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

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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

There is an argument alright--apparently it is not a very good one though...

Ontological Arguments for the existence of God don't ever seem to be well received. I think you have to be a philosophical realist to appreciate them.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by uumckk16

Flying Spaghetti Monster

FSM's do exist. Well almost. We have a spaghetti monster (my 2-year old son) and flying spaghetti (his dinner).

Originally Posted by uumckk16

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?

The right conditions would occur in any system that is logically consistent. Unicorns are inconsistent with our natural system and therefore can't/don't exist.

The right conditions would occur for God as long as God is wholly consistent. If God can be shown to be illogical, then He can't exist.

Originally Posted by uumckk16

Any proof of God should be questioned, IMO. That's the whole point of faith, right?

You are right in that God can never be "proven" in the purely logical sense. It will always be possible to doubt God's existence, and that is the basis for faith.

I like to think of arguments for the existence of God (and all philosophy really) as providing perspective and giving people a new way of looking at things. To me a philosophy does not need to be provable in order to be embraced.

[Fluffy]

Like what? From an atheist perspective, what is the reason that a universe with spacetime, gravity and matter/energy exists?

We do not need to know the reason for something in order to believe in its existence. A rejection of gravity is not enough to blind yourself to falling objects.

I believe that the universe exists because that is what my sensory data tells me. My senses will either lead me to find that there is a reason for the universe or that there isn't a reason for the universe. This is no different from the non-atheist position.

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)?

I don't understand the question. In this alternative non-reality, there would be no reason since there is nothing for there to have a reason. If you are asking whether a universe could spontaneously form in nothingness then nobody is a position to dictate how impossible that event would be. It either happened or it didn't and, evidently, if it did happen, there would be no reason by definition.

That says nothing about the possibility of such an event.

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.

That is not a scientific limitation. If a reason exists then the mere fact that it exists allows the possibility for science to examine it.

If you are defining the universe to mean "everything in existence" and this reason is found outside of the universe then I would argue that the definition of universe is false.

There is an argument alright--apparently it is not a very good one though...

Ontological Arguments for the existence of God don't ever seem to be well received. I think you have to be a philosophical realist to appreciate them.

That was rather unfair of me. I didn't mean to discount arguments simply because I did not view them as successful. I do find the Ontological Arguments to be incredibly interesting and whilst I think that Kant in particular utterly destroyed them, I feel that they contributed significantly to the philosophy of religion and ontology.

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by atofel

FSM's do exist. Well almost. We have a spaghetti monster (my 2-year old son) and flying spaghetti (his dinner).

Haha oh dear

Originally Posted by atofel

The right conditions would occur in any system that is logically consistent. Unicorns are inconsistent with our natural system and therefore can't/don't exist.

The right conditions would occur for God as long as God is wholly consistent. If God can be shown to be illogical, then He can't exist.

Ah. I see where you're coming from now.

Originally Posted by atofel

You are right in that God can never be "proven" in the purely logical sense. It will always be possible to doubt God's existence, and that is the basis for faith.

Originally Posted by atofel

I like to think of arguments for the existence of God (and all philosophy really) as providing perspective and giving people a new way of looking at things. To me a philosophy does not need to be provable in order to be embraced.

I like that approach.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by atofel

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.

Well this is likely the crux of our disagreement right here. "2 + 2 = 4" is actually a value judgment, not an objective observation. No real thing can equal any other real thing. For that to occur they would have to be the SAME thing. So when a human values thing "A" and thing "B" to be equal, he is doing so by disregarding the aspects of things A and B that are not equal. Were humans not to exist, "equality" would not exist. Because equality is an idea that doesn't actually occur in the real world.

So is the idea of rationality. Rationality is also a value judgment that we humans apply to various phenomena we experience. It's based on our ability to project our ideals onto that phenomena without our having to notice the incompatibility. This is why you proposed that the universe is "ordered and machine-like". You've been ignoring all the ways in which it's not, just as "2 + 2 = 4" ignores all the ways in which no two things in the universe can actually be "equal". They can only be relatively equal (relative to our ignoring all the ways they are not equal). Reason, like equality, are values that we project onto existence, but that don't actually exist by themselves, because they're relative values.

Originally Posted by atofel

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.

Yes, but they are just making that up, after all. Ignorance does not equal knowledge.

Originally Posted by atofel

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.

Except that a good magician could produce the same "effect". The "trick" is happening in our perception of reality, but we have no way as yet to determine if it's actually happening in reality or not. Again, our ignorance doesn't equal knowledge.

Originally Posted by atofel

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?

I would say that we have to acknowledge that our "knowledge" is relative, and so any conclusion we may advance are suspect. I like logical debate, but I think it's a big mistake for the debaters to assume they will find much in the way of truth. The truth is what is. We humans can only perceive a small part of 'what is', and so we will only be able to perceive truth in a limited and relative way. The idea of reality that we hold in our minds is not actual reality. And how inaccurate our idea of it is relative to the real thing, is impossible for us to tell. Understanding this, we can certainly speculate, but we're always going to have to be skeptical of our conclusions.

Originally Posted by atofel

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 world-view to consider.

More then that, they'd also have to believe that the rational nature that they see existing within the universe must also apply to whatever exists beyond the universe. And I suspect not a lot of atheists believe that anything exists beyond this universe, except perhaps endless other universes. Which would exclude pretty much all atheists I know from your scenario.