This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
1. Why is there something rather than nothing in existence?
2. How do you explain the universe's stability, uniformity, regularity?
3. How do you explain noncomplex beginnings becoming as complex as they are now (Earth's scientific past being a ball of consciousless, lifeless dust giving rise to calculated, sentient, conscious ecosystdm of intelligent, living things)?
4. What problem do you have with there being a supernatural being creating this universe as a rational explanation?
5. How do you explain consciousness, your imagination, and dreams coming about from dust?
6. Could the universe left alone organize itself in this manner of our reality by pure chance according to the laws of physics? How so? Will it be based on inference and reason?
7. Do you believe this universe had a beginning?
8. Since this universe was not eternal (cuz it has a beginning according to science), and for every effect there must be a cause, what can we reason out that caused it?
9. And what is the uncaused cause that causes everything? Or do you believe in infinite regression?
10. If you think this universe is just a bunch of atoms colliding, void of meaning and purpose, is there morality objecticely? How do you argue for or against it? And is cutting a human baby different to cutting an apple objectively speaking according to the lens of atheists?
Just sone honest thoughts I have a curiosity how atheists rationalize their stance
2. How do you explain the universe's stability, uniformity, regularity?
3. How do you explain noncomplex beginnings becoming as complex as they are now (Earth's scientific past being a ball of consciousless, lifeless dust giving rise to calculated, sentient, conscious ecosystdm of intelligent, living things)?
4. What problem do you have with there being a supernatural being creating this universe as a rational explanation?
5. How do you explain consciousness, your imagination, and dreams coming about from dust?
6. Could the universe left alone organize itself in this manner of our reality by pure chance according to the laws of physics? How so? Will it be based on inference and reason?
7. Do you believe this universe had a beginning?
8. Since this universe was not eternal (cuz it has a beginning according to science), and for every effect there must be a cause, what can we reason out that caused it?
9. And what is the uncaused cause that causes everything? Or do you believe in infinite regression?
10. If you think this universe is just a bunch of atoms colliding, void of meaning and purpose, is there morality objecticely? How do you argue for or against it? And is cutting a human baby different to cutting an apple objectively speaking according to the lens of atheists?
Just sone honest thoughts I have a curiosity how atheists rationalize their stance
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Babylon what does any of that have to do with being an atheist?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Babylon What’s an ‘atheist lens’?
I have no gods
I’m an atheist.
That’s it
That’s all there is to it
"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
[i]Sam Harris[/i]
I have no gods
I’m an atheist.
That’s it
That’s all there is to it
"In fact, 'atheism' is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a 'non-astrologer' or a 'non-alchemist'. We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
[i]Sam Harris[/i]
@Babylon
1) I don't know. I'm not sure "nothing" is even possible. We've certainly got no precedent for a "nothing" state.
2) It's just they way energy interact. I don't invent an explanation for it because i want one.
3) Well that's just evolution. Selective pressure can cause even unicellular organisms to spontaneously become multicellular. This has even been observed under laboratory conditions a couple of different times.
4) I don't have problem with a supernatural being per say, there's just no sufficient justification to accept that one exists. Only unverifiable conjecture.
5) Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of an animal's ability to perceive, plan and remember. It doesn't exist at any one part of the brain in the same way that wetness doesn't exist on any one water molecule.
6) I'm sure i'm not qualified to give an intelligent answer to that. But we can see that the universe appears to work just find without apparent direction.
7) Not necessarily.
8) Actually as far as i know, science currently identifies a point of local expansion for our universe but i'm not sure it has settled on the conclusion that it began to exist.
9) Time only exists as a property of the universe and therefore cause and effect only become relevant within this context. Perhaps there is no cause and no beginning. I realize that's not a concept the human mind is well equipped to contain but that doesn't preclude the possibility.
10) Depends what you mean by "objective". Is there some moral property of the universe like gravity? No.
But with reference to humans values, an action can be objectively in line or opposed to that. For example, unlike say, a Christian moral worldview where morality is what god wants (or what people think god wants), we can use a moral guide which is focused on promoting human flourishing and reducing suffering. That's secular humanism. With that as the standard cutting a baby in half is objectively wrong and cutting an apple in half is snack time.
1) I don't know. I'm not sure "nothing" is even possible. We've certainly got no precedent for a "nothing" state.
2) It's just they way energy interact. I don't invent an explanation for it because i want one.
3) Well that's just evolution. Selective pressure can cause even unicellular organisms to spontaneously become multicellular. This has even been observed under laboratory conditions a couple of different times.
4) I don't have problem with a supernatural being per say, there's just no sufficient justification to accept that one exists. Only unverifiable conjecture.
5) Consciousness appears to be an emergent property of an animal's ability to perceive, plan and remember. It doesn't exist at any one part of the brain in the same way that wetness doesn't exist on any one water molecule.
6) I'm sure i'm not qualified to give an intelligent answer to that. But we can see that the universe appears to work just find without apparent direction.
7) Not necessarily.
8) Actually as far as i know, science currently identifies a point of local expansion for our universe but i'm not sure it has settled on the conclusion that it began to exist.
9) Time only exists as a property of the universe and therefore cause and effect only become relevant within this context. Perhaps there is no cause and no beginning. I realize that's not a concept the human mind is well equipped to contain but that doesn't preclude the possibility.
10) Depends what you mean by "objective". Is there some moral property of the universe like gravity? No.
But with reference to humans values, an action can be objectively in line or opposed to that. For example, unlike say, a Christian moral worldview where morality is what god wants (or what people think god wants), we can use a moral guide which is focused on promoting human flourishing and reducing suffering. That's secular humanism. With that as the standard cutting a baby in half is objectively wrong and cutting an apple in half is snack time.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Babylon 2. Why does a mere description need explaining?
3. Emergent Properties are commonplace, and perceptions of complexity are subject to the biases of particularity
4. It explains nothing. It seeks to merely explain everything away. It has no explanatory power and no predictive power.
5. From dust? Do you mean like the ridiculous christian creation myth? See (3) above,
6. The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that
7. This spacetime universe began with the Big Bang… but that wasn’t the beginning of the universe
8. See (8) above… science doesn’t say the universe had a beginning. The spacetime universe had a beginning… around 13.5 billion years ago… but that’s not the same thing as a beginning for the universe.
9. Incoherent. If you’re trying to refer to the creationist claim that their magical entity has always existed, then it’s equally valid to say that the universe has always existed (that has the advantage of simplicity, because it cuts out the mumbo-jumbo in the middle)
10. Moral behaviour is that which preserves or enhances the wellbeing of any organism capable of otherwise suffering.
Was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
3. Emergent Properties are commonplace, and perceptions of complexity are subject to the biases of particularity
4. It explains nothing. It seeks to merely explain everything away. It has no explanatory power and no predictive power.
5. From dust? Do you mean like the ridiculous christian creation myth? See (3) above,
6. The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that
7. This spacetime universe began with the Big Bang… but that wasn’t the beginning of the universe
8. See (8) above… science doesn’t say the universe had a beginning. The spacetime universe had a beginning… around 13.5 billion years ago… but that’s not the same thing as a beginning for the universe.
9. Incoherent. If you’re trying to refer to the creationist claim that their magical entity has always existed, then it’s equally valid to say that the universe has always existed (that has the advantage of simplicity, because it cuts out the mumbo-jumbo in the middle)
10. Moral behaviour is that which preserves or enhances the wellbeing of any organism capable of otherwise suffering.
Was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
@Pikachu thank you for your response from an atheist lens.
1. I agree. Since we exist, there could never have been a time where there was absolutely nothing, unless we wanna entertain the idea that something can come from ansolurely nothing
2. Well, you do understand how many properties have to be perfectly in line to have this stable, organized universe (let alone Earth). Are you arguing to just say "it just is" as an explanation while knowing the infinite number of ways our universe could have been slightly different, hence collapsing any stability as we know it? The odds are statistically infinitesimal. So, do we just ignore how lifeless everything is and how anomalously perfect our planet's conditions are for sustaining life as "it just is?" Because why then wouldn't this particular place in the universe match in uniformity with the rest of the universe? And how does that explain life from Earth when life was not here or sustainable? Do we posit that organic compounds come from inorganic compounds to start life? If so, how?
4. Fair enough
5. Are you certain that perception, planning, and remembering are a description of consciousness? Can I be conscious without perception? (Deaf, or dumb, or blind, etc) Can insane people be conscious without ability to plan? And can people with dementia, memory loss, amnesia, etc. be conscious? Or is this outside the realm of physical explanation? Like dreams and imagination?
6. You're postulating that there is no direction. I don't think that can be used within the answer but regardless, that's fair enough. According to its own laws, can the universe organize itself is the core concept I want to hear your srance about.
7. Fair enough.
8 & 9. So how would you explain the focal point as we go back in time? That is the beginning of this universe as we know it with its laws. It cannot be the only thing out there if it is contingent and unstable (meaning the big bang). Rather if it were stable and the only thing, it would have been as it was. If you argue that it did not come inro existence but rather was caused at its focal poiny, there was a time everything was together. This means that it was not in ecustence expanding, but rather present while altogether. What caused it to expand and destabilize from its original state? Meaning, what do you posit caused the Big Bang?
9 alone. If the universe is eternal, then you have to respect it has a Big Bang beginning and before that it must have been altogether and not expanding. Even if you posit that it was eternal, what caused the universe to destabilize and expand?
Because if it were eternal and stable as a system, it would never be interrupted unless there is something outside of it. If it were not meant to be altogether at the focal point and is rather unstable and meant to expand into the void, how on Earth was it ever together in the first place without a cause? (Or how in the universe)
10. [quote] Depends what you mean by "objective". Is there some moral property of the universe like gravity? No. [/quote]
If there is no right or wrong, what's the point of making it up? You denied coming up with explanations for all the other things about the cause and organization and clear laws the universe is subject to. How do we justify as atheists to make up a morality to impose on others? What exactly would the point be?
[quote] But with reference to humans values, an action can be objectively in line or opposed to that [/quote]
Why pick human values? Who gets to pick these values?
[quote][b][u]With that as the standard[/u][/b] [b][i]cutting a baby in half is objectively wrong[/i][/b] and cutting an apple in half is snack time. [/quote]
Did you just use subjectivity and assert objectivity but declare it as objective? When you say "with that as the standard," you mean "with that as the [b]subjective[/b] standard." Am I right?
How can we ever objectively conclude something as a fact like that? You and I both know you cannot derive objectivity from subjectivity. That's quite a bait and switch.
1. I agree. Since we exist, there could never have been a time where there was absolutely nothing, unless we wanna entertain the idea that something can come from ansolurely nothing
2. Well, you do understand how many properties have to be perfectly in line to have this stable, organized universe (let alone Earth). Are you arguing to just say "it just is" as an explanation while knowing the infinite number of ways our universe could have been slightly different, hence collapsing any stability as we know it? The odds are statistically infinitesimal. So, do we just ignore how lifeless everything is and how anomalously perfect our planet's conditions are for sustaining life as "it just is?" Because why then wouldn't this particular place in the universe match in uniformity with the rest of the universe? And how does that explain life from Earth when life was not here or sustainable? Do we posit that organic compounds come from inorganic compounds to start life? If so, how?
4. Fair enough
5. Are you certain that perception, planning, and remembering are a description of consciousness? Can I be conscious without perception? (Deaf, or dumb, or blind, etc) Can insane people be conscious without ability to plan? And can people with dementia, memory loss, amnesia, etc. be conscious? Or is this outside the realm of physical explanation? Like dreams and imagination?
6. You're postulating that there is no direction. I don't think that can be used within the answer but regardless, that's fair enough. According to its own laws, can the universe organize itself is the core concept I want to hear your srance about.
7. Fair enough.
8 & 9. So how would you explain the focal point as we go back in time? That is the beginning of this universe as we know it with its laws. It cannot be the only thing out there if it is contingent and unstable (meaning the big bang). Rather if it were stable and the only thing, it would have been as it was. If you argue that it did not come inro existence but rather was caused at its focal poiny, there was a time everything was together. This means that it was not in ecustence expanding, but rather present while altogether. What caused it to expand and destabilize from its original state? Meaning, what do you posit caused the Big Bang?
9 alone. If the universe is eternal, then you have to respect it has a Big Bang beginning and before that it must have been altogether and not expanding. Even if you posit that it was eternal, what caused the universe to destabilize and expand?
Because if it were eternal and stable as a system, it would never be interrupted unless there is something outside of it. If it were not meant to be altogether at the focal point and is rather unstable and meant to expand into the void, how on Earth was it ever together in the first place without a cause? (Or how in the universe)
10. [quote] Depends what you mean by "objective". Is there some moral property of the universe like gravity? No. [/quote]
If there is no right or wrong, what's the point of making it up? You denied coming up with explanations for all the other things about the cause and organization and clear laws the universe is subject to. How do we justify as atheists to make up a morality to impose on others? What exactly would the point be?
[quote] But with reference to humans values, an action can be objectively in line or opposed to that [/quote]
Why pick human values? Who gets to pick these values?
[quote][b][u]With that as the standard[/u][/b] [b][i]cutting a baby in half is objectively wrong[/i][/b] and cutting an apple in half is snack time. [/quote]
Did you just use subjectivity and assert objectivity but declare it as objective? When you say "with that as the standard," you mean "with that as the [b]subjective[/b] standard." Am I right?
How can we ever objectively conclude something as a fact like that? You and I both know you cannot derive objectivity from subjectivity. That's quite a bait and switch.
@newjaninev2
2. The universe was not always this way. How can we witness a clearly unstable beginning and then leave stability as a property of this universe. If that were true, how do you explain the Big Bang? It would have remained as it was before becoming unstable and exploding, right?
3. If you believe in Emergent Properties, what is the first Emergent Property that we can prove for life starting on in a lifeless planet, void of sufficient and organized organic compounds to produce natural products? And how do you reconcile this with how Earth began?
4 & 5. I await your explanation of 3 before you are cleared to declare what is fantasy and what is not.
6. not only have you provided nearly nothing to how you rationalize this universe as an atheist, you're asking about what I'm asking about and then leaving it as it is, as if it suffices with a statement like this on your response to my 6th idea I wanted to exchange thoughts about with the atheistic perspective:
[quote] The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that [/quote]
You quite literally just supported your stance with "It just is." That's not sufficient for you with respect to God because you say:
[quote] It explains nothing. It seeks to merely explain everything away. It has no explanatory power and no predictive power. [/quote]
Yet proceed to explain nothing about how the universe exhibits its structure with:
[quote] The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that [/quote]
I suggest that if you wish to respond as to portray atheists as reasonable [quote] "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
Sam Harris [/quote]
Then you must provide this reason that atheists possess (that sets them as reasonable and sets theists as clearly unreasomable) to rationalize what we see is reality; because we live in reality. Clearly you don't accept "God exists because God just does" as a valid stance. There must be some other reason you as an atheist besides mere postulation.
7. [quote] This spacetime universe began with the Big Bang… but that wasn’t the beginning of the universe [/quote]
Fair enough.
8. Fair enough
9. [quote]Incoherent. If you’re trying to refer to the creationist claim that their magical entity has always existed, then it’s equally valid to say that the universe has always existed [/quote]
I can see your stance but you run into some problems where if this is the stance you take, you have to rationalize how your stance makes sense. Are you arguing that the universe could organize itself how it is currently without a conscious, manipulating agent? If you are against a conscious, manipulating agent that organizes this universe, I'd like to test your coherence and consistency on your own stance, based on science and observed regularities.
10. [quote] Moral behaviour is that which preserves or enhances the wellbeing of any organism capable of otherwise suffering [/quote]
Is this objective? If not, what even compels morality for you? Why even think of it if you are convinced that there is no objective morality and we're just a bunch of particles colliding aimlessly and we're just a bunch of biological computers and our lives are purposeless and meaningless?
Also, since you use suffering as a criteria, can you have immoral acts where suffering is negated? For example, suppose a man lusts after a woman while he is married to a passionate, committed, and loving wife. Suppose he abandons his commitment to her to satisfy his desires for another woman and he cheats on her and enjoys himself and the woman he cheated with enjoys herself. They are not bothered and are pleased and keep it a secret, and the wife who loves him and thinks he is committed never finds out and does not notice or suffer. Do you call that act moral, according to your standards? Or are there other morally bounding factors? And how do we substantiate introducing these limitations on others who do not want it? (Or do you endorse infidelity as moral so long as they don't get caught). I'm quite curious
I made quite a few typos. Forgive my writing when quite tired. I apologize.
I also appreciate you sharing responses with me from an atheistic perspective.
2. The universe was not always this way. How can we witness a clearly unstable beginning and then leave stability as a property of this universe. If that were true, how do you explain the Big Bang? It would have remained as it was before becoming unstable and exploding, right?
3. If you believe in Emergent Properties, what is the first Emergent Property that we can prove for life starting on in a lifeless planet, void of sufficient and organized organic compounds to produce natural products? And how do you reconcile this with how Earth began?
4 & 5. I await your explanation of 3 before you are cleared to declare what is fantasy and what is not.
6. not only have you provided nearly nothing to how you rationalize this universe as an atheist, you're asking about what I'm asking about and then leaving it as it is, as if it suffices with a statement like this on your response to my 6th idea I wanted to exchange thoughts about with the atheistic perspective:
[quote] The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that [/quote]
You quite literally just supported your stance with "It just is." That's not sufficient for you with respect to God because you say:
[quote] It explains nothing. It seeks to merely explain everything away. It has no explanatory power and no predictive power. [/quote]
Yet proceed to explain nothing about how the universe exhibits its structure with:
[quote] The universe is the way it is… otherwise it would be different. There’s absolutely nothing special or remarkable about that [/quote]
I suggest that if you wish to respond as to portray atheists as reasonable [quote] "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
Sam Harris [/quote]
Then you must provide this reason that atheists possess (that sets them as reasonable and sets theists as clearly unreasomable) to rationalize what we see is reality; because we live in reality. Clearly you don't accept "God exists because God just does" as a valid stance. There must be some other reason you as an atheist besides mere postulation.
7. [quote] This spacetime universe began with the Big Bang… but that wasn’t the beginning of the universe [/quote]
Fair enough.
8. Fair enough
9. [quote]Incoherent. If you’re trying to refer to the creationist claim that their magical entity has always existed, then it’s equally valid to say that the universe has always existed [/quote]
I can see your stance but you run into some problems where if this is the stance you take, you have to rationalize how your stance makes sense. Are you arguing that the universe could organize itself how it is currently without a conscious, manipulating agent? If you are against a conscious, manipulating agent that organizes this universe, I'd like to test your coherence and consistency on your own stance, based on science and observed regularities.
10. [quote] Moral behaviour is that which preserves or enhances the wellbeing of any organism capable of otherwise suffering [/quote]
Is this objective? If not, what even compels morality for you? Why even think of it if you are convinced that there is no objective morality and we're just a bunch of particles colliding aimlessly and we're just a bunch of biological computers and our lives are purposeless and meaningless?
Also, since you use suffering as a criteria, can you have immoral acts where suffering is negated? For example, suppose a man lusts after a woman while he is married to a passionate, committed, and loving wife. Suppose he abandons his commitment to her to satisfy his desires for another woman and he cheats on her and enjoys himself and the woman he cheated with enjoys herself. They are not bothered and are pleased and keep it a secret, and the wife who loves him and thinks he is committed never finds out and does not notice or suffer. Do you call that act moral, according to your standards? Or are there other morally bounding factors? And how do we substantiate introducing these limitations on others who do not want it? (Or do you endorse infidelity as moral so long as they don't get caught). I'm quite curious
I made quite a few typos. Forgive my writing when quite tired. I apologize.
I also appreciate you sharing responses with me from an atheistic perspective.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Babylon [quote]stability as a property of this universe[/quote]
What stability? The laws of the universe are merely descriptions of what we see, and they remain valid only so long as we fail to see anything different. They in no way preclude instability
[quote]life starting on in a lifeless planet[/quote]
It might be helpful to settle the definition of life. How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution?
In which case I nominate Earth… unless you’re suggesting there’s no life on Earth.
As for abiogenesis on other planets, we’ll simply have to wait and see… or (most probably) never see.
Mind you, now that the Webb is about to come online, we might well see some remarkable signs of it.
[quote]how you rationalize this universe as an atheist[/quote]
I don’t. In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion?
[quote]organize itself in this manner[/quote]
The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows.
[quote]not sufficient for you with respect to God[/quote]
Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them
People are reasonable when they are objecting to unreasonable claims… in all other respects they make be completely unreasonable. I don’t know… I cannot speak for all 7 billion of my fellow [i]Homo sapiens.[/i]
[quote]the universe could organize itself how it is currently without a conscious, manipulating agent? [/quote]
I have already addressed that above. It is how it is. There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology.
[quote]against a conscious, manipulating agent that organizes this universe[/quote]
I’m not ‘against’ any such thing. There’s simply no need to even suppose such a thing.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we’d all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, [i]there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods,[/i] and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods
[quote]our lives are purposeless and meaningless?[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate.
[quote]suppose a man lusts after a woman[/quote]
Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an [i]ethical[/i] question. Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that [i]I will not harm you unless I first warn you.[/i]
Adultery is unethical… if the injured party was given reason to expect fidelity and was not warned that expectation was no longer valid
[quote]sharing responses with me from an atheistic perspective[/quote]
As I said, none of this is from an ‘atheist perspective’, and I don’t even know what such a thing would be.
What stability? The laws of the universe are merely descriptions of what we see, and they remain valid only so long as we fail to see anything different. They in no way preclude instability
[quote]life starting on in a lifeless planet[/quote]
It might be helpful to settle the definition of life. How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution?
In which case I nominate Earth… unless you’re suggesting there’s no life on Earth.
As for abiogenesis on other planets, we’ll simply have to wait and see… or (most probably) never see.
Mind you, now that the Webb is about to come online, we might well see some remarkable signs of it.
[quote]how you rationalize this universe as an atheist[/quote]
I don’t. In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion?
[quote]organize itself in this manner[/quote]
The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows.
[quote]not sufficient for you with respect to God[/quote]
Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them
People are reasonable when they are objecting to unreasonable claims… in all other respects they make be completely unreasonable. I don’t know… I cannot speak for all 7 billion of my fellow [i]Homo sapiens.[/i]
[quote]the universe could organize itself how it is currently without a conscious, manipulating agent? [/quote]
I have already addressed that above. It is how it is. There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology.
[quote]against a conscious, manipulating agent that organizes this universe[/quote]
I’m not ‘against’ any such thing. There’s simply no need to even suppose such a thing.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we’d all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, [i]there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods,[/i] and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away.
4. therefore, I have no gods
[quote]our lives are purposeless and meaningless?[/quote]
I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate.
[quote]suppose a man lusts after a woman[/quote]
Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an [i]ethical[/i] question. Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that [i]I will not harm you unless I first warn you.[/i]
Adultery is unethical… if the injured party was given reason to expect fidelity and was not warned that expectation was no longer valid
[quote]sharing responses with me from an atheistic perspective[/quote]
As I said, none of this is from an ‘atheist perspective’, and I don’t even know what such a thing would be.
@newjaninev2 [quote] What stability? The laws of the universe are merely descriptions of what we see, and they remain valid only so long as we fail to see anything different. [/quote]
You really don't recognize stability across the universe? If this universe were unstable, we wouldn't have this universe consistently as it is. We have not witnessed inconsistencies in science (our human effort to study this existence we find ourselves in). The laws of physics are descriptions of the observed regularities that this universe exhibits. We can figure out that it is stable and consistent as we test something and it produces consistent results. Without a stable universe, science couldn't exist, we couldn't exist, this universe as we know it couldn't exist. When you ask "what stability?" can you demonstrate any instability in the universe? Do you believe in science and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example?
[quote] How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution? [/quote]
I don't think this is an accurate description of life and it doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth. You're aware of the minimum gene-set concept for cells, right? What is the minimum number of genes for a single cell to even exist, let alone have it come packed with further capabilities. How do you describe and explain how those came together? Because to believe the things you do, you have to have an idea of how it makes sense. Where do all the organic compounds somehow get so perfectly organized? Why don't we see things like this naturally occurring?
[quote] In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion? [/quote]
I don't know. I think everyone rationalizes and believes something about this universe and we all have an idea of how it works. By rationalize, I am talking about how we use reason, observation, and testing to learn and figure out what is rational and what is not about our universe. Unless one does not have any reasoning, them they have thoughts about this universe and reasons for how things work and where things came from.
What you mention is tangent. Theists don't spend time saying "as a theist" to other theists. But when encountering polytheists and atheists, then the matter becomes about exchanging and sharing ideas about which of the beliefs is true. Because there can only be [b]one[/b] truth. Two conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. Who is right now takes reason and discussion and when talking across the aisle to someone who is an atheist or polythist, monotheists must say "as a monotheist" and substantiate how their belief makes sense where other beliefs don't.
It's not the fact that you have no gods, but how you explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense.
[quote] The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows [/quote]
Nobody is arguing it isn't what it is. The idea is your explanation (without a God) based on observation, study, etc. and whatever valid tools exist to an atheist as to what the best description of the history of this universe is should be reasonable and make sense.
Imagine I told you God exists the way He does because God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument? Or would you require a good reason for how one can take such a stance? And if you don't know, does that mean nobody knows or that the answer is not out there? Clearly you have some limiting criterias on the answers as to what you will accept and will not accept. Surely it should be based on reason, right?
There is nothing that exists in our universe without stability and consistency and observable laws and dynamics. Why is the universe the way it is? What was the reason our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now?
[quote] Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them [/quote]
Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Ignoring how you're guilty of postulation yourself, I'm telling you what you told me in the past. I mentioned how you do not accept "It just is" as a valid explanation with respect to God. What exactly are you arguing about if you agree? I mention what [b]you[/b] tell [b]me[/b] about God and you then start denying as if it's some default whenever you see the word God. That doesn't make any sense to me. And the sheer arrogance and superiority complex in the following paragraph with nothing to show for it is astounding to me.
[quote] There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology [/quote]
Big test of your consistency. Suppose you come across a house in the middle of the desert. You go inside and find some nice furniture, some stairs going upstairs, a bathroom with a toilet, couches, etc. Is it sufficient to say "I don't see evidence of teleology." And teleology meaning: [quote]the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.[/quote]
What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?
Can I argue and say there is no reason to suppose there is a goal, intention, or desired state for the hypothetical house found alone way out secluded in nature and we don't know who constructed it? I don't even know what size shoe the person who built it wears, but I am certain the house has a goal, intention, and desired state. This ability of humans to recognize and decipher the marks left behind by intelligent agents is innate to us. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what archaeology is based on.
When you observe nature and see its laws and structures, we can decipher what is not possible as a natural occurrence based on those laws. The same way you find a trail marker as the mark of an intelligent, capable, manipulating agent that disrupted the natural laws of the universe, we see this planet we live on exhibiting intense anomaly with respect to the rest of the universe.
[image deleted]We base entire studies on this concept, and I take it to be common sense to know that a watch requires a watchmaker. House requires a housemaker. Even though there is a statistic probability, we conclude this with certainty because math is not a perfect descriptor of reality.
[quote]in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods[/quote]
This is why I keep asking you to concretely give evidence as to how this universe and world could have organized itself. When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place. It exhibits stability and observed regularity, so I leave it to you to describe how the series of incredible anomalies perfectly sustaining our lives in a lifeless universe are sensible when everything in terms of the laws of nature point against anomalies and point towards this being another dead planet, like the vast emptiness which is unforgiving.
[quote]I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate [/quote]
Does your existence and life have any purpose or meaning objectively? And can you make up your own purpose after you exist? Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.
[quote] Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an ethical question [/quote]
First of all, I can't back you up when ethics is defined as:
[quote] a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values [/quote]
Ethics is quite literally morality-based, so there is no distancing the terms. Regardless of them meaning the same thing,
[quote] Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that I will not harm you unless I first warn you. [/quote]
This is quite the point of the situation. The person cheated on never finds out and is unknowning and unharmed and continues her life loving her man without ever "postulating" a reason to be harmed. Was the cheater behaving ethically, even according to your own definition? Since he never harmed her, no warning was needed. He enjoys himself. All parties come out happy and pleased. What's the morally wrong here, according to your beliefs?
You really don't recognize stability across the universe? If this universe were unstable, we wouldn't have this universe consistently as it is. We have not witnessed inconsistencies in science (our human effort to study this existence we find ourselves in). The laws of physics are descriptions of the observed regularities that this universe exhibits. We can figure out that it is stable and consistent as we test something and it produces consistent results. Without a stable universe, science couldn't exist, we couldn't exist, this universe as we know it couldn't exist. When you ask "what stability?" can you demonstrate any instability in the universe? Do you believe in science and the Laws of Thermodynamics, for example?
[quote] How about: a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution? [/quote]
I don't think this is an accurate description of life and it doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth. You're aware of the minimum gene-set concept for cells, right? What is the minimum number of genes for a single cell to even exist, let alone have it come packed with further capabilities. How do you describe and explain how those came together? Because to believe the things you do, you have to have an idea of how it makes sense. Where do all the organic compounds somehow get so perfectly organized? Why don't we see things like this naturally occurring?
[quote] In fact, I don’t do anything as an atheist. I don’t begin sentences with ‘as an atheist…’, nor do I ever say ‘from an atheist’s perspective…’, nor do I discuss atheism with other atheists. I have no gods… what part of that could possibly require discussion? [/quote]
I don't know. I think everyone rationalizes and believes something about this universe and we all have an idea of how it works. By rationalize, I am talking about how we use reason, observation, and testing to learn and figure out what is rational and what is not about our universe. Unless one does not have any reasoning, them they have thoughts about this universe and reasons for how things work and where things came from.
What you mention is tangent. Theists don't spend time saying "as a theist" to other theists. But when encountering polytheists and atheists, then the matter becomes about exchanging and sharing ideas about which of the beliefs is true. Because there can only be [b]one[/b] truth. Two conflicting beliefs cannot both be true. Who is right now takes reason and discussion and when talking across the aisle to someone who is an atheist or polythist, monotheists must say "as a monotheist" and substantiate how their belief makes sense where other beliefs don't.
It's not the fact that you have no gods, but how you explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense.
[quote] The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows [/quote]
Nobody is arguing it isn't what it is. The idea is your explanation (without a God) based on observation, study, etc. and whatever valid tools exist to an atheist as to what the best description of the history of this universe is should be reasonable and make sense.
Imagine I told you God exists the way He does because God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument? Or would you require a good reason for how one can take such a stance? And if you don't know, does that mean nobody knows or that the answer is not out there? Clearly you have some limiting criterias on the answers as to what you will accept and will not accept. Surely it should be based on reason, right?
There is nothing that exists in our universe without stability and consistency and observable laws and dynamics. Why is the universe the way it is? What was the reason our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now?
[quote] Umm, I’m not doing anything in respect to your god. I’m an atheist… I have no use for such postulations. Others should feel free to make such postulations, and good luck to them [/quote]
Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Ignoring how you're guilty of postulation yourself, I'm telling you what you told me in the past. I mentioned how you do not accept "It just is" as a valid explanation with respect to God. What exactly are you arguing about if you agree? I mention what [b]you[/b] tell [b]me[/b] about God and you then start denying as if it's some default whenever you see the word God. That doesn't make any sense to me. And the sheer arrogance and superiority complex in the following paragraph with nothing to show for it is astounding to me.
[quote] There’s absolutely no reason to suppose (and nothing to indicate) that the current universe was any sort of goal, intention, or desired state. There’s no evidence of teleology [/quote]
Big test of your consistency. Suppose you come across a house in the middle of the desert. You go inside and find some nice furniture, some stairs going upstairs, a bathroom with a toilet, couches, etc. Is it sufficient to say "I don't see evidence of teleology." And teleology meaning: [quote]the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.[/quote]
What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?
Can I argue and say there is no reason to suppose there is a goal, intention, or desired state for the hypothetical house found alone way out secluded in nature and we don't know who constructed it? I don't even know what size shoe the person who built it wears, but I am certain the house has a goal, intention, and desired state. This ability of humans to recognize and decipher the marks left behind by intelligent agents is innate to us. As a matter of fact, this is exactly what archaeology is based on.
When you observe nature and see its laws and structures, we can decipher what is not possible as a natural occurrence based on those laws. The same way you find a trail marker as the mark of an intelligent, capable, manipulating agent that disrupted the natural laws of the universe, we see this planet we live on exhibiting intense anomaly with respect to the rest of the universe.
[image deleted]We base entire studies on this concept, and I take it to be common sense to know that a watch requires a watchmaker. House requires a housemaker. Even though there is a statistic probability, we conclude this with certainty because math is not a perfect descriptor of reality.
[quote]in any event, there’s no compelling necessity to even postulate gods[/quote]
This is why I keep asking you to concretely give evidence as to how this universe and world could have organized itself. When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place. It exhibits stability and observed regularity, so I leave it to you to describe how the series of incredible anomalies perfectly sustaining our lives in a lifeless universe are sensible when everything in terms of the laws of nature point against anomalies and point towards this being another dead planet, like the vast emptiness which is unforgiving.
[quote]I don’t know about you, but I find great purpose and meaning in my life. That purpose and meaning are defined by me, and not by some-or-other dictate [/quote]
Does your existence and life have any purpose or meaning objectively? And can you make up your own purpose after you exist? Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.
[quote] Your example (adultery) isn’t a moral question, it’s an ethical question [/quote]
First of all, I can't back you up when ethics is defined as:
[quote] a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values [/quote]
Ethics is quite literally morality-based, so there is no distancing the terms. Regardless of them meaning the same thing,
[quote] Ethics is a position that operates human to human, and says that I will not harm you unless I first warn you. [/quote]
This is quite the point of the situation. The person cheated on never finds out and is unknowning and unharmed and continues her life loving her man without ever "postulating" a reason to be harmed. Was the cheater behaving ethically, even according to your own definition? Since he never harmed her, no warning was needed. He enjoys himself. All parties come out happy and pleased. What's the morally wrong here, according to your beliefs?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Babylon [quote]We have not witnessed inconsistencies in science[/quote]
…but we keep looking for them (that’s at the core of the scientific method). We can have a high degree of confidence in the universe’s stability, but it is never set in stone. As you said, it has been unstable before, and may still be unstable, despite observation by a small group of primates over a period of time too small to even really exist.
If could even be that the singularity was stable, and that the big bang was caused by instability, and that what we currently see as a stable universe is the altered state of a previously stable universe.
Every configuration is particular, every configuration is singular, if we look at all of its details, since every configuration always has something about it that characterises it in a unique way.
That means that the view of the universe as stable is born only at the moment we begin to see the universe in a particular and narrow way. That view may well be correct… but we cannot claim it to be so. We can only proceed on the assumption that it is correct. That assumption in no way undermines the veracity and importance of the scientific enterprise.
[quote]doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth[/quote]
…nor does it try to. The reality of abiogenesis is that we do not know (yet). There are some interesting, viable, ideas, but at this point all we know is that it happened at least once, so it must be possible.
Our current ignorance of the abiogenic process does not preclude its existence, and certainly does not give us licence to invent a convenient fiction (of which we have thousands). It simply means that we need to keep looking.
You seem to skip on to another topic at that point… one that I am very happy to discuss, but it is a different topic to abiogenesis. The development of cells is an evolutionary process which occurred [i]after[/i] abiogenesis occurred, and is driven by Natural Selection.
[quote]we all have an idea of how it works[/quote]
Yes indeed, and my ideas are evidence-based, and do not involve magical entities.
[quote]explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense[/quote]
Postulating magical entities makes no sense whatsoever as an explanation, because the postulation explains nothing. It doesn’t even explain itself, because it cannot explain the magical entities upon which it relies [i]i.e.[/i] it merely begs the question
The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows
[quote]whatever valid tools exist to an atheist[/quote]
The same valid tools as exist to anyone… evidence and reason
[quote]God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument?[/quote]
It depends what you’re trying to do with the claim. If you’re claiming that’s how you see your particular god, then fine… go ahead.
If you’re claiming your description in some way excludes your god from further inquiry, then that’s just Special Pleading, and can be rejected.
[quote]our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now[/quote]
Why? There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and around 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. We have a sample of 8, have thoroughly examined just 1, and have found life there. That’s an encouraging start, by any measure.
[quote]start denying as if it's some default[/quote]
What do you think I’m denying? That your gods exist? Not at all… I have not said that, nor anything like it. I say that postulations about your gods (their existence and their actions) are completely unnecessary, and are in any case unhelpful.
Nevertheless, if you wish to make such postulations, then go ahead.
[quote]What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?[/quote]
The lack of both evidence and necessity for design (I assume you mean by an intelligence) or purpose
I’m surprised you offer the ‘argument from design’… it has long been refuted
Your argument seems to be that your watch was designed by an external intelligence, therefore everything in the universe was designed by an external intelligence
But that’s a simple [i]non sequitur[/i]
In any case, the identification of Natural Selection as the causative agent removes any need to make the argument from design
“The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”
[i]Charles Darwin (Autobiography)[/i]
[quote]When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place[/quote]
Umm, no… they became possible with spacetime (cf. relativity)
[quote]Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.[/quote]
Why? Finding our own meaning and purpose in our lives is quite a beautiful and satisfying thing to do. I highly recommend it.
It’s a pity you cannot distinguish between morality and ethics… the two really are not the same, and conflating them will often cause confusion
[quote]What's the morally wrong here?[/quote]
There’s nothing either morally nor ethically wrong. Why should there be?
Of course, such behaviour speaks to character (what we do when we think nobody is watching), and if I were aware of the behaviour I would need to consider my personal relationship with them. Such empathetic considerations are standard for free-thinkers, yet forbidden to those who obey sweeping edicts and pronouncements from self-proclaimed authority figures.
…but we keep looking for them (that’s at the core of the scientific method). We can have a high degree of confidence in the universe’s stability, but it is never set in stone. As you said, it has been unstable before, and may still be unstable, despite observation by a small group of primates over a period of time too small to even really exist.
If could even be that the singularity was stable, and that the big bang was caused by instability, and that what we currently see as a stable universe is the altered state of a previously stable universe.
Every configuration is particular, every configuration is singular, if we look at all of its details, since every configuration always has something about it that characterises it in a unique way.
That means that the view of the universe as stable is born only at the moment we begin to see the universe in a particular and narrow way. That view may well be correct… but we cannot claim it to be so. We can only proceed on the assumption that it is correct. That assumption in no way undermines the veracity and importance of the scientific enterprise.
[quote]doesn't demonstrate how life began from a lifeless Earth[/quote]
…nor does it try to. The reality of abiogenesis is that we do not know (yet). There are some interesting, viable, ideas, but at this point all we know is that it happened at least once, so it must be possible.
Our current ignorance of the abiogenic process does not preclude its existence, and certainly does not give us licence to invent a convenient fiction (of which we have thousands). It simply means that we need to keep looking.
You seem to skip on to another topic at that point… one that I am very happy to discuss, but it is a different topic to abiogenesis. The development of cells is an evolutionary process which occurred [i]after[/i] abiogenesis occurred, and is driven by Natural Selection.
[quote]we all have an idea of how it works[/quote]
Yes indeed, and my ideas are evidence-based, and do not involve magical entities.
[quote]explain the things around you where a God or gods makes the most sense[/quote]
Postulating magical entities makes no sense whatsoever as an explanation, because the postulation explains nothing. It doesn’t even explain itself, because it cannot explain the magical entities upon which it relies [i]i.e.[/i] it merely begs the question
The universe is the way it is. Are there other ways it could be? Possibly. There may be a stunning number of other ways. Nobody knows
[quote]whatever valid tools exist to an atheist[/quote]
The same valid tools as exist to anyone… evidence and reason
[quote]God just exists and He is the way He is? Would you then accept that as a cogent argument?[/quote]
It depends what you’re trying to do with the claim. If you’re claiming that’s how you see your particular god, then fine… go ahead.
If you’re claiming your description in some way excludes your god from further inquiry, then that’s just Special Pleading, and can be rejected.
[quote]our planet is an anomaly and logically must have violated some laws of the universe to get to where it is now[/quote]
Why? There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy, and around 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. We have a sample of 8, have thoroughly examined just 1, and have found life there. That’s an encouraging start, by any measure.
[quote]start denying as if it's some default[/quote]
What do you think I’m denying? That your gods exist? Not at all… I have not said that, nor anything like it. I say that postulations about your gods (their existence and their actions) are completely unnecessary, and are in any case unhelpful.
Nevertheless, if you wish to make such postulations, then go ahead.
[quote]What gives you grounds to postulate no design and purpose in the material world?[/quote]
The lack of both evidence and necessity for design (I assume you mean by an intelligence) or purpose
I’m surprised you offer the ‘argument from design’… it has long been refuted
Your argument seems to be that your watch was designed by an external intelligence, therefore everything in the universe was designed by an external intelligence
But that’s a simple [i]non sequitur[/i]
In any case, the identification of Natural Selection as the causative agent removes any need to make the argument from design
“The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered.”
[i]Charles Darwin (Autobiography)[/i]
[quote]When the Big Bang happened, the rules of this space-time universe were already in place[/quote]
Umm, no… they became possible with spacetime (cf. relativity)
[quote]Making one's own purpose sounds odd to me.[/quote]
Why? Finding our own meaning and purpose in our lives is quite a beautiful and satisfying thing to do. I highly recommend it.
It’s a pity you cannot distinguish between morality and ethics… the two really are not the same, and conflating them will often cause confusion
[quote]What's the morally wrong here?[/quote]
There’s nothing either morally nor ethically wrong. Why should there be?
Of course, such behaviour speaks to character (what we do when we think nobody is watching), and if I were aware of the behaviour I would need to consider my personal relationship with them. Such empathetic considerations are standard for free-thinkers, yet forbidden to those who obey sweeping edicts and pronouncements from self-proclaimed authority figures.