Universe Alpha (Earth, atheist, God, science, preference)

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

That is not the point though. The mere possibility of there being a reason is enough to discount the assumption that there is not a reason.

That is only true if the reason is an inherently necessary (or self-caused) reason. Otherwise we are left wanting to explain how that reason exists.

To put this in perspective, let me explain where I am coming from. We can imagine a scenario that nothing exists--no space, no time, no truths, no ideas, etc. It would be the complete absence of reality. We know this scenario is false--something does exist, for whatever reason. It is that basic reason, at the root of all existance that I am inquiring. Why does anything exist at all, and what is the nature of that reason?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Out of practicality, we will continue to form theories and live our lives based on where the evidence leans but that is not the same as making an assumption in either direction.

Evidence will never answer anything about our reality that cannot be measured and put into mathematic equations. To even make interpretations about our measurements and formulas, we need intuition and it is intuition that gives flesh and blood to our understanding of the world around us. It is intuition and reason, not just empiricism, that will lead us to any understanding of metaphysics (which is really what this philosophical discussion is about).

Originally Posted by Fluffy

then that should not surprise you or anyone. Similarly stating "God is the reason" does not get us anywhere. The point is that the possibility makes the assumption "there is no reason" both unnecessary and irrational.

Therefore resorting to the assumption that other universes exist based on the reasoning in OP is equally unnecessary and irrational.

I do not believe other Universes necessarily exist, I am saying that it is a consequence of believing our Universe exists for the simple reason that it logically can exist. To avoid the other Universes one would have to believe there is the "self-caused, inherently necessary" reason, and to believe that reason is not God, it must be unthinking and indifferent. I can't imagine a basis for believing such a reason exists.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

If we're basing this speculation on the idea that all things exist, then by the very definition of all things there must be at least one universe inaccessible to a deity, otherwise all things wouldn't exist as there would be no Godless universe.

I was under the impression we were speaking of all things that "can" exist, in which case a godless universe could not exist if an omnipotent, infinite God did exist.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I didn't say evidence proved anything, I said the lack of evidence either way means agnosticism followed by atheism are the most logical beliefs. Assuming the existence of a God because of the lack of evidence of his existence, then looking for evidence to disprove that assumption is illogical.

However, empirical evidence is a tool that is meaningless with respect to the question of God's existence. A lack of evidence has no bearing on the question whatsoever. Therefore, we are left with the tools of reason and intuition, and we should follow these rather immediately surrender to the agnostic position.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

How can something be neither rational nor irrational? If something is not rational, then it is irrational (by definition). If something is not irrational it is rational (by definition).

Rational exists only in the minds of we humans. It's just an idea-process that we use when we try to understand the world around us. If we humans ceased to exist, the universe would still be here, while "rational" would no longer occur.

Originally Posted by atofel

Secondly, how can you make a statement that you know one way or the other (that the existence of the Universe is rational/irrational) after implying that such things can't be known? How do you know it isn't rational?

Rational is a value judgment. It's not a character trait that can exist independently of us.

Originally Posted by atofel

Tuning up those politician skills I see. So when you used the adjectives "ignorant" and "dishonest", what entity were they meant to describe?

I was describing the ideas that you were presenting, and the method by which you were justifying them. I'm responding to your post, not to you. I don't know you, or anything about you. I'm qualifying your proposals, I'm not qualifying you. If you can't recognize the difference, then I'm sorry and I'll try to be more polite.

Originally Posted by atofel

Of course we don't know the answer to this; it is a supposition for the sake of a philosophical argument. What is wrong with a supposition?

Nothing is wrong with it. I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to assemble this argument and present it to us. As you should appreciate that I am taking the time to show how I believe it's flawed and somewhat disingenuous. We're engaged in this debate to learn from each other, aren't we?

Originally Posted by atofel

You know this with certainty? Please demonstrate the Universe is (1) not logical, (2) not ordered, and (3) not machine-like.

According to a number of books on quantum physics, I've found that we humans have discovered that the universe as we experience it on the mechanical level is far less rational when explored on the quantum level. It becomes so irrational, in fact, that we end up having to play the odds to make any sort of predictions at all.

Originally Posted by atofel

There were two points of view for the existence of our Universe that I could think of. The first one was that there is no rational basis for why our Universe exists. The second is the justification that all systems which are not self-contradictory do in fact exist.

Fluffy has implied a third option which I will address that basically says there is a reason for our Universe and it is one that is implicitly necessary and does not allow for the existence of all other possible Universes.

You are welcome to propose other options, but you seem to be offended that I would even try to investigate the topic as if it should be off limits to discussion.

But your "points of view" are not based on the truth, but on groundless suppositions. They have no actual validity. Yet you were then trying to use these made up "points of view" to force atheists to prove a negative. It was this that I found a bit disingenuous, and that I am objecting to. I don't have any problems with philosophical speculations, as long as we all know that this is what they are, and as long as we aren't trying to use them to corner or dismiss the beliefs of others.

Originally Posted by atofel

Your accusation of the straw man is a bit off, because the meat of the argument only applies to those who agree with option (2). If an atheist buys into option (1) and really believes the existence of our Universe is irrational (or suggests an alternative option), then the conclusion I make does not apply.

Now you're being the politician. *smile* You're saying that only the atheists who are dumb enough to fall for your straw-atheist's "point of view", will be caught in the trap when you knock your straw atheist over. Well, I agree that's true. But doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous to you? It does to me, that's all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by atofel

Are you really suggesting that I think my own argument is illogical and I am just trying to trap atheists as a game? I really appreciate the criticism of the argument, but these comments are tiresome.

I don't know you at all, and so I have no idea, really, why you're presenting us with this proposition. I will assume that you feel that it's a reasonable proposition until you tell me otherwise, because I think that's the most polite and productive way for me to respond in a debate. And it's because I assume that you feel you're presenting us with a reasonable proposition that I'm sharing my objections to it. There's no need to take it personally. Your proposition was not as reasonable as you thought, but so what? You're obviously a very intelligent person, and will in your lifetime entertain many thousands of complex philosophical propositions, I'm sure. And I hope you'll share a few more of them with us.

[Fluffy]

I do not believe other Universes necessarily exist, I am saying that it is a consequence of believing our Universe exists for the simple reason that it logically can exist.

Why should we believe that our Universe exists simply because it can exist logically? That seems to be a leap. Just because something is logically possible does not mean that it exists and just because our Universe is logically possible does not mean that it exists. We believe that our Universe exists because of other reasons.

To avoid the other Universes one would have to believe there is the "self-caused, inherently necessary" reason, and to believe that reason is not God, it must be unthinking and indifferent. I can't imagine a basis for believing such a reason exists.

I agree that a cause must be either uncaused, self caused or caused itself but reality is not going to bend itself to our will just because one or more of these options are unpalatable. If there is no reason then it doesn't matter how unscientific that thought is... scientific enquiry will fail to find a reason simply because there is none to be found. If there is an infinite regress then science will continue to enquire infinitely.

[painted wolf]

you they came up with a logical way for dragons to exist....

still havent seen one.

wa:do

[Fluffy]

you they came up with a logical way for dragons to exist....

still havent seen one.

A dragon or the argument? I haven't seen either .

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by atofel

Not so fast. Unicorns are no more logical than a geyser in my living room. If the environmental conditions for a geyser in my living room did not happen, then it is not logical for there to be a geyser. Likewise, if the environmental conditions for the development of a Unicorn did not occur, then it is not logical for there to be a Unicorn either (at least on this planet). Turtles can't fly and Unicorns can't exist.

Well, obviously. Although you said yourself "on this planet" - what's to stop them from existing elsewhere in the universe? Anyway, I don't want to continue with this argument. You got what I meant.

Originally Posted by atofel

Not sure what FSM is

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Originally Posted by atofel

but the Matrix can only exist if someone has the time, resources, intention and technology to build it. We can say, "it is possible for a pink skyscrapper to exist", however, that is not my meaning when I say that if something can exist, then it does exist. When we say it is possible for something to exist that does not already exist, there is an implied "if the right conditions occur for it to exist".

For there to be a pink skyscrapper, someone has to build it. Therefore, a pink skyscrapper cannot exist unless someone decides to build one. Since someone did not decide to build one, one cannot exist, and hence one does not exist.

Again, obviously. I'm just not sure how this applies to God. You're saying because the "right conditions" are available for God to exist, God does exist? What are the "right conditions" and who decides that? See, I'm just taking issue with your assertion that atheists need to show that God is illogical, as Fluffy and PureX pointed out. I think you've left it up to yourself to show that the universe necessarily indicates a God. Which I don't believe you can prove. Or am I just entirely misreading your argument? (Sorry if you've already answered this in the thread, I didn't have time for more than a brief skimming through of it...)

Originally Posted by atofel

To me it is necessary that God is infinite. It makes no sense to call something that is somehow less than something else "God". When I talk about God, I am referring to an infinite being at the center of existance that is responsible for all other beings.

I would certainly agree with you. I just don't see why you jumped from giving "proof" that God was necessary, to ascribing characteristics to God. I don't see how your argument implies a God who is necessarily "all-powerful and infinite." But then again, I don't see how your argument implies a God at all. But that's probably partially just me being rushed and a bit slow in the head

Originally Posted by atofel

The remark above makes be wonder what you mean by "God", if you presume that God is not infinite. To be clear, what is your definition of God, and why do you believe God exists?

I never said I didn't believe God to be infinite. I just don't see how you're getting to that conclusion here. My point for saying that I am a theist was that even though I believe I don't understand your argument or how it's any different from any other "proof" of God. Any proof of God should be questioned, IMO. That's the whole point of faith, right?

Not that it's relevent to the thread, but since you asked, I most certainly don't have a definition of God. And I believe because I cannot comprehend a universe without a higher power. But that doesn't mean I'm going to tell atheists their view is illogical and that they need to rethink it.

Originally Posted by atofel

You too!

Thanks, dear

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

Rational exists only in the minds of we humans. It's just an idea-process that we use when we try to understand the world around us. If we humans ceased to exist, the universe would still be here, while "rational" would no longer occur.

Rational is a value judgment. It's not a character trait that can exist independently of us.

I disagree. When we say something is rational, it is making a statement about both the object being described and our ability to think about it. You cannot leave out the object and because of that there is an ontological basis for things that we describe as "rational".

2+2 equals 4 regardless of the language used to describe it. All of the symmetries and relationships that exist in the physical Universe would still exist if we weren't around to think about them.

Originally Posted by PureX

I was describing the ideas that you were presenting, and the method by which you were justifying them. I'm responding to your post, not to you. I don't know you, or anything about you. I'm qualifying your proposals, I'm not qualifying you. If you can't recognize the difference, then I'm sorry and I'll try to be more polite.

Thank you for your consideration, it is appreciated.

Originally Posted by PureX

According to a number of books on quantum physics, I've found that we humans have discovered that the universe as we experience it on the mechanical level is far less rational when explored on the quantum level. It becomes so irrational, in fact, that we end up having to play the odds to make any sort of predictions at all.

The Uncertainty Principle does present a problem if you are a materialist because, as you said, the universe would seem to be irrational. However, mystics have no problem establishing a rational basis for the Uncertainty Principle. All it implies is that the determinant is not observable/measurable--it would not mean that there isn't a determinant.

What makes it more intriguing is that the outcome of a quantum event (often referred to as the collapse of the wave-function) does not seem to occur until someone is consciously aware of the outcome. To me this is as much evidence as we will ever have of a supernatural component to the mind. Schrödinger's cat is an interesting thought experiment regarding this.

Originally Posted by PureX

But your "points of view" are not based on the truth, but on groundless suppositions. They have no actual validity. Yet you were then trying to use these made up "points of view" to force atheists to prove a negative. It was this that I found a bit disingenuous, and that I am objecting to. I don't have any problems with philosophical speculations, as long as we all know that this is what they are, and as long as we aren't trying to use them to corner or dismiss the beliefs of others.

I see where you are coming from now. It never occurred to me that an atheist would be offended, annoyed or irritated by the OP. It was intended to be a lure, and from that perspective, I can see how it could be seen as disingenuous.

Btw, what criteria do you consider to be necessary in order for an argument to be based on the truth and/or not a groundless supposition?

Originally Posted by PureX

Now you're being the politician. *smile* You're saying that only the atheists who are dumb enough to fall for your straw-atheist's "point of view", will be caught in the trap when you knock your straw atheist over. Well, I agree that's true. But doesn't that seem a bit disingenuous to you? It does to me, that's all I'm saying.

I suppose the argument would only apply to atheists that believe we live in a rational universe. The argument is not intended to be a trap, but rather to force an atheist/materialist who is honest about their worldview to consider.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

We believe that our Universe exists because of other reasons.

Like what? From an atheist perspective, what is the reason that a universe with spacetime, gravity and matter/energy exists? If we consider an alternative that there is no reality at all (nothing exists), what possible other reason could there be other than because the universe can exist (i.e. it is a consistent, integral system)?

Can you think of a possible alternative, regardless of how off the wall it is?

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If there is no reason then it doesn't matter how unscientific that thought is... scientific enquiry will fail to find a reason simply because there is none to be found. If there is an infinite regress then science will continue to enquire infinitely.

How could science find such a reason? The universe is a closed system and science can only measure things inside the box; it has no visibility into the place the box is sitting.

However, if empirical study cannot see the reason, it doesn't mean a reason can't exist.