rejection of concepts outside the ideology; the ideology is more important than rationally held conclusions, so conclusions are not acceptable despite any disciplined logic.
Ex 1: Evolution is the default position - until it is proven wrong. Evolution is an ideology cum circumstantial evidence, not experimental. It is not falsifiable experimentally, because all outcomes are predicted.
Ex 2. Atheism is the default position - until it is proven wrong. Atheism is the ideology that the rational mind demands physical proof of the most basic nonphysical concept (a cherished Category Error). Atheism also has no experimental proof of its basic Philosophical Materialism. It does, however, disregard Materialist questions about the evolution of rationality from minerals, the physicalist necessity of Determinism for all mental activity based on prior positions of electrons, particles and subparticles, and other physicalist irrationalities. Demands for proof are unidirectionally placded on non-physical existence, and not internally focused.
This is accompanied by the unprovable assertion that the mind will understand everything including itself, given deep time (deep time is also a principle of evolution). And this in turn also ignores the Godellian assault on knowldge and knowablity.
And that is where dogmatic Skepticism steps in to defend the ideology.
At least that is my experience.
Burroughs,
It's a composite, but largely godless.
Hugo,
Hmm. You seem to have changed since our last encounter. You have reasons which you articulate well.
I think a discussion with you might be enjoyable at this point.
Unfortunately, I have to leave right now, but this evening I'll be able to respond.
Hugo,
Quickly, here is a fundamental proposition of non-physical existence:
IF [ time and space did not exist before the Big Bang], THEN [ there was at a minimum some context which was non-physical in which the big Bang could be forced to occur]
IF [ the universe was created (did not create itself) AND the universe is thought to be rational and rule-based (science still studies it from a rational, rule based standpoint)], THEN [the nonphysical context in which the universe was created must contain the capability to produce a rational, rule-based physical existence in which we live].
IF [ the context in which the universe was created entailed the capability of Q], THEN [ Q also describes the context; i.e. capability of rationality at a minimum, while being non-physical].
Here is the proposition of Materialism:
IF [ All I sense is material existence (disregarding agency and mental capability)] THEN [physical existence is all that there is – unless nonphysical existence can be proven physically].
Materialism failures:
a) requires Scientism in order to accept unproven assertions about the nonexistence of agency and the determinism of mental activity (which, if it exists defeats the concept of rationality). This also applies to the origin of life from minerals.
b) Materialism cannot prove, materially / physically / empirically, its own premise.
c) The premise of Materialism is a Category Error – requiring material evidence for non-material existence.
Gotta go. Catch you much later today...
Hey,
To be frank I don't think I changed at all but I am glad that you are interested in discussing :)
I will wait since you seem to be on to something; I won't interrupt. However, there would be already a lot to say! So, let me know if it's better to write these comments first...
Cheers
Hugo,
I agree with Stan that I've seen you are articulating your points of view and honestly asking questions about some issues that need to be better understood by yourself, so to make a prima facie in the situation you are right now. These are actually good steps in the right direction.
I remember staying in such a position like yours some few years ago. My position about this right now, is that it is not enough to just believe, but to understand the experiential processes that suggest a strong foundation of the belief, for example.
It is up to you now to make a case and differentiate the rejection from the belief, expose which are the reasons that mar give, or may suggest the possibility of a strong foundation for the non-rejection of the concepts, and at the same time a disbelief of such concepts. It could be interesting to see how do you elaborate.
Of course, I won't be disruptive with your conversation with Stan.
Just as always, think with patience and humility.
Kind Regards.
Part `
For myself, the proof of God existing must start with the certainty on the part of myself or of man that he man is existing.
Since he man has a beginning, then he is caused by an agent.
Now this calls for another agent which is the cause of the agent causing me to exist, which agent is my parents.
This series of cause and effect cannot be continued into the past interminably, because then there is in concept no beginning, but I already exist in actuality outside of concepts.
Wherefore, there exists in concept a necessary agent who is without any beginning, what we call eternal, meaning outside time.
This ultimate first agent which starts the cause and effect series is God, and wherefore understood as the creator and operator of the universe, the material universe studied by human scientists and the ordinary human with curiosity.
That is the proof in the domain of concepts; how do I transit from the existence of God in the domain of concepts i.e. in our thinking to the domain of objective existence outside the domain of concepts or of thinking only?
Marius de Jess
aka Odrareg
Part 2
Simple, the fact that I am certain that I exist in actual objective existence independent of concepts and thinking, wherefore I am certain God the creator and operator of the universe exists also, in objective existence, not only just in concepts or in my thinking.
Now, how do I prove to myself and fellow human beings that I exist and they exist also in objective existence?
Simple, by the test of banging one's head against a concrete wall, or punching one's head with one's fist hard enough to hurt.
Now if atheists dare not submit themselves to such a test with increasing intensity until they reach the realization: that if they don't come to conclude to the reality that they exist and seek to save themselves in existence by dis-continuing the test, and actually dis-continue or stop the test, that is the certainty in themselves of the knowledge that they do exist in actual objective reality, outside the domain of concepts or thinking only.
There, that is the proof of man's existence by man himself, with the physical testing of how much you need to hit your head against a concrete wall or punch your nose, to conclude that if you don't admit your existence and take the logically required physical act of stopping the test of banging your head against a concrete wall harder and harder or punching your nose, namely, at that moment there is the enlightenment of certainty that you exist in objective reality, or you will lose your existence i.e. life if you don't stop the test.
Now, that is the proof for the existence of man in the objective world of reality like the world of man hitting his head against a concrete wall, or his nose with his fist or better with a sledgehammer, harder and harder.
And consequently God is thereby proven to exist in objective reality, namely, as man exists in objective reality, so also God exists in objective reality, for the cause is present all the time to sustain the continuance of the effect upon having created the effect, otherwise the effect would cease to continue in existence.
The atheist will object that, But if God exists then man should be able to see Him, just as man sees himself and touches his nose and fellowmen can do the same, as also touch each other's nose.
The answer to that objection is that God is so big, bigger than the universe, and so subtle, more subtle than any sub-atomic particle or wave or string whatever, that is why man cannot see him even with whatever man-invented instrumentality i.e. detecting contraption.
In effect, God is what traditionally man called a spirit entity, belonging to a class of being that is not detectable with material means and ways.
But God is accessible by the mind of man, through thinking and direct consciousness on the part of man.
That is called mystical experience, which is not exceptional but very ordinary: I for myself have the experience of God all the time in my mind, with the conscious awareness of His spiritual presence in my mind, all the time, even as I write this comment.
Dear Stan, what do you say about my proof for the existence of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe?
Marius de Jess
aka Odrareg
Hugo said,
”’ Atheists want us to believe that they merely reject theist propositions.’
It depends on which Atheist you talk to, but more importantly, it depends on whether or not you include Agnostics in 'Atheists'.”
Atheism is a closed set of non-seeking ideologists; they have rejected theism and have closed their minds due to considering it a settled matter. They are not skeptical, they are certain, and they are very defensive of their certainty. Their certainty is not defensible with either logic or evidence. But they claim logic and evidence.
Agnostics seek more information / evidence before making their decision. They remain open but skeptical, generally outside the boundaries of logical analysis of their own reasons for skepticism and the actual nature of Skeptical thought. I.e., they are not skeptical of Skepticism; they consider skepticism to be a source of knowledge; it is a minor precursor to knowledge but nothing more than that. Agnostics are not the same category of mind-set or worldview.
Atheists, btw, have co-opted the term, skepticism, and incorporated it into their ideology improperly: they are not actually skeptical, they are predetermined, ideologically.
”logic and evidence which they claim to have their worldviews based upon.
That would be correct. I do consider my worldview to be based upon logic and evidence, with a foundation in the natural world.”
Your side comment 2 includes the statement:
”What I don't assume:
...
- The natural world encompasses all of existence”
Why not? Most Atheists I have encountered do assume that on the basis that there is no material evidence to the contrary. Also they invoke the fear that gnomes, faeries, and pink unicorns might be thought to exist if any existence outside the natural world is open to examination, an examination they cannot make and evidence they cannot have.
You accept the concept of a creating being but reject the actuality of that being (deity) based on this reasoning:
”I don't believe that the concept point to something that exists. I cannot even possibly believe it does since I don't know what it is. I know it is capable of creation (creating universes I suppose) but that's it. I know nothing about why I should believe this deity exists.”
This seems to say that:
a) You do see the possibility of, and do not reject, the concept that there is an actual, existing pre-material agent that caused the fabrication of the universe;
b) You don’t see any reason to think that there is an actual, existing pre-material agent that caused the fabrication of the universe;
c) This is because you don’t know which deity we are talking about.
OK, let’s back up. Let’s forget the term deity. Let’s discuss an “agent” as performing the singular action of creating mass/energy/time, the stuff of our universe.
Do you accept that or reject that?
Why so?
Odrareg asks,
” Dear Stan, what do you say about my proof for the existence of God as first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe?”
I don’t usually analyze theodicies, and although I have attempted a couple myself, theodicies are, in general, not satisfying to non-believers no matter how satisfying they are to believers. The reason being that Atheists will devolve their requirements to either Materialism demands, or to Radical Skepticism demands, neither of which can be satisfied, because neither of which is rational.
I have come to think that the only criterion necessary to determine the quality of a theodicy is whether an Atheist can defeat it using grounded, disciplined deductive principles which incorrigibly determine the non-validity of the proposition.
So Atheists, can you disprove Odrareg’s proposed theodicy?
My proof for the existence of God understood in concept as the creator and operator of the universe consists of two steps:
1. The thinking step,
2. The searching step.
In the thinking step we are dealing with concepts in our mind, how to prove with concepts that there exists an ultimate cause agent of everything in existence that has a beginning.
In the searching step we guide ourselves with the concept of God already proven to exist in concepts or in the conceptual domain in our mind, to look or locate God in the actual objective reality of existence.
This method requires us to get the atheist to agree with us to think; if an atheist will not agree with us to think, to use his mind to work with concepts on proving the existence of God, then we have to give up with him; but we must accuse him of the culpable avoidance of thinking, which is the evidence that his socalled lack of belief in the existence of God is NOT grounded on good faith, namely, that he is in bad faith in not accepting the existence of God, by not wanting to think about God and how in concepts man can prove, again, in concepts that God exists, as the creator and operator of the universe.
My method is no different from the scientific method of first working with concepts i.e. thinking on the possibility of the existence of something in objective reality, then searching for it in actual objective reality for the something already clear or certain in our concepts i.e. thinking i.e. in our mind that it can exist.
For example, in science they are now searching for the existence in actual objective reality for the existence of the socalled Higgs Boson particle.
For the end of proving that such a particle exists in actual objective existence, not only in our concepts i.e. thinking i.e. in our mind.
So science folks build finally a very large the largest ever particle collider, the Large Hadron Collider.
And they claim that by this largest particle collider they have sighted some particles which they claim to correspond to their thought up i.e. concept of the Higgs Boson particle.
Knowledge with man consists in concepts in the mind of man, which concepts represent objects in actual existence, or objects existing at least in the thinking mind of man i.e. in concepts.
On this consideration man or we have two kinds of concepts or knowledge, (1) certain knowledge which has correspondence in the actual objective reality of existence, and (2) speculative knowledge which is in the human mind in concepts by thinking on the part of man using his mind.
That is why communication is possible and actually engaged in successfully among humans, owing to our common concepts which is knowledge.
Otherwise we cannot communicate among ourselves unless we bring to each other's actual contact the object we are talking about, in order for us to be linked together on what we are referring to in our attempt to communicate.
For example, when two persons do not have the concept and word representing the concept of a television set, then everytime they want to refer to a television set, they have one of them to lead the other to a television set and point to it, or bring a television set to the other and direct the other to it by pointing to it.
But what about things which are too huge like Mount Everest or too small like an electron as to be impossible for man to carry it about, or too far away as to be impossible for man or impractical for man to go to, in order to point out to fellowmen what is being talked about?
God is such an object in actual objective existence, too huge and too subtle, to carry about or to travel to, such objects are what in concepts and words man calls spiritual, i.e. beyond the access of man by material ways and means.
But man can talk about the concept of God; and by thinking on the concept of God he can come to the actual existence of God, again understood as the creator and operator of the universe even in all its vastness and also its sub-atomic subtlety.
Now, with the concept of God we have a totally different and one of a kind of concept, namely, the creator and operator of the universe.
How does man get to be in contact by his external and internal senses with this God Who is in effect so huge, greater than the universe, and so subtle smaller than the smallest things in the universe?
Which means that God is a spiritual being?
By our consciousness, but only after we have proven in concepts in our thinking in our mind that God exists of course, then we proceed to find Him in actual objective existence, however not by material ways and means, but by our consciousness.
In conclusion, the atheist who will not think about God is already in bad faith in his denial of God's existence.
What do you say, can the atheist have any objections against this method of mine to prove to him the existence of God in actual objective existence?
Odrareg,
Thanks very much for the clarifying analysis. You have put a lot of thought into your theodicy. What follows is merely my opinion.
I think there are two places that are vulnerable to Atheist criticism and demurral, not that their criticism will be valid. It is important to recognize that Atheists don’t subscribe to the same logic as Aristotle. And it is important to recognize that Atheism is largely an emotional decision which is bolstered by faux logic and charges of fallacy where none actually exist.
The first vulnerable point is the concept of the second type of knowledge: speculative knowledge. Atheists are non-coherent on this point, adhering to evolution as fact even though it would officially be classified as speculative, based on circumstantials on the one hand, and on the other hand denying that there is any value to intuitions, whether logically supported or not, because that opens to fantasy (they claim) and that is unacceptable. So any non-physical (i.e. rational) evidence can be smeared with the mis-categorization into the category of fantasy. This charge is ideological and cannot be fought with logic, so it is a deal breaker.
The second vulnerable point is the concept that God can be contacted by virtue of the existence of consciousness – the presumption apparently being that consciousness is a non-physical thing and therefore “spiritual”. This notion has been attacked by Atheists in the past, claiming that consciousness is a purely physical thing, a process of the brain: “consciousness is what the brain does”. The fact that fMRI brain scans show the brain doing things (big surprise) is taken to mean that the mind is physical. There are cogent and undefeatable arguments against this physicalist position, but because the physicalist position is – again – based in ideology and supports ideology, it will not be relinquished by mere logic.
There is a third vulnerability to which all non-physical knowledge arguments are vulnerable: Radical Skepticism. This is the reductionist concept that knowledge cannot actually be had, even physically (“The Brain In A Vat” dodge).
Still, I invite Atheists to disprove theist theories, always. It demonstrates the lack of actual disciplined logical capability, the lack of a logical attack on theist theories, the lack of any physical evidence, and the emptiness of Atheist claims in the face of theist claims.
For example, in the first vulnerability to your proof, the Atheist objection is not valid; Atheists can only speculate that there is no rational agent which created the universe, and which exists outside the mass/space/time which it created. It is pure speculation.
In the second vulnerability, the Atheist/Materialist concept that consciousness is material is also purely speculative and the rational argument against their position is not defeated in any counter argument ( they all lead to Determinism, and the Atheist actually loses, entirely).
Finally, the third vulnerability, Radical Skepticism, is an intellectual failure since it is internally contradictory: One cannot know that nothing can be known. I.e.: one cannot declare rationally that “I know that I do not know anything whatsoever”. So Radical Skepticism fails Reductio Ad Absurdum.
Your theodicy cannot rationally be defeated, I think, yet it cannot be proven either. Like all theodicies, it depends on belief at a certain level , i.e. that consciousness is spiritual and not physical, and that rational proofs can convict without associated physical evidence for support. The Atheist ideology won’t accept logic without physical proof, regardless of what they might claim. Their ideology gives them Freedom From Absolutes and membership in a cult of elitism, where they escape the stick of discipline and get the carrot of ego magnification. That cannot be defeated with logic.
And all this is just my opinion, of course.
Hi Stan,
"IF [ time and space did not exist before the Big Bang], THEN [ there was at a minimum some context which was non-physical in which the big Bang could be forced to occur]"
There is so much to talk about with just this one quote that I will need to break it down into points...
1) I would re-formulate this IF statement like this:
IF [X and Y did not exist before event A] THEN [event A happened in a context where X and Y did not exist]
Looks like a tautology... Please clarify.
2) Why should we assume that 'time and space not existing' equals 'existing non-physical context'? This puts a limitation on what 'physical' is by limiting it to 'space and time'. Since we cannot observe nor know everything about the physical world, I reject that idea.
3) The Big Bang is a model based on solid physical evidence. It seems to me that you are thus using material evidence in order to justify non-material existence; the very thing you claim is a category error.
4) Do you really need to use the Big Bang as a starting point? It is a fairly recent notion. If you were to be successful in proving the existence of a deity by starting with the Big Bang, you would essentially render illogical any argumentation provided by previous generations of theists; you would need to either explain why their arguments were also valid or concede that even though you agree with them, all these people had bad reasons to believe.
" IF [ the universe was created (did not create itself) "
The word 'created' is tricky in the context of the whole universe. It creates a false equivocation (on purpose or not?) between 'creation' as done by humans and 'creation' done by nature. In the human world, we create things from nothing by filling empty blank pages with words, for example.
In nature however, creation is always* a re-organization of existing things into other things that we label differently because of this re-organization. However I do put an asterisk next to always* since it's not that simple anymore... On the smallest scale, in the space between the protons and neutrons of an atom, we actually detect things appearing and disappearing without any known cause, as if they were 'created' out of nothing only to disappear again after a short period of time.
Therefore, I am not convinced that the universe was 'created'. However, I am also not convinced that the universe created itself since that also sounds absurd, but isn't that precisely because of the equivocation issue I just mentioned? 'Created' usually means someone or something acting on something else to create; we are thus biased toward believing that the universe, because of the mere fact that it exists, must have been created. That is not a justified belief.
This gives a good opportunity to clarify something by the way. Logically speaking, the universe was either created, or not. It has to be one of the two. However, it is perfectly rational to reject both ideas due to a lack of evidence. But it does not even end there... Logically speaking, the universe either created itself, or not. It has to be one of the two. However, it is not logically valid to claim that it was either 'created' or 'created itself'. Yes, the two scenarios are mutually exclusive but do not encompass of all possible scenarios: the universe having always existed being one of them. This principle applies to a lot of things and as a someone who wants to make sure discussions respect logic I am sure you will agree, but I thought it was useful to mention it.
Looks like I already wrote a lot for very little and I really have to go. Sorry for not addressing more points at this time... that might actually be a good thing since it prevents the discussion from going all over the place :)
Hugo said,
” IF [X and Y did not exist before event A] THEN [event A happened in a context where X and Y did not exist]
Looks like a tautology... Please clarify.”
Exactly right. It is a definition. We are defining the context.
” 2) Why should we assume that 'time and space not existing' equals 'existing non-physical context'? This puts a limitation on what 'physical' is by limiting it to 'space and time'. Since we cannot observe nor know everything about the physical world, I reject that idea.”
Then you are rejecting modern cosmological physics, and we must stop right here. Hawking has well established that space and time were created just after the Big Bang and did not exist before.
” 3) The Big Bang is a model based on solid physical evidence. It seems to me that you are thus using material evidence in order to justify non-material existence; the very thing you claim is a category error”
We are progressing from material existence to non-material; consider the entirety of the argument first, then the details. We are progressing from what we can know physically to what can be known only as non-physical. The big Bang demarks that boundary in the history of the universe, before which was non-physical and without time.
” 4) Do you really need to use the Big Bang as a starting point? It is a fairly recent notion. If you were to be successful in proving the existence of a deity by starting with the Big Bang, you would essentially render illogical any argumentation provided by previous generations of theists; you would need to either explain why their arguments were also valid or concede that even though you agree with them, all these people had bad reasons to believe.”
The validity of this argument is not in any way dependent upon other arguments. The argument stands on its own merits. If you wish to argue against it by using other arguments to defeat it, then you may attempt that. But this argument is either valid or not, independent of other arguments. The Big Bang evidence need not make any arguments regarding the prior arguments regarding the universe; the Big Bang stands on its own evidence.
This argument seems based on the fallacious argument put forth by evolutionists: the argument must be accepted if there is no other apparent argument available; this was falsified by Copernicus, who showed first that heliocentricity was correct; that meant that that Ptolemy’s epicycles were incorrect as an independent consequence; there is no reason to force an incorrect theory as science just because the correct theory has not been found.
” In nature however, creation is always* a re-organization of existing things into other things that we label differently because of this re-organization. However I do put an asterisk next to always* since it's not that simple anymore... On the smallest scale, in the space between the protons and neutrons of an atom, we actually detect things appearing and disappearing without any known cause, as if they were 'created' out of nothing only to disappear again after a short period of time.
Therefore, I am not convinced that the universe was 'created'. However, I am also not convinced that the universe created itself since that also sounds absurd, but isn't that precisely because of the equivocation issue I just mentioned? 'Created' usually means someone or something acting on something else to create; we are thus biased toward believing that the universe, because of the mere fact that it exists, must have been created. That is not a justified belief.”
(more below)
(from above)
Your first words in this section are “in nature”. You are attempting to compare natural phenomena to the “bringing into physical being” of those natural phenomena by some inducement in non-physical existence, and that is a Category Error.
Now if the word “create” is too loaded with material meaning to be applied to the non-material existence, then what word would you prefer to use for the “bringing into being of the material existence of the universe”?
” This gives a good opportunity to clarify something by the way. Logically speaking, the universe was either created, or not. It has to be one of the two. However, it is perfectly rational to reject both ideas due to a lack of evidence. But it does not even end there... Logically speaking, the universe either created itself, or not. It has to be one of the two. However, it is not logically valid to claim that it was either 'created' or 'created itself'. Yes, the two scenarios are mutually exclusive but do not encompass of all possible scenarios: the universe having always existed being one of them. This principle applies to a lot of things and as a someone who wants to make sure discussions respect logic I am sure you will agree, but I thought it was useful to mention it.”
First, there is no reason to presume that the universe always existed; there is sufficient empirical evidence that it did not. In fact, the existence of entropy disproves that, on top of cosmological evidence.
Did the universe create (come into existence) on its own out of nothing with no help from a facilitating agent? This issue is easily defeated by the following process:
a) Define “nothing”: there is no existence whatsoever, including rule-based agency as well as material stuff and time.
IF [a universe can proceed to exist from absolutely nothing] THEN [there is nothing to restrict its process of self-facilitation into material existence].
IF [ there is nothing to restrict its self-facilitation into material existence], THEN [ there would be continuous new universes popping into existence everywhere and all the time].
This is not the case. We do not observe a single case of other universes overlapping our universe continuously and without rules for limiting their self-implementation.
Even String Theory does not accommodate that possibility.
So: Because the universe is not perpetual, and because the universe did not self-implement out of absolutely nothing, what is left? It can be reasonably concluded that the universe was implemented into existence via agency.
Now this can be rejected on the basis of “no physical evidence”; that is the Materialist position, of course, and it is a Category Error which demands material evidence for the proof of non-material existence. It can be rejected on the basis of lack of absolute knowledge, a claim which must devolve to Radical Skepticism on the definition of knowledge. And the term “reasonable” can be debated ad nauseum. But “likelihood” is obvious, since only one of the alternatives is not impossible, based on current empirical cosmological observation. While that could change, the likelihood of that is very slim.
Hugo, good objections and thank you for specifying exactly where you have identified errors and what you think the errors are; this is refreshing. It's the only way to have a real conversation on actual issues. This should be interesting.
1)
"Exactly right. It is a definition. We are defining the context."
Ok great. So it means that it's really more about making sure that we agree that 'X and Y' are the same thing.
IF [X and Y did not exist before event A] THEN [event A happened in a context where X and Y did not exist]
IF [ time and space did not exist before the Big Bang], THEN [ there was at a minimum some context which was non-physical in which the big Bang could be forced to occur]
Before THEN, 'time and space did not exist'
After THEN, 'some context which was non-physical'
This brings us to point 2.
2) Why should we assume that 'time and space not existing' equals 'existing non-physical context'? This puts a limitation on what 'physical' is by limiting it to 'space and time'. Since we cannot observe nor know everything about the physical world, I reject that idea.”
"Then you are rejecting modern cosmological physics, and we must stop right here. Hawking has well established that space and time were created just after the Big Bang and did not exist before.
"
I agree that we must stop right here because I don't infer that from the Big Bang, at all.
Yes, we agree that 'our' space and 'our' time were created during this event, but that's not the same as saying that all 'possible' physical things started to exist.
Really have to stop already :(
Makes me realize that the biggest problem with these discussions is time... small clarifications can take a lot of effort.
"What is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept?
Why hasn’t it contacted me to prove to me that it exists?"
That's an odd choice in this line of reasoning, because most atheists I know would ask what the basis is for believing in something that is "non-physical."
Or they would ask why they are being put in the position to disprove your concept. Sort of like, if you do a math problem, and then have another person explain to you why it is wrong.
"Why do you think that because it hasn’t contacted you that it cannot exist?
It’s not reasonable.
It is not reasonable to yourself? Or not reasonable to the deity?
Not reasonable for a deity.
How do you know what is reasonable to a deity?
Because what is reasonable to me would also be reasonable to a reasonable deity."
Of course, if you're just interested in arguing against a straw man, it would make sense to create this artificial dialogue than ask an actual atheist.
Aveskde said,
”"What is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept?
Why hasn’t it contacted me to prove to me that it exists?"
That's an odd choice in this line of reasoning, because most atheists I know would ask what the basis is for believing in something that is "non-physical."
You speak for “most Atheists”, then? OK, then: answer the first question: what is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept? Since you left off the concept, I’ll repeat it for you:
Q1:
Do you reject the theist concept of a creating being which is non-physical?
And if you do, I’ll repeat the issue at hand, for which no Atheist, in the half decade I’ve been asking for it, has had an actual answer other than conversational deflection:
Q2:
What is your incorrigible logic which defeats that concept, or material, empirical evidence which proves categorically that the concept is false?
” Of course, if you're just interested in arguing against a straw man, it would make sense to create this artificial dialogue than ask an actual atheist.”
If you had read any of the conversations in the history of this blog, you would have realized the futility of your snark; every one of those statements is grabbed out of a conversation at one time or another. Nonetheless, you have two questions to answer in defense of your presumable Atheism. Don’t bother answering with more deflecting questions; just answer the questions. Let’s see what you've got.
Hugo said,
” 2) Why should we assume that 'time and space not existing' equals 'existing non-physical context'? This puts a limitation on what 'physical' is by limiting it to 'space and time'. Since we cannot observe nor know everything about the physical world, I reject that idea.”
So the idea that physical things are made of mass/energy is open to other kinds of existence? On what basis? If you are charging that we just can’t know, then you are leaving the realm of rationality in which definitions have meaning, and venturing into the realm where Radical Skepticism declares that we can’t know anything, so definitions have no meaning. Without being able to define terms to inclusive vs exclusive categories, there is no rational discourse because no term has any meaning.
Your declaration of “all possible physical things” apparently includes previously unknown types of existence, which means that any/all types of existence are qualified to be in your category of “physical”. Your all new definition, then, lacks any capability of differentiation based on mere skepticism rather than no actuality.
Further, there is no need to claim that “all possible” physical things were created by the Big Bang; what Hawking says is that our definition of physical things, mass/energy and space/time, were created after the Big Bang. You may argue against that finding, if you wish, since that is the actual assertion, but changing the definition to a non-discriminating and unknown universal is not a legitimate approach.
The changing of your definition from the standard definition needs to be justified outside the realm of mere skepticism.
"So the idea that physical things are made of mass/energy is open to other kinds of existence?"
No, that was not the point; I did not express my objections clearly then.
(By the way, you could have just asked instead of writing 3 paragraphs to complain about why it would make me fall into "radical skepticism". I don't assume that you are dumb; I actually assume that you are a rational logical person. I would like you to do the same. If something sounds weird, discuss it; ask to clarify. Why do you jump to attacking my sense of rationality?)
What I want us to agree on, before moving on, is the fact that we cannot pretend to know everything about physical existence. Because of advances in technology, we can see further than ever before, which we now know also means further back in time than ever before. However, that does not mean that we reached a point in human history where where we can say with certainty: everything we see around us is all there is in the physical world.
In fact, we know that we don't see everything due to an event horizon. Therefore, going back to the Big Bang, my points is that we know that 'our' space and 'our' time started at the Big Bang, but that does not mean that there was nothing physical before. It does not mean that our universe does not have "siblings" universes that are older/younger/not existing anymore/not yet existing and so on.
Not sure if it's perfectly clear yet. Let me know...
Hugo says,
”What I want us to agree on, before moving on, is the fact that we cannot pretend to know everything about physical existence. Because of advances in technology, we can see further than ever before, which we now know also means further back in time than ever before. However, that does not mean that we reached a point in human history where where we can say with certainty: everything we see around us is all there is in the physical world.”
I see exactly no reason to agree to that. If you disagree that the term “physical” or the term “material” means mass/energy, space/time, then please say so. Then tell us what those terms mean. This appears to be an equivocation in the sense of ambiguity in how you wish to define terms.
” Because of advances in technology, we can see further than ever before, which we now know also means further back in time than ever before. However, that does not mean that we reached a point in human history where where we can say with certainty: everything we see around us is all there is in the physical world.”
That is not the issue at all. The issue is whether you wish to use the standard definition for “physical” and “material”, or whether you have a different definition. If you have a different definition for those terms, then what do those mean to you?
Further, do you think the Big Bang did not create mass/energy and space/time?
And do you think that the Big Bang created more than mass/energy and space/time - stuff which is not thought to be material or physical by standard terminology? Why that is likely?
So go ahead provide the evidence for your position and the reason why the argument is defeated by your position.
”In fact, we know that we don't see everything due to an event horizon. Therefore, going back to the Big Bang, my points is that we know that 'our' space and 'our' time started at the Big Bang, but that does not mean that there was nothing physical before. It does not mean that our universe does not have "siblings" universes that are older/younger/not existing anymore/not yet existing and so on.”
You are merely regressing the issue. If universes are created by other universes, either there is an infinite regress of universes reaching back infinitely: forever; or there is a beginning. Your apparent position is that you cannot know if there is an infinite regression of infinite universes, creating one another. No, you cannot know that. And if you insist on having that material knowledge before deciding what is more likely, then of course the conversation stops here, and your position is agnosticism: it is not possible to have enough material knowledge for you to decide.
And that is fine, if that is how you wish to think.
For further discussion:
In the multiverse, anything at all can be predicted. Universes can be hypothesized with contexts so different from ours that they cannot even be described using our mere three dimensional, mass/energy physical understandings. How do we understand a 5 dimensional entity, much less an 11 dimension entity? How do we even understand equations which are forced to divide infinity by infinity in order to survive scrutiny, as are string theory musings? There is no difference in character between this intellectual behavior and the advocacy of miracles. So the multiverse is a concoction of miraculous existences, and miraculous interactions which are considered feasible, yet which are totally outside of cause and effect, outside the currency of logic and science in our universe. The materialist who uses the multiverse as a reasoning chip is resorting to miracles: unknown and unknowable concepts of effects without knowable causes. Moreover, the miracles are random as well as inexplicable in terms of logic and science.
Thus the multiverse concept steps immediately out of the realm of logical cause and effect hypotheses with deducible effects for known causes, and into inexpressible and indeterminate non-hypotheses with non-deducible effects of unknowable causes. So the belief in their credibility assumes the character of credulous fantasy, yet is imposed with the aura of science.
If one wishes to remain with the logic and science which we do actually have a case for belief in, then multiverses are outside of that realm.
Questions:
"The issue is whether you wish to use the standard definition for “physical” and “material”, or whether you have a different definition. If you have a different definition for those terms, then what do those mean to you?
Further, do you think the Big Bang did not create mass/energy and space/time?
And do you think that the Big Bang created more than mass/energy and space/time - stuff which is not thought to be material or physical by standard terminology? Why that is likely?"
There is no simple answer to all these questions because they are simply too remote from what I actually understand from the Big Bang. Extra quick summary: there is 'stuff' around us. This 'stuff' is what we call 'material' things, which are all of 'spacetime and energy'. The further away from us we look, in ANY direction, the closer all of this 'stuff' appears to be together. We now understand that this is because we are actually looking at what the universe looked like in the past.
The furthest away we can look at is the microwave background (CMB) radiation, which represents the first time in the history of our universe when things started to emit light. Using mathematics and extrapolation, we can model what the universe looked like before that light was emitted. Using Newtonian or Eistein physics, we get a singularity, which is a point in time and space where we get an infinite mass in an infinitely small space: an infinitely dense universe.
Now, that might seems obvious, but I really don't understand where you can take this simple explanation and spin it around to make it mean: that's when ALL physical things started to exist. We simply don't know, and that is not extreme skepticism. That is exactly what we know; all of us.
Got to run...
You speak for “most Atheists”, then? OK, then: answer the first question: what is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept? Since you left off the concept, I’ll repeat it for you:
Q1:
Do you reject the theist concept of a creating being which is non-physical?
I'd rather like to see you define it. You see, I'm a scientist and "non-physical" just leaves a giant "?" in my mind. It has no definition, and you cannot reject or affirm that which has no properly defined concept.
And if you do, I’ll repeat the issue at hand, for which no Atheist, in the half decade I’ve been asking for it, has had an actual answer other than conversational deflection:
Q2:
What is your incorrigible logic which defeats that concept, or material, empirical evidence which proves categorically that the concept is false?
Go back to point one. Without a definition, a coherent one, a scientific one, or logical one, you cannot say anything about it.
It's like asking me what I think about Qf'nnax or Bzipnudr.
Hugo said,
"We simply don't know, and that is not extreme skepticism. That is exactly what we know; all of us."
Then you can only know that which is physically, materially measurable, and you cannot extrapolate from that; then you are asserting Philosophical Materialism in association with skepticism of extrapolation.
Why are you even here? You have nothing to offer but your assertion of ignorance.
aveskde said...
”You speak for “most Atheists”, then? OK, then: answer the first question: what is your logic or evidence for rejecting that concept? Since you left off the concept, I’ll repeat it for you:
Q1:
Do you reject the theist concept of a creating being which is non-physical?
I'd rather like to see you define it. You see, I'm a scientist and "non-physical" just leaves a giant "?" in my mind. It has no definition, and you cannot reject or affirm that which has no properly defined concept.”
This is the second most common Atheist form of denialism. We must redefine the terms ad infinitum so that I never, ever actually address the issue.
If you can understand “material” as a category, then non-material is the remaining category: [!material]. Simple set theory.
Actually I don’t expect you to address the actual issue. Atheists never do. It would mean they are taking responsibility for a position.
”'And if you do, I’ll repeat the issue at hand, for which no Atheist, in the half decade I’ve been asking for it, has had an actual answer other than conversational deflection:
Q2:
What is your incorrigible logic which defeats that concept, or material, empirical evidence which proves categorically that the concept is false?'
Go back to point one. Without a definition, a coherent one, a scientific one, or logical one, you cannot say anything about it.
Further obstructionism.
”It's like asking me what I think about Qf'nnax or Bzipnudr.
If that is the way that you think, then so be it. You cannot conceive of the concept of something which is not in the category: material; apparently then you are a Philosophical Materialist. So defend your materialism: prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism using the tenets of Philosophical Materialism (give material evidence for the lack of nonmaterial existence or evidence for the existence of only material objects). Take care to observe Godellian constraints. And as a scientist, posit a falsifiable experiment which will demonstrate your proof.
Hugo wrote:
"Using mathematics and extrapolation, we can model what the universe looked like before that light was emitted."
Stan replied:
"Then you can only know that which is physically, materially measurable, and you cannot extrapolate from that"
How am I suppose to reply to that?
Hugo,
You actually claimed a mathematical extrapolation of material existence into material existence, only. From material:known into material:unknown.
Then you denied any ability to extrapolate beyond that, since there are material unknowns.
That means that you are stuck in material existence, even extrapolated and what can be materially known to be material (at least theoretically, if one could investigate that far out). Yet because you cannot know all of material existence you are apparently shutting out all possible ability to address non-material existence.
Does the failure of the knowledge of all of X mean that there is no !X?
Or does being stuck in X mean that !X can't even be addressed until all of X is mapped?
Does not every X have a corresponding !X? If not, why not? (Be sure to consult the Russell-whitehead conundrum on the ultimate superset first and the Godellian issue, too.)
aveskde
>You see, I'm a scientist and "non-physical" just leaves a giant "?" in my mind. It has no definition
Consider abstract objects, like numbers. How much does Pi weigh? What color is it? Obviously these are absurd questions because Pi is a number, not a physical object. Pi cannot be reduced to any particular instance of Pi, or the collection of all written versions of Pi. Nor can it be reduced to a concept existent only in the human mind, for two reasons. First, if you try to maintain materialism by saying that whatever is not material is only "in our minds", then you set yourself up for dualism of the mind later on, because the mind serves as the holding tank where you can get rid of all the remainders. As Ed Feser puts it, this is like cleaning up a house by sweeping all the dirt under one particular rug, and then claiming you will get rid of the rug using the same method. But the only method of dealing with the rug now is to either keep it permanently (dualism), or throw the whole thing out (eliminativism).
Secondly, Pi is infinitely long. Too long to fit in any human mind. We explore Pi like we explore the Moon, going ever deeper and seeing what's there. Whatever is deep in Pi is already there, waiting for us to discover it. It isn't something we are making up as we go.
So there is one example of an immaterial reality: numbers and mathematical objects.
HHmmm,
Just a little analysis here...
Hugo's vision is strikingly similar to that of a nihilist, for some reason (some time ago, I agreed with nihilism, then materalist existancialism).
Atheists that reject the mainstream option of metaphysical naturalism (physicalism), tend to agree to some particular form of panpsychism, but which almost, if not always, be accompanied by some form of "non-trascendental" monism. The thing is, is not the esoteric, spiritually oriented panpsychism (which is still compatible with dualism), and at this point nihilism seems to be quite consistent.
I'd call that view of the atheist, nihilistc panpsychism. An Atheist by nature tends to be quite minimalistic (experience does not improvise) bordering to the over-simplistic, when metaphysical claims are made.
So, from an atheist nihilistc panpsychism, IS usual to attribute some stuff by being itself (tautologically speaking), WHERE the contingency and non-contingency lines about anything are still clearly drawn, biased into a more mechanistic explanation by discarding the spiritual, so THEN, there is no need to know about anything else, anymore, even if the opposite is suggested.
This wraps up my analysis here, which is done suggestively, from the little I know.
Any response and insult is welcome :)
Kind Regards.
You actually claimed a mathematical extrapolation of material existence into material existence, only. From material:known into material:unknown.
Absolutely not; it's from material:known into unknown.
Plus, the Big Bang model describes something that cannot even be material: a singularity. That's why I continued with:
Using mathematics and extrapolation, we can model what the universe looked like before that light was emitted. Using Newtonian or Eistein physics, we get a singularity, which is a point in time and space where we get an infinite mass in an infinitely small space: an infinitely dense universe.
This infinitely dense universe 'could' be material but we surely would never be able to confirm the validity of the equations since we cannot observe/detect/prove that something material is infinite. Therefore, we are already at a point where our model points toward a non-material universe.
1) Do you believe that this 'non-material' universe is something that existed at some point?
My answer is 'no' because we cannot know if there really was a 'non-material infinitely dense' universe. It's possible; extremely weird for us, but possible. However, I don't see how we can rule out the possibility that the universe was something else that is also material (made of space-time/energy) but in an unknown state.
Note that the word 'believe' is important because I consider that I don't have good reasons to believe in either scenario (material or non-material universe). I can't believe that the universe was literally infinite at any point, but I cannot discard the idea either. Logically speaking, the universe was 1 or the other, it cannot be both and it has to be either, but I am unable to conclude which one is correct at this point.
In other words, when you wrote: you denied any ability to extrapolate beyond that, since there are material unknowns, you are partially correct; in the sense that we cannot extrapolate what the definite answer is. We can however extrapolate to give potential scenarios and assess the likelihood of each of these scenarios. Therefore...
2) Are you saying that the 'non-material' scenario you proposed is more likely than a material multi-verse, to name just that one example, or are you proposing the idea that it 'must' be a 'non-material' context?
Does the failure of the knowledge of all of X mean that there is no !X?
No. We agree.
Or does being stuck in X mean that !X can't even be addressed until all of X is mapped?
No. It's impossible to map all of X anyway; we know that.
(Unless we find a way to travel faster than the speed of light... never say never I guess...)
However, following these 2 questions, we get to the core of the issue of material VS non-material: how can we address !X in the context of the argument? How can we jump from the material:known to a non-material:known which is 'not' conceptual?
Does not every X have a corresponding !X? If not, why not? (Be sure to consult the Russell-whitehead conundrum on the ultimate superset first and the Godellian issue, too.)
Not sure what that means and I am not familiar with what's in parenthesis I am afraid. I tried to Google quickly but it's too vague; I am not sure what you are referring to exactly...
Finally, I am afraid this will be my last comment here. Some personal issue came up and I will need to take care of that. I honestly hope you will be able to answer my questions! Always a pleasure to learn from your arguments, even though I am not quite convinced by them...
Take care
Oh,
I forgot to mention, because an atheist nihilistc panpsychist rejects metaphysical materialism, what is not needed to know about, is the "substance" itself, only is needed to know that it "exists".
To understand this point further, anybody may look at the bizarre Double-Aspect Theory made by people who admire Nietzsche too much, almost zealously:
Youtube Video of double-aspect theory
Kind Regards (again).
”Using Newtonian or Eistein physics, we get a singularity, which is a point in time and space where we get an infinite mass in an infinitely small space: an infinitely dense universe.”
This is not current physics. Actual physics has accepted Hawking’s proof that space/time and mass/energy were not available in order to declare “infinitely dense”, a term which was therefore not definable.
I think that you are demonstrating the inability of human thought to encompass non-physical existence, an existence which is outside of our physical knowledge, of course. (Hawking also did that). Ask yourself these two questions:
a) If there were an infinitely dense singularity, then what existed around it? What time did it exist within? What space did it occupy?
b) What is the source of the contents of the singularity, which was non-physical yet contained the seeds of physical existence?
These are absurdities IFF the conceptions must be based on the space/time that was locked inside (a subset of) the singularity. If there were space/time in which the singularity existed, then that space/time was not the space/time which was locked away inside the singularity. The singularity is a definition of an existence which is non-material in terms of our known mass/energy and space/time, because those material “things” were a subset of the singularity, not the other way around.
So the singularity itself cannot be infinitely small or large, based on dimensions which are locked inside it. It existed in a context which has no physical meaning within our physical understanding of shape, size, or timing, because those things which we use in our comprehension were a subset of the singularity itself. So the context within which the singularity existed cannot be considered material or physical as we understand those terms.
Your question:
” 1) Do you believe that this 'non-material' universe is something that existed at some point?”
The term “non-material universe” is internally contradictory, because the universe is defined in material terms. A non-material universe is without the parameters of space/time within which to exist.
” I can't believe that the universe was literally infinite at any point, but I cannot discard the idea either. Logically speaking, the universe was 1 or the other, it cannot be both and it has to be either, but I am unable to conclude which one is correct at this point.”
Then perhaps we should wait until you decide.
” In other words, when you wrote: you denied any ability to extrapolate beyond that, since there are material unknowns, you are partially correct; in the sense that we cannot extrapolate what the definite answer is. We can however extrapolate to give potential scenarios and assess the likelihood of each of these scenarios. Therefore...
2) Are you saying that the 'non-material' scenario you proposed is more likely than a material multi-verse, to name just that one example, or are you proposing the idea that it 'must' be a 'non-material' context?”
I didn’t propose a multiverse, I addressed your proposal by saying (roughly) that the infinite universe concept still is either an infinite regression, or the universes, being contingent on creation by other universes would have a non-contingent beginning source.
(continued)
(from above)
” However, following these 2 questions, we get to the core of the issue of material VS non-material: how can we address !X in the context of the argument? How can we jump from the material:known to a non-material:known which is 'not' conceptual?”
Here is the real crux of the argument: you are asking for a physical answer to a subject which is not physical.
Back to the multiverse issue: Perhaps our universe was created by or from another universe. [Our universe is contingent upon the existence of another universe].
Then the prior universe either was contingent or non-contingent itself.
If contingent, then the projection is to an infinite series of contingent universes which have no non-contingent beginning.
If non-contingent, then that universe either always existed and still does, or it had a source for its implementation which was not another universe. So the issue of a single super-universe competes with a non-universe as the implementing function.
However, the super-universe if it existed, could not have existed within the space or time within which our universe exists. So it is undefinable in terms of our physical comprehension.
Further, if contingency is required for our universe, it should logically apply to the prior universe as well.
This re-opens the infinite regression of contingent universes, which must be logically rejected. There must logically be a non-contingent beginning source for implementing contingent universes, somewhere.
So, after rejecting the concept of an infinite regression of contingent universes, the question becomes, which contingency is more logically acceptable, (a) our universe is contingent upon an agent undefinable in terms of physical existence, or (b) our universe is contingent upon the super-universe, which was for some reason not contingent upon anything for its implementation? What evidence is there for (b), especially considering that it did not exist in physical form as we know it? Further, why is it considered a “universe” at all, if it is non-contingent and non-physical? Have we not established a non-physical prior existence of a non-contingent implementing function for the physical universe that we know?
Sorry to see you leave,
Adios,
Return when you can, if you wish.
This is the second most common Atheist form of denialism. We must redefine the terms ad infinitum so that I never, ever actually address the issue.
If you can understand “material” as a category, then non-material is the remaining category: [!material]. Simple set theory.
Actually I don’t expect you to address the actual issue. Atheists never do. It would mean they are taking responsibility for a position.
Instead of defining the term, you are attacking the person. I expect better.
By defining your term against another term, you are inviting me to define it for you.
In other words, I must define material for you, and then immaterial.
Material refers to all that is physically present in the universe, be it energy, matter, heat, electromagnetic radiation, or the stuff of the universe itself, space and its dimensions.
Therefore, non-material means not a product or quality of the universe. Which is synonymous with non-existent.
That answers your question, categorically.
If that is the way that you think, then so be it. You cannot conceive of the concept of something which is not in the category: material; apparently then you are a Philosophical Materialist. So defend your materialism: prove the validity of Philosophical Materialism using the tenets of Philosophical Materialism (give material evidence for the lack of nonmaterial existence or evidence for the existence of only material objects). Take care to observe Godellian constraints. And as a scientist, posit a falsifiable experiment which will demonstrate your proof.
Burden of proof. Philosophical materialism is the consensus view of the universe, supported by centuries of research. If you wish to argue against the prevailing idea, then you must provide evidence that something non-material exists. That evidence must meet scientific rigor.
If you complain that materialist epistemology is insufficient to judge your evidence, then you must substantiate an alternative method that doesn't produce false results and pseudoscience. A priori reasoning is victim of this.
As for an experiment: take any simple phenomenon, like gravity, heat, energy, and create an environment where it exists and can be measured and compared against theoretical values and determine the error margins for those values. If you find a repeatable instance of deviant values, reproducible across other experiments, and no detectable aberrations or phenomena interfering with it, you might have an immaterial effect. Of course, more probably, you have another variable affecting the outcome from contamination, or something you overlooked.
Consider abstract objects, like numbers. How much does Pi weigh? What color is it? Obviously these are absurd questions because Pi is a number, not a physical object. Pi cannot be reduced to any particular instance of Pi, or the collection of all written versions of Pi. Nor can it be reduced to a concept existent only in the human mind, for two reasons. First, if you try to maintain materialism by saying that whatever is not material is only "in our minds", then you set yourself up for dualism of the mind later on, because the mind serves as the holding tank where you can get rid of all the remainders. As Ed Feser puts it, this is like cleaning up a house by sweeping all the dirt under one particular rug, and then claiming you will get rid of the rug using the same method. But the only method of dealing with the rug now is to either keep it permanently (dualism), or throw the whole thing out (eliminativism).
Secondly, Pi is infinitely long. Too long to fit in any human mind. We explore Pi like we explore the Moon, going ever deeper and seeing what's there. Whatever is deep in Pi is already there, waiting for us to discover it. It isn't something we are making up as we go.
So there is one example of an immaterial reality: numbers and mathematical objects.
This is actually a wonderful example topic, thanks for bringing it up, because it illustrates how fuzzy our understanding of the mind and ideas are and how we try to understand it and a kind of meta-reality based in our minds.
For pi, you're right that it doesn't exist independently. It isn't a thing that occupies space, however it does exist in the universe as a trait of objects. It is a meta-quality which exists as the ratio of circles and their radii, and triangles and their sides in the unit circle. As long as circles and triangles exist, pi (the number) exists as a derivative of their features. As long as we can imagine these objects, or any mind exists which can conceptualize numbers and objects, pi (the idea) will exist as knowledge of this meta-property of nature.
So, going back to the original question: a non-material creator exists?
If non-material is defined to mean meta-qualities of physical objects, then the question is really asking if "god is in the stuff of the universe, without existing?"
Which really can't be answered because a meta-quality is just something external to objects that describes them in some way, and "god" being this way doesn't immediately lend a quality in mind that exists in anything.
aveskde,
>For pi, you're right that it doesn't exist independently.
Actually, I was suggesting that it does, in fact, exist independently. As an immaterial object to counter your materialism. This is in fact some of the stuff that convinced Augustine that materialism is false.
>As long as circles and triangles exist, pi (the number) exists as a derivative of their features.
This is not true. Even if no circles existed at all, Pi would still exist as a discoverable number that we can explore, going deep into it just like we do with super computers, existent circles or not. Just like we have mathematics of four dimensional space (e.g. tesseracts) even though such space may not even exist. Such mathematics is still existent, and independent of any human mind (we didn't just "make it up", nor could we change it at will).
>As long as we can imagine these objects, or any mind exists which can conceptualize numbers and objects, pi (the idea) will exist as knowledge of this meta-property of nature.
But Pi isn't reducible to just ideas in human minds, since it is infinitely deep, and no human mind is infinite. Not to mention, we explore Pi; we do not make it up as we go along. We explore it as an objective reality that already exists, waiting to be discovered.
>So, going back to the original question: a non-material creator exists?
Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that "vulgar" materialism, of which many "new atheists" seem to implicitly subscribe, is easily argued against. And often with little in the way of rebuttal.
A non-airtight-but-still-reasonable argument for a Creator can be constructed:
1. Abstract objects (mathematics) exist in some form
2. They are not reducible to physical properties
3. They are the product of minds (unless you want to be a hard Platonist; where else would they exist?)
4. They are not the product of any human mind (because they are infinite in scope)
5. They transcend the physical world (even if no physical universe exists, it would still be true that 2+2=4 and false that 2+3=4)
6. Therefore, they are the product of a non-human mind that transcends the physical universe
>If non-material is defined to mean meta-qualities of physical objects, then the question is really asking if "god is in the stuff of the universe, without existing?"
But that isn't what Pi is. If it were just a meta-quality of physical objects, then when those physical objects go away, so does Pi. But as I illustrated with four-dimensional space that may not even exist, mathematics exists independently of any physical objects. Even in a world without any physical circles at all, intelligent beings could still discover Pi (without having to create physical circles), and explore deep into it just like we are doing.
Mathematics is an independent world that we discover, and is not reducible to any physical objects nor human ideas (even though humans can think about it).
The point is that vulgar materialism (which you may or may not subscribe to; I'm just illustrating) is far from clearly true, and I would venture to say that most philosophers are probably not vulgar materialists.
Before anything else, there is just one way that human beings can reach certainty of knowledge of the existence of objective reality, and then on the existence of God -- or no God, for atheists.
That only one way is by concurring on premises.
First, we must whether theists or atheists concur on the premise (but of course in the domain of concepts or thinking in the mind, i.e. in the realm of thought) that there is the objective reality of existence outside our mind.
Then when we have concurred on the premise on the certainty of the existence of objective reality, then we go forth in objective reality to search for God.
But we must also then both theists and atheists concur beforehand on what is God.
So, summing up on premises, what are these premises we humans whether theists or atheists must agree on, in concepts of course or in the domain of thinking i.e. thought in our minds? (Otherwise we are already into objective existence when that is still to be debated on.)
I will say that since the issue is whether God exists or not exists, we must concur on what is existence in concepts or in thought or in the domain of thinking.
At this point I must bring to the notice of everyone here again whether theist or atheist: that the talk is all exclusively in the domain of thought, and we want to work together to concur on: what is existence, and what is God.
Okay, let us proceed then, theists and atheists, to concur on what is existence in objective reality outside the domain of thought.
Since existence is the most and beyond which there can be no further more general idea, we cannot define it in words, but we can and must and do know about it by experience i.e. testing.
The test consists in us all each individually and all mutually banging our heads against a concrete wall or hitting our nose with a sledgehammer, harder and harder, until we are convinced that if we don't stop already, we will cease to exist, for we will die, which means we will cease to exist.
Now, can we agree with this test that we know already what is existence in objective reality outside and beyond just thinking and talking about objective reality?
So, we now know what is objective reality, and the issue is that God is existing in objective reality, just as we are existing in objective reality, what do we do now to prove the existence of God or non-existence of God?
Now, we must concur on what is God?
From my own part, my idea of God is creator and operator of the universe.
I am certain that we theists concur that in concepts or in thought or in the domain of thinking in our minds, we concur that first and foremost God is the creator and operator of the universe.
For if God is not the creator and operator of the universe, then we theists can already stop talking with atheists about His existence, for no matter what He is if not creator and operator of the universe, He is not worth any thinking from the part of man.
We therefore theists have to work with atheists to get them to come to concurrence with us on what in concepts only is God, and namely, that He is the creator and operator of the universe: again in concepts only, in thinking, in the realm of thought in man's mind.
The impasse with atheists is that they do not care to work at all ever to concur on anything at all when it has to do with thinking or concepts or thought on definition of what is existence and also what is God.
That is irrational of atheists.
So, what can we theists do with atheists since they are irrational, and therefore we cannot, because they do not want to, get them to think at all, i.e. to work on concepts, i.e. to use their mind on working with concepts?
That is what thinking is all about, working with concepts in our mind.
That is what reasoning is all about, working with concepts.
What can we theists do?
If they atheists are not susceptible to work with us to reason out things: in particular on the idea of existence and on the idea of God, then we can point out to them that they are inconsistent, because in everything else in the objective actual existence of life with themselves, they are rational, they think before they act.
But more importantly, we have to ask them whether they will cooperate with us to examine themselves, wherefore themselves also to examine themselves, psychologically, i.e., on what emotion they are moved by in their irrational self-opposition against thinking when the issue is God or no God, starting already with the concept of existence and the concept of God?
So, at the end of the day, atheists must be studied psychologically for their self-restriction against thinking altogether: when they so much as notice or smell with their mind that the topic is God's existence or non-existence.
Psychologists study emotions of man which emotions of man are the moving push or pull for man to do or not do something, no matter how reasonable and necessary the doing or not doing of something, or even just thinking in the mind, is dictated upon humans who are in possession of their rational nature.
The domineering emotion involved is pride which is an essentially irrational impulse.
But what is the grounding of pride with humans?
It is the stubbornness to admit even to oneself that one has been wrong with something, starting with wrong thinking, and then also with wrong doing.
In conclusion, I will just state that:
(1) Unless we theists and atheists concur first on premises, it is already impossible for theists to talk reason with atheists when the topic is God existing or not existing.
Of course atheists will also say the same thing, that theists are the ones not concurring with them atheists on premises.
But the way I see it, it is atheists who do not have positive premises, but their premises are all negative when the topic has to do with the existence of God or no God.
Do they not always remind mankind that it is impossible to disprove God exists (on their part), just as it is impossible to prove God exists (on the part of theists -- which is not the fact for theists have proof, only atheists do not care to examine the proof).
That is a negative premise, and for being negative it cannot bring man's mind to knowledge, it is instead essentially a plea to not know, period.
(2) Atheists are irrational and the proper examination of atheists is psychological analysis of their irrationality, namely, what is it grounded on; and from my part I will say, atheists are too proud to admit that they are wrong in their thinking and/or in their doing.
So, everyone here, if you will see the bigger picture, first you will notice that the talk here with everyone up to the present is purely on the domain of concepts, i.e. thought in the mind, i.e. in thinking, but you do not care to go forth into the domain of searching for God in objective reality.
And second, you will notice that you cannot talk reason with atheists; but perhaps they will find it to their better adjustment in life to submit themselves even by themselves in a DIY approach to psychological examination of themselves.
Odrareg,
I can’t fully address your questions tonight, but I can ask for this clarification: Do you mean by “objective reality” to restrict “reality” to physical sensory detectable existence? If so why? And is there another reality which is not “objective” or physical in nature – even outside of the thoughts in the mind, or not? If so what would you call it? If not, why not?
Odrareg,
(Please disregard my question above; I had not read your full text)
I agree with your assessment of attempting to bring Atheists into discussions with logic as the base. The comments above yours demonstrate just that. Your assessment of the need for Atheists to psychologically examine their motives for their rejection of rational processes is also an important observation, but I'm afraid that it will not happen.
I have a good friend who is a psychology PhD who has analyzed Atheists and has come to the conclusion that the internet Atheists and the aggressive, litigious Atheists are, in fact, afflicted with Narcissistic Disorder. This means that they are incapable of viewing themselves as being wrong or having a problem of any sort: other people have the problems, not ever the narcissist. This means that narcissism is not treatable because the narcissist will never submit to analysis or therapy.
The characteristics of denial of logical fallacies, accusing the Other of irrationality with no analysis whatsoever to support the accusation, persistent self-contradiction, and denial of responsibility for any analysis of their rejectionism (which they typically either don’t divulge or they rig as false concepts) all are consistent with Narcissistic Disorder.
Not all Atheists are aggressive or on-line; but a preponderance of those who make themselves visible are seen in this fashion.
This projects toward political Leftism as well, and there is a large conjunction of the set of Atheists and the set of Leftism. That is why I also address certain aspects of Leftist politics on this blog.
I harbor no delusion of any Atheist copping to his reasons for rejection of specific basic theism. However, those who are open yet and looking for actual discipline rational reasoning regarding Atheism might find some of these discussions interesting and useful.
I should mention the studies which link a correspondence of autism with Atheism
and autism / aspberger’s
Good grief. I posted a link to this on my facebook. The two atheists objecting, are demanding that God must reveal himself in personal form to be proof. Can they not read?
The perception of many Atheists is that God, if extant, would report directly to them, and do their exact bidding.
It appears to me that many of today's Atheists are cartoon cultists who identify with superheros to the point of no longer having the capacity to dissociate from fantasy, and forming coherent worldviews.
Then they have no idea why they are not trusted as rational individuals. (Not to mention the moral aspect).
Post a Comment