Atheists: Account for existence

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you have a response to this: Does the existence of things constitute at least partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

You would just be piling up an extra hypothesis and being left with an equivalent question. To paraphrase you: The existence of a creator would then, by analogy, constitute partial evidence, if not sufficient, for a creator in an abductive sense.

The existence of the universe is axiomatic. It cannot be solved any other way, since postulating a creator would just move the problem into the problematic of what created the creator.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
For "a thing" to happen there must be time for it to happen, right? Well, 'before' the Big Bang, 'before' didn't exist. No time. Nothing. Nada, zilcho. There wasn't anything, not even time. At the Big Bang, the rules of the universe that currently exist, didn't. Everything was formed in that instant, even time. The problem with this, is ...[text shortened]... things happenning through time. You may as well ask the question "why is blue?"

When you say 'everything was formed at that instance' what was it that did the 'forming' exactly? Don't you see how impossible it is to get by without some form of language that suggests cause and effect. I find the idea of the universe coming out of absolutely 'zilch' far more irrational than the idea of an eternal creation force. All our experience is that things that have a beginning also have a cause , they do not come out of 'nothing'.

You also assume that in order for something to happen there must be 'time' for it to happen (so how did 'time' get there then?). This is true enough in the known universe but we have no reason to assume that this is an absolute truth outside of what we know. You are projecting a concept of 'time' from within the universe you know and assuming that this applies to everything. To ask 'what went before that' is infact valid . Just because we are forced to use inadequate language to ask these questions doesn't invalidate them at all. The concept of God (eternity) is by implication outside of time anyway so the absence of time does not automatically mean 'nothing' . You have grasped the fact that to postulate on these things is to go beyond the rational anyway where all language starts to breakdown but then use this as some kind of rationale for your position. You are playing with words rather than really thinking about what you are saying. You say it's an 'invalid question' because the language sounds paradoxical and absurd without realising that this is exactly what we should expect anyway. God IS beyond rational imagining , that's why we have mysticism.

The exciting thing about this is that whatever way you go you are left with a paradox that defies rationality and language. So maybe we are left with the question 'why is blue?' . It doesn't invalid God it just invalidates our limited language and perception. Have you got any even faintly rational way of explaining how the universe just came out of 'zilch'? I think not.

Originally posted by Palynka
You would just be piling up an extra hypothesis and being left with an equivalent question. To paraphrase you: The existence of a creator would then, by analogy, constitute partial evidence, if not sufficient, for a creator in an abductive sense.

The existence of the universe is axiomatic. It cannot be solved any other way, since postulating a creator would just move the problem into the problematic of what created the creator.

Not if the creator has no beginning......

That's what it all comes down to, at least as far as this issue is involved. Either matter is god, or God is God.

Originally posted by Palynka
You would just be piling up an extra hypothesis and being left with an equivalent question. To paraphrase you: The existence of a creator would then, by analogy, constitute partial evidence, if not sufficient, for a creator in an abductive sense.

The existence of the universe is axiomatic. It cannot be solved any other way, since postulating a creator would just move the problem into the problematic of what created the creator.

Not if, by definition, the Creator does not have a further creator.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm not convinced that it is unanswerable to any degree greater than other scientific questions.

Why do apples fall? Gravity. Sure, that's not the final, ultimate answer, as it rests on the endless series you refer to, but it doesn't make the formulation of gravity as an explanation a futile exercise.

Surely the "superultimate why question" (SWQ) really falls into a different category to all scientific questions.

All scientific questions aim to explain one existing thing in terms of another existing thing. But how do you explain the existence of all things generally? By citing some other existing thing? That would be to beg the question. Moreover, how could you even answer the SWQ partially? Wouldn't you always have to question-beggingly cite some sort existing thing even with these more modest aspirations?

Unless the reason for everything that exists is something non-existent or fictional. Hmm.

Positivists have speculated that, although the SWQ looks meaningful, it is really isn't. It involves taking particulur mental tools, such as the Kantian category of causality, that can be usefully applied to ask and answer scientific questions, and inappropriately using them in the wrong context, perhaps bewitched by linguistic forms. If so, that would certainly explain why the SWQ compels our interest, but resists any sort of even rudimentary answer.

Or maybe the SWQ really is a meaningful question, but one which admits of no meaningful answer. Who can say?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Surely the "superultimate why question" (SWQ) really falls into a different category to all scientific questions.

All scientific questions aim to explain one existing thing in terms of another existing thing. But how do you explain the existence of all things generally? By citing some other existing thing? That would be to beg the question. Moreover, ...[text shortened]... really is a meaningful question, but one which admits of no meaningful answer. Who can say?

Or, perhaps the SWQ merely exposes the limits of the general revelation and our subsequent need for further revelation.

Nonetheless, I thought the most compelling aspect of your post was the following phrase:

"question-beggingly cite"

Good stuff.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" - Stephen Hawking

Atheists, how do you answer Hawking? Why is there something rather than nothing?

I know how theists answer the question. They postulate a creator, and even go so far as to postulate his motives for bringing things into existence. ...[text shortened]... ast partial evidence, if not sufficient evidence, for a creator, in an abductive sense?

Isn't Hawking's question a bit different?

He's assuming that abstract equations already exist, and then wondering what makes matter exist for them to describe. Therefore, he is wondering about the existence of matter, not about the existence of existence per se (a torturous phrase, but one reflecting the ontological tangles involved here).

A even more fundamental question would be whether abstract possibilities could be said to exist in the absence of any matter.

I suspect, given our previous exchanges, that you may believe that abstract logical proofs could exist independently of anything to which they might be concretely applied. Do you?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Or, perhaps the SWQ merely exposes the limits of the general revelation and our subsequent need for further revelation.

Nonetheless, I thought the most compelling aspect of your post was the following phrase:

"question-beggingly cite"

Good stuff.

Why, thank you.

But what sort of revelation could *ever* enlighten us? I can't even imagine what *form* such a revelation could take.

Suppose I die, go to heaven, and ask God what the answer to the SWQ is. What *sort* of answer could he give me?

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Positivists have speculated that, although the SWQ looks meaningful, it is really isn't. It involves taking particulur mental tools, such as the Kantian category of causality, that can be usefully applied to ask and answer scientific questions, and inappropriately using them in the wrong context, perhaps bewitched by linguistic forms. If so, that would ...[text shortened]... inly explain why the SWQ compels our interest, but resists any sort of even rudimentary answer.

The response to that argument would be that we use concepts from certain categories and apply them to others all the time. For instance, the concept of "A is smaller than B" is grasped on the basis of human sight, but it is not meaningless to say that "X is smaller than the human eye can see" - we expand the meaning of "smaller than" beyond its original context. IIRC, this argument was put forward by Quine.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Why, thank you.

But what sort of revelation could *ever* enlighten us? I can't even imagine what *form* such a revelation could take.

Suppose I die, go to heaven, and ask God what the answer to the SWQ is. What *sort* of answer could he give me?

The answer to the SWQ, of course, is to be found only in divine revelation. Is this the end-all, be-all? For some now, not for others; eventually all will be cognizant of its wisdom.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not if, by definition, the Creator does not have a further creator.

If the position that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of a creator, then the existence of a creator would be evidence for the creator of the creator.

How can you exclude that and induce, at the same time, that the universe must have one? It lacks coherence.

Originally posted by twhitehead


[b]I guess I'm asking you to shift the target in the same way that the theists do. In what manner do you shift it?
Why should anyone 'shift the target'. It achieves nothing and does not answer the question.[/b]

Why do apples fall? The answer gravity only shifts the target; it doesn't answer it, because you haven't accounted for falling apples until you now account for gravity.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Why do apples fall? The answer gravity only shifts the target; it doesn't answer it.

That one's easy: apples fall because the tree wants them to.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That one's easy: apples fall because the tree wants them to.

Either that, or their arms are full.