Total posts: 948
Btw, are there any other theists that you guys argue with on here? I think the only one I've seen is Janesix.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Supposing that the universe didn't have a beginning isn't consistent with the evidence and, unsurprisingly, isn't mainstream scientific consensus.
I'm just pointing out the problems with naturalism. If free will is the only avenue to avoid a mathematical impossibility then that's the better option.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because it exists contingently and in our experience all things that exist contingently have causes.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure, the expansion rate of the universe, when rewinded, condenses to an infinitesimally small point. The second law of thermodynamics. Redshift gravitational waves.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
We were discussing the scientific method which is a cause and effect methodology. The scientific method does not tell us that everything has a cause.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Because the universe began to exist. It exists contingently. All thing, in our experience, that exist contingently have a preceding cause.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
How can something that we're mentally conceptualizing or perceiving not be mental?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I never claimed that everything needs a cause.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Perfect. Now which theory is correct? I can't think of anything that's not mental. Can you?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Would it be relevant if all things physical were actually mental?
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
It's almost certainly *not* the same information I have. We both know things about the subject matter that the other doesnt.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
A perfectly rational person doesn't need to exist in order for that to be our ideal epistemic approach. The whole point is to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. When you believe things that are most likely true, and disbelieve things that are most likely false, your views will more accurately represent reality than someone who waits around for solid proof before taking sides.
Hey, I like your honest side. Ask yourself what information you're basing that assessment off of. It's not always immediately apparent but I promise you you do have it somewhere.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes, we exist contingently. Our bodies are physical beyond dispute. Our consciousness, however, is plausibly non-physical. The only candidate for something plausibly non-physical and causally efficacious is consciousness. So what's the best explanation for the cause of the physical universe considering the physical universe expanded from a point of infinite density at which all laws in the universe were broken down? Consciousness.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
An action is either deterministic or non-deterministic. Under naturalism, all you have are chance and physical necessity which are both deterministic. Hence, whatever caused the universe must have been deterministic and therefore had a quantifiable beginning ad infinitum.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Scientific method" means to investigate using a method of cause and effect. If "scientific method" also encompasses an a-causal approach, the term "scientific method" is meaningless.
Quantum mechanics hasn't invalidated cause and effect yet. The universe needn't make sense, I agree. But unless there's an overriding reason to reject that it makes sense, it should make sense. The universe is intelligible and mathematically structured.
(Yet more reason to suggest it arose from a conscious source)
It does, because free will is the only way you avoid the mathematically impossible infinite regress.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Disagree. It's house odds.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Scientific inquiry is based on cause and effect. If non-linear causality were true, this would violate the cause and effect methods of science and hence science itself would be falsified.
Very simply, the cause that brought the universe into being could not have been an inevitability, otherwise it would have a quantifiable beginning by counting backwards the number of trials leading up to the creation of the universe. Naturalism has no mechanism like free will to prevent this
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
What would a perfectly rational person's epistemic approach be?
The total body of information as well as the most rational interpretation of that information is vitally important.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If it tells us nothing beyond the statement itself then your statement tells us nothing beyond itself and hence doesn't apply to my statement.
Infinite regress is impossible mathematically.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Observation backloads the course of quantum events because reality is comprised of information-bearing code. The code continues to run and "calculate" in the background but observation is what makes that code actually render.
Non-linear causality would falsify science.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It isn't a matter of "knowing" the answer. We can arrive at an answer that, based on the evidence, is more likely true than not, while also recognizing that we do not "know" whether that is the case. We "know" hardly anything.
That cause or event could not have been preceded by an infinite chain of causes. That itself tells us something about that cause or event.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
Taking a poll doesn't preclude further discussion. It's always best to explore both sides of an issue isn't it?
Evolution was theorized in the 1800's. It was only in the 1950's that Watson and Crick elucidated the fundamental importance of genetic infomation in even a single protein, let alone the simplest life forms. I could just as easily say that the long-held belief that physics and chemistry alone could account for the origin of genetic information is obsolete. Not to mention breakthroughs in quantum mechanics suggesting that reality is indeterminate without conscious participation.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Demonstrable" is also subjective. It implies a rigorous framework with which we can arrive at the correct answer but we don't always have access to a rigorous framework and must make an inference to the best explanation. It's a mistake to withhold belief in a claim that is more likely true than false just because you don't have what you consider to be "demonstrable evidence" of it.
The point in mentioning the infinite regress is that we CAN apply human epistemology to the origins of the universe, contrary to your claim that we cannot.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Sufficient information" is relative to your epistemological standards. My epistemic standard for "sufficient evidence" is whether the claim has more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue and vice versa. It's possible to attain information about something using logic and/or empirical inquiry. In this case, we can use logic to say that whatever brought the universe into being did not have an infinite chain of preceding causes. That is a logical extrapolation. It's also an example of our ability to apply human understanding to the origins of the universe.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think that making a determination of whether the universe arose from consciousness or not is beyond the limits of human understanding.
The advent of consciousness on earth is irrelevant to whether the universe originated from consciousness or not.
Created:
I'm doing a poll.
Created:
Posted in:
Moral subjectivism doesn't corroborate any of the evidence. It's also reductio ad absurdum and requires a lot of pretending. Moral subjectivism is logically entailed by the faith-based belief that consciousness arose from matter. Moral subjectivism isn't evidence-based.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I agree, which is why neither of those options is plausible. Something always existed but it wasn't the physical universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I wasn't providing arguments yet. Those were just the names of the arguments. Out of curiosity did you mean to skip the "best explanation for the fine-tuned universe"?
Rather than having a shallow back and forth about each one, I'd rather start from the top.
First cause. You mentioned that we should presuppose that everything always existed. But Hawking, in his free lecture on the beginning of time, states that laws such as the conservation of mass were broken down during the big bang. The big bang was the birth of the physical universe, including time itself.
The second issue is that under naturalism, natural causes can only occur if there was implicit chance that it would. This means that given enough time, any natural cause is inevitable. Once any natural cause inevitably occurs, we can count backwards the number of trials leading up to that action and give the event a quantifiable beginning. If natural events always have quantifiable beginnings then the natural word could not have existed forever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Here are brief examples for why belief in God is more rational. I'll be glad to discuss in more depth depending on your level of interest in the subject.
- first cause
- best explanation for cause of the Big Bang
- best explanation for fine-tunedness of the universe
- best explanation for the origin of the information in first life forms
- only explanation for natural purpose in things (such as internal organs)
- quantum mechanics suggests the fundamentality of consciousness
- the empirical world is wholly a mental construct, indicating the primacy of information and mind.
- moral realism. This prevailing moral theory is only compatible with theism.
- the applicability of math and logic in a universal, abstract, and invariant framework suggests reality is contained within a universal mind.
- near death, out of body experiences of an afterlife would be considered permissible evidence in court (see "dying declarations").
- the high level of information-richness embedded in reality highly suggests an intelligent source.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't understand why Rmath is a problem since the way we understand or use math is completely independent of an objective mathematical framework. It's an epistemic issue not an ontological one.
I'm an idealist.
I have evidence for why belief in God is more rational than not but not proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Here is the problem. Consciousness either exists or does not. The default position is non-belief. In order to move from non-belief to belief, or non-acceptance to acceptance, even as a matter of convenience, you must have evidence for that belief in order for it to be rational. You have no observable evidence but said that there is indirect evidence. So explain why indirect evidence is impermissible but the alternative, complete lack of evidence, is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm saying that your requirement that things must first have observable evidence for them in order to be accepted or believed in is already inconsistent with what you accept or believe in. Consciousness and meaning are two examples. So you remedy the inconsistency by accepting indirect evidence as well or you can choose to accept that there is no consciousness and/or meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you can write me an equation that would accurately measure consciousness throughout the cosmos then you might make it analogous to gravity. Until then, I see no observable (independently verifiable perceivable) evidence of consciousness.
Accepting something as a matter of convenience is irrelevant to whether it's true or not true. By law of excluded middle, it's one or the other.
Tell me what other options there are aside from existing or not existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Just because someone is able to do their math wrong or doesn't know that they're doing their math wrong doesn't mean that there isn't still a correct answer.
A fundamental consciousness would mean that a prime, eternal consciousness exists. That I believe is God. Yes, consciousness is the starting point for everything we perceive and I believe that the fundamental consciousness created the universe.
Motion doesn't count as change since that's purely an observer-relative phenomenon.
Abstracts are not physical things in my worldview. In my worldview, even "the physical" is a mental construct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
You aren't actually changing the rules of math though, you're just changing the language around.
No I've never heard of the rule following paradox.
In my view, consciousness is fundamental. The empirical world doesn't exist like it appears to. It's just a construct of information-processing. The real world is represented by the things that can't change, like the laws of logic, math, and moral truths.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Sure, 2 + 2 = 99 isn't real because it's inconsistent with reality but 2 + 2 = 4 is real because it is.
The standard is consistency with reality.
Just because something is abstract doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Some abstracts are real, not all.
Just because intentions are housed in a physical body doesn't make intentions physical for the same reason that ideas housed in a physical body don't make them physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Previously you said that if something can detect it, it's physical. Now you're saying meaning is detectable, but not physical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Well we either do or don't detect meaning by law of excluded middle. If nobody detected meaning then languages wouldn't exist. We wouldn't be having this conversation if nobody detected meaning. So meaning is detectable.
Math was discovered, not invented. Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently. The Higgs particle was discovered by pure math alone and then empirically verified decades later. Base 10 math just means that the placeholder values restart after adding 1 more to 9. It's the same mathematical architecture, just different ways of conveying it.
.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Two paragraphs to reference for further discussion
"1. Metaphysical.
Metaphysical, in essence, means beyond physical or that which cannot be reached by the physical. In order for anything to fall into this category, it would have to be undetectable in our reality. It then logically follows that such things also cannot affect our world. That means from a human perspective, something metaphysical is functionally identical as not existing. Human knowledge is for human use. Our knowledge is not meant to quantify the metaphysical. Our world is separate from the metaphysical"
I disagree that something metaphysical is undetectable in reality. Meaning is detectable yet not physical. Meaning carries information which affects how we interact with the world and therefore affects our world. Something metaphysical is not functionally identical to not existing. So does consciousness not exist, including your own? Metaphysical things like math, logic, moral truths, information, consciousness etc. are all a part of reality.
5. Deist Gods.
The first deadbeat dad. This one just made us and headed for the hills. This god would have to metaphysical and therefore is a contradiction that cannot occur in reality since a metaphysical being cannot create us. One could argue that this god shift from physical to metaphysical, but there is not evidence to support such a claim and it would still be functionally identical to nonexistence."
You haven't shown that the metaphysical can't affect the physical. Mental causation, for instance, posits that our intentions drive our actions. Our intentions are not physical and therefore this is an interaction between physical and metaphysical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
If I claimed there was a penny in your left pocket and you turn your left pocket inside out, with no penny, then I now have positive evidence for the non-existence of a penny in that pocket.
You claimed that metaphysical stuff wasn't a part of reality and that's disproved by being able to make true predictions using math.
Created:
Posted in:
What information are you using to justify your conclusion that no gods exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Ok, I see where you answered the questions in between addressing the definition.
"In this case of proving the identity of something, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In my humble opinion."
Here is the response from Wiki:
"Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist.
Per the traditional aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance[1]of that which should have been found already, had it existed."
So evidence of absence supports conclusions, not absence of evidence.
"Would you agree that things that don't exist are absent?
Yes. But we determine that something doesn't exist because there's information indicating that. Information indicating something doesn't exist would be considered evidence of absence.
"Would you agree that things that don't exist can't have evidence?"
I believe it's coherent to say that there's evidence against something existing, so no, I do not agree.
"Would you agree that absence of evidence is a good reason to be suspicious when everything known to exist has evidence?"
Absence of information to indicate anything can't simultaneously be indicative of anything existing or not existing. There is also evidence of absence. So no, I do not agree that absence of evidence is a good reason for reaching a conclusion about whether something exists or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
That was copy/pasted from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I understand what your position is so that's most important. You believe that no God(s) exist.
I'll start again from the top.
First, what evidence supports your belief that no God(s) exist?
Second, are you aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? "Evidence" means information indicating whether something is true or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If the statement "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true" is incorrect, then it is not true that "Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true." Either something is or is not true. It's incoherent to assume that something is true or exists while simultaneously stating that it is not true or that it doesn't exist.
Thousands of gods still either exist or don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Atheism and Agnosticism
First published Wed Aug 2, 2017
The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry, will set the stage for discussing an important distinction between global atheism and local atheism, which in turn will be helpful for distinguishing different forms of agnosticism. Examination of an argument in support of a modest form of agnosticism will ensue, followed by discussion of three arguments for atheism and one argument against a more ambitious form of agnosticism.
- 1. Definitions of “Atheism”
- 2. Definitions of “Agnosticism”
- 3. Global Atheism Versus Local Atheisms
- 4. An Argument for Agnosticism
- 5. An Argument for Global Atheism?
- 7. An Argument against Agnosticism
- Bibliography
- Academic Tools
- Other Internet Resources
- Related Entries
1. Definitions of “Atheism”
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your premise that you only believe in things that have observable evidence for them seems to be false. Consciousness and meanings are things you accept to be true without having any observable evidence for them.
Any god(s) that you posit to exist either will or won't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You observing behavior is not you observing consciousness though. I don't think you'll be able to come up with observable evidence of consciousness. Observing someone's behavior is not the same thing as observing their consciousness.
We shouldn't believe anything that isn't rationally justified. I believe that other people are conscious because they mirror my own behavior and I myself am conscious, but I don't pretend to have observable evidence of their consciousness.
Any of the proposed god's existing will either be true or not true. It is not a false dichtomomy.
Created: