Theism Doesn't Ultimately Explain Anything

[Meow Mix]

Objective value to humans, can only be with God. It's impossible with polytheistic or atheistic model. I am going to make a thread about the vision argument and objective value in detail.

I'll be interested to see it then.

 

[Meow Mix]

My answer to those would be love. Love is the reason and the ultimate purpose. But, perhaps everyone can choose own purpose. Can you imagine some better purpose? And if the reason is love, what would be your next question?

Love isn't exclusive to theists or theism, though.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is the meaning of 'God is ontologically necessary' in this context?

I usually use modality to think of ontological necessary: something that is ontologically necessary exists in all possible worlds; there is no possible world in which the thing does not exist.

Very few things are usually claimed to be ontologically necessary, but often there are some truths that are claimed to be ontologically necessary. For instance Aristotlian logic concepts like self-identity: A = A, in all possible worlds, a thing that exists is identical to itself.

If God is ontologically necessary, it means it's not even possible for God not to exist.

(it is not a claim I accept, obviously, since I would not be a non-theist if I did).

 

[viole]

Objective value in general (including magic turtles) needs God, yes you got it.

Which leads to the famous recursion of turtles.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Objective value in general (including magic turtles) needs God, yes you got it.

And what do you need to assess the objectivity of God?

ciao

- viole

 

[Redemptionsong]

And what do you need to assess the objectivity of God?

ciao

- viole

Faith.

 

[firedragon]

The key failure of theism to me is that it doesn't explain where god(s) come from. They are given a free pass, "Oh, they were always there"
That was the reason as a young teen that I first started to doubt religion.

What kind of theism are you speaking of? Any kind?

How could a concept of a necessary being come from anything? Thats an oxymoron. That is why you are not getting answers. But there maybe theists who believe a man became God because he was a great king, like in Ancient Rome. Maybe that's the concept you are used to.

This kind of question must begin with your epistemology.

 

[firedragon]

This post has a wide scope, and because of that, it's going to be difficult to put it into some sort of cohesive structure, but I will try.

There are a lot of "ultimate questions" that humans have: why does something exist rather than nothing, why is the universe the way that it is, things of that nature. Now, I don't want to draw a caricature of theists and theism here, so let me couch my words carefully: some theists have a tendency to smugly tell us non-theists, "I have the answers, and you don't."

I'm just not convinced that this is the case: theism doesn't ultimately explain anything. Let me pick some example.

"Why does anything exist rather than nothing?"

Theistic responses range from something as naïve as "because God created the world" to something a little more exhaustive like "because God is ontologically necessary, and then God created the world."

But does this really explain anything at all? What's the difference between presupposing God is ontologically necessary and simply presupposing the cosmos is ontologically necessary (if one were inclined to do that)?

How about "does life have a purpose?"

Some theists may say that life's purpose is to serve God, or glorify God, or any number of these things. But we can always ask a microcosm of the question: "Well, why that?" No matter what's said, there will always be a microcosm.

And that applies to all of these other ultimate questions as well. Any answer that's given that purports to be an "ultimate explanation" will always have some microcosm that can be asked about it.

This happens over and over in each topic: God can't be the foundation of morality (Euthyphro's Dilemma), can't be the foundation of logic (aseity-sovereignty paradox), doesn't explain why existence exists any better than non-theistic concepts, doesn't ultimately explain anything. It seems that theism is just adding another step to the long strings of microcosms of questions.

Excellent. I wonder if you will receive justice of a response.

Lets think of the first problem you spoke of. "Why does anything exist rather than nothing". Prior to thinking from a theistic point of view, can you think and tell me why would an atheist think of this "why" question?

 

[Meow Mix]

Excellent. I wonder if you will receive justice of a response.

Lets think of the first problem you spoke of. "Why does anything exist rather than nothing". Prior to thinking from a theistic point of view, can you think and tell me why would an atheist think of this "why" question?

I can’t imagine how anyone might not have wondered about this at some point.

Why would an atheist not wonder why something exists rather than nothing? Seems like a universally asked question to me (and why so many humans attempt to answer it).

(I have my own version of an answer, but do not claim to have “ultimately” answered it).

 

[firedragon]

I can’t imagine how anyone might not have wondered about this at some point.

Why would an atheist not wonder why something exists rather than nothing? Seems like a universally asked question to me (and why so many humans attempt to answer it).

(I have my own version of an answer, but do not claim to have “ultimately” answered it).

No see. The reason I ask this is because an Atheist by definition is a naturalist. "Why" in themes like this is not a question that can be answered naturally. Its a philosophical question beyond naturalism. If you believe the universe is flat, zero omega, infinite, always was, always will be, or whatever the foundation or outcome of a persons reality is, "why" is always beyond the natural realm.

I am not discounting your post. But why would an atheist ask this question? Even if your answer is not the ultimate answer, I would like to see it. If you dont wish to discuss this, its no problem. This is a humble request.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Let me say from the outset that I’ve lost all taste for debate with atheists. For me it is not so much the debate that disinterests me, it is the fact that no matter what philosophical argument you can state no matter how logically convincing, all of this matters down is psychology. Like David Hume who was a famous empiricist if you can’t feel it, touch it, taste it, smell it, it doesn’t exist. Or don’t forget the infamous orbiting spaghetti monster that is always the go to for atheists. That is one of the things I like about the Qur’an. God asks you to question things, even his ow existence because it is there, in nature, we find truth. Now depending on who considers truth is another matter. The fact is you must have the spiritual experience that makes you even question your own mind. Sometimes it is the psychological experience that makes you question and even leads you to believe there is something greater than you. No, I’m not talking about speaking in tongues I call BS because that is the power of persuasion and not necessarily God (no offense Christians). I’ve momentarily experienced God’s presence as a kid when I was literally dying from an allergic reaction to pain meds (No, it wasn’t a near death experience).

That experience left an imprint on my “soul,” something I can’t shake, almost like a piece of chewing gum in a girl’s hair. Frankly I think it is a waste of time trying to have a fun debate in something you won’t believe in anyway no matter how good the argument. I sincerely believe your brain has to experience what I experienced and trust me, I’m very much a skeptic but some things you just can’t explain.

 

[Meow Mix]

No see. The reason I ask this is because an Atheist by definition is a naturalist. "Why" in themes like this is not a question that can be answered naturally. Its a philosophical question beyond naturalism. If you believe the universe is flat, zero omega, infinite, always was, always will be, or whatever the foundation or outcome of a persons reality is, "why" is always beyond the natural realm.

I am not discounting your post. But why would an atheist ask this question? Even if your answer is not the ultimate answer, I would like to see it. If you dont wish to discuss this, its no problem. This is a humble request.

Atheism is not naturalism (and I am either not a naturalist or do not like the term: natural as opposed to what? That’s a whole conversation in itself.) I am not even an ontological materialist. I’m not a Platonist, but I think the referents we refer to when we talk about logic “exist,” and they are not material (they do not have spatiotemporal extension or mass-energy).

Nothing about atheism precludes asking why questions. Philosophy is one of my dearest hobbies, and I ask a lot of them.

I’m able to make small posts right now, but my explanation for my attempt at an answer will have to be when I’m on a keyboard and not snuggled under covers with just my phone ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

No see. The reason I ask this is because an Atheist by definition is a naturalist. "Why" in themes like this is not a question that can be answered naturally. Its a philosophical question beyond naturalism. If you believe the universe is flat, zero omega, infinite, always was, always will be, or whatever the foundation or outcome of a persons reality is, "why" is always beyond the natural realm.

I am not discounting your post. But why would an atheist ask this question? Even if your answer is not the ultimate answer, I would like to see it. If you dont wish to discuss this, its no problem. This is a humble request.

A short preview is because I don’t think it’s possible for there to be “nothing” as we colloquially make the utterance; which is equivalent to saying I believe something is ontologically necessary.

One thing I can think of that I think is necessary is limitation, which I think is the referent of logic.

A is A because it’s limited from being not-A, and it’s limited from being A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.

If we try to imagine “nothing,” I don’t think we can: there would still be limitation. Nothing would be nothing, it would be limited from being something. Colloquially that’s like a “rule” existing. I intuit this to be a “thing” that exists, contradicting the original supposition that there might be “nothing.” Put shortly, I think logic (the referents of logic) necessarily exists. It is self-evident and incorrigible.

It’s a philosophical can of worms though, involving whether privative properties can obtain, whether existence is a predicate, and so on. So, it’s… a conversation.

But like I said I have my answer; it’s not ultimate (there are still questions), but it’s my approach to “The Question.”

 

[Meow Mix]

Let me say from the outset that I’ve lost all taste for debate with atheists. For me it is not so much the debate that disinterests me, it is the fact that no matter what philosophical argument you can state no matter how logically convincing, all of this matters down is psychology. Like David Hume who was a famous empiricist if you can’t feel it, touch it, taste it, smell it, it doesn’t exist. Or don’t forget the infamous orbiting spaghetti monster that is always the go to for atheists. That is one of the things I like about the Qur’an. God asks you to question things, even his ow existence because it is there, in nature, we find truth. Now depending on who considers truth is another matter. The fact is you must have the spiritual experience that makes you even question your own mind. Sometimes it is the psychological experience that makes you question and even leads you to believe there is something greater than you. No, I’m not talking about speaking in tongues I call BS because that is the power of persuasion and not necessarily God (no offense Christians). I’ve momentarily experienced God’s presence as a kid when I was literally dying from an allergic reaction to pain meds (No, it wasn’t a near death experience).

That experience left an imprint on my “soul,” something I can’t shake, almost like a piece of chewing gum in a girl’s hair. Frankly I think it is a waste of time trying to have a fun debate in something you won’t believe in anyway no matter how good the argument. I sincerely believe your brain has to experience what I experienced and trust me, I’m very much a skeptic but some things you just can’t explain.

The thread was made for fun so if it’s not fun for you, I think that will be respected ^.^

 

[firedragon]

Atheism is not naturalism (and I am either not a naturalist or do not like the term: natural as opposed to what? That’s a whole conversation in itself.) I am not even an ontological materialist. I’m not a Platonist, but I think the referents we refer to when we talk about logic “exist,” and they are not material (they do not have spatiotemporal extension or mass-energy).

Nothing about atheism precludes asking why questions. Philosophy is one of my dearest hobbies, and I ask a lot of them.

I’m able to make small posts right now, but my explanation for my attempt at an answer will have to be when I’m on a keyboard and not snuggled under covers with just my phone ^.^

Wow. A platonist. Thats interesting.

Anyway, we could have the naturalist debate one day. It will derail your thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

Wow. A platonist. Thats interesting.

Anyway, we could have the naturalist debate one day. It will derail your thread.

Not a Platonist, I don’t think there are forms, and furthermore think that is nonsense. I’m just not a materialist, I think not everything that exists has spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy. I think logic and math exist and would exist if there were no material things existing.

edit: because math is extended logic really, and logic is limitation and corollaries about limitation.

 

[firedragon]

A short preview is because I don’t think it’s possible for there to be “nothing” as we colloquially make the utterance; which is equivalent to saying I believe something is ontologically necessary.

One thing I can think of that I think is necessary is limitation, which I think is the referent of logic.

A is A because it’s limited from being not-A, and it’s limited from being A and not-A at the same time and in the same respect.

If we try to imagine “nothing,” I don’t think we can: there would still be limitation. Nothing would be nothing, it would be limited from being something. Colloquially that’s like a “rule” existing. I intuit this to be a “thing” that exists, contradicting the original supposition that there might be “nothing.” Put shortly, I think logic (the referents of logic) necessarily exists. It is self-evident and incorrigible.

It’s a philosophical can of worms though, involving whether privative properties can obtain, whether existence is a predicate, and so on. So, it’s… a conversation.

But like I said I have my answer; it’s not ultimate (there are still questions), but it’s my approach to “The Question.”

Thank you very much for your answer. I appreciate it. I dont wish to derail your thread with a tangent on the ontological questions on the necessity of a being or a cosmological argument. We should separately discuss that and I think you are the right person for that. Sincerely. I like your approach.

Thank you and cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Not a Platonist, I don’t think there are forms, and furthermore think that is nonsense.

I misunderstood you.

m just not a materialist, I think not everything that exists has spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy. I think logic and math exist and would exist if there were no material things existing.

edit: because math is extended logic really, and logic is limitation and corollaries about limitation.

When you use words like spatiotemporal extension, you should consider that everyone is not an astrophysicist like you. We maybe sophomore to you. Im kidding.

It's an honour to have some one as educated as you.

Anyway, I am trying to understand you. You said atheists are not naturalists. When you say naturalists do you mean something else? When I say that I mean people who do not practice methodological naturalism, but are by default walking and talking naturalism methodologically or not. I understand that all atheists are not naturalists but the definition of atheism in my opinion has to have naturalism as its body because there is no middle ground. Either you are a naturalist, or a super-naturalist. what you get is what you get. There is nothing real other than reality, and reality is what you get.

Thats how I have understood atheism to be. I am talking about a fundamental, not a protocol.

 

[Altfish]

What kind of theism are you speaking of? Any kind?

How could a concept of a necessary being come from anything? Thats an oxymoron. That is why you are not getting answers. But there maybe theists who believe a man became God because he was a great king, like in Ancient Rome. Maybe that's the concept you are used to.

This kind of question must begin with your epistemology.

Theisms that rely on a 'creator god'
You see, you are doing it. You are giving god a pass, by saying what I'm asking for is an oxymoron. Maybe it is, but that's where the god hypothesis fails.

I ask again, if god was always there ... why couldn't the universe have always been there? I start one step later than you, I discard the creator being and get a better and simpler explanation.

 

[firedragon]

You see, you are doing it. You are giving god a pass, by saying what I'm asking for is an oxymoron.

You should I think look up what oxymoron means.