foundations of reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one is an Atheist who doesn't believe in free will (hard determinist) and has not time for anything remotely to do with intelligent design what are the implications of this?

One can believe that..........

1) the very heart of the universe and all reality has it's foundations in logic , reason and consistency and is intelligently and rationall and random chance because that's what many Atheists say they really believe in , is it not?

"Logic" requires a mind. The existence of the universe can be non-chaotic and totally free from logic.

Why do you think the "blind watchmaker" idea assumes randomness?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Logic" requires a mind. The existence of the universe can be non-chaotic and totally free from logic.

Why do you think the "blind watchmaker" idea assumes randomness?

Because the watchmaker is blind? There is no suggestion in the blind watchmaker (and yes I have read it + the selfish gene) that life is anything other than a chance process which exists for no reason in particular. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins (like many atheists) would reject the idea (on a cosmic level ) that the universe is here for a reason and is not here by mere chance.

Isn't the idea that existence is a kind of chance "accident" suggestive of a non-rational process?

The question I would ask is this..... If the universe is not the accidental product of blind random chance then what might lie at it's core? Surely to suggest that the universe is not a complete accident is to take a first step towards theism? But the dilemma for the atheist here is that to admit that the universe is purely accidental also detracts from the idea that it is reasonable or rational (rather than chaotic and meaningless).

The choice is to either move towards theism (by accepting the universe is not a total accident) or realise that all human rationality has it's direct roots in accidental chaotic randomness. There is no escape from these two places.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No. There being a god wouldn’t solve any mysteries.
--------hamilton---------------------------

Agreed . So what would solve the mystery of existence then?

1, Neither I nor anyone else knows, at the very least not in full, why there is something rather than nothing even if they think they do. -and I never have nor ever will claim to know -although this doesn’t stop us from rationally enquiring knowledge of certain aspects of how things came to develop (e.g. the big bang, evolution etc)

2, saying a “god” explains the mystery of existence doesn’t explain the mystery at all -if a “god” explains the mystery of existence then what explains the mystery of the existence of “god”? -it just replaces one unanswered question with another.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because the watchmaker is blind? There is no suggestion in the blind watchmaker (and yes I have read it + the selfish gene) that life is anything other than a chance process which exists for no reason in particular. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins (like many atheists) would reject the idea (on a cosmic level ) that the universe is here for a reason and is s direct roots in accidental chaotic randomness. There is no escape from these two places.

Non-dualism is a third option (not that I would accept your formulation for some of the reasons already given).

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't understand.The evidence and rationale is all around you. the whole universe works via causality. One event leads to another. So what was the very first event in the whole of existence and why did it happen. Did the Big bang just ....erhem ...happen for no reason? If we found out the reason then how would then explain that? Was there ever a time ...[text shortened]... ity until the point where the buck stops? Or is there an infinite chain of cause and effect?

…I don't understand. The evidence and rationale is all around you. the whole universe works via causality One event leads to another. So what was the very first event in the whole of existence and why did it happen. .…

Just because there is causality in the universe since its creation doesn’t mean there must have been causality at the very first point in time of the existence of the universe. It is commonly extrapolated from known physics that there was no “before” the big bang and the big bang was the beginning of time itself -IF this is true (and I only have reason to believe it is probably true but I cannot totally rule out in my mind the possibility that this may be false), then, given the fact the “cause” of an effect comes BEFORE the effect it causes, wouldn’t to assume that something “caused” the big bang mean assuming that there was something that came “before” and thus there was a “before”! ?

…Did the Big bang just ....erhem ...happen for no REASON? … (my emphases)

If what you mean by “REASON” is “purpose” then I would so there is no evidence nor logical reason to believe it has a “REASON” : But if what you mean by “REASON” is merely “explanation” then I do not claim to know the “REASON”.

…It's reasonable to assume that the universe is either a) eternal or uncaused b) temporary and has a cause or c) came from nothing at all. …

No. I think probably non of these three are correct. If the big bang was the start of time then there was no “nothing” before the big bang because there was no “before”! -and therefore the universe didn’t come from “nothing”! -it just merely existed at the start of time.
So, to further clarify, although I don’t thing the universe has existed forever, I think it (probably) had no “cause”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
1, Neither I nor anyone else knows, at the very least not in full, why there is something rather than nothing even if they think they do. -and I never have nor ever will claim to know -although this doesn’t stop us from rationally enquiring knowledge of certain aspects of how things came to develop (e.g. the big bang, evolution etc)

2, saying a “ ...[text shortened]... s the mystery of the existence of “god”? -it just replaces one unanswered question with another.

saying a “god” explains the mystery of existence doesn’t explain the mystery at all -if a “god” explains the mystery of existence then what explains the mystery of the existence of “god”? -it just replaces one unanswered question with another.------------hamilton-------------------------------------------

Your mindset is such that you still assume that the answer to the problem lies in an "explanation". The problem with this is that any explanation requires further explanation (ad infinitum -infinite regress). Once you let go of this then the answer lies not in an "explanation" but in a realisation. God is not a "solution" or and "explanation" He just IS. A mystery not to be solved but to be realised.

God has no beginning. This is a phenomenal idea because no explanation is possible. God was not caused by anything , he has always been. There is no "why is he there" because nothing put him there. The answer to the question is to realise that the question is ultimately meaningless.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I don't understand. The evidence and rationale is all around you. the whole universe works via causality One event leads to another. So what was the very first event in the whole of existence and why did it happen. .…

Just because there is causality in the universe since its creation doesn’t mean there must have been causality at the ver ...[text shortened]... although I don’t thing the universe has existed forever, I think it (probably) had no “cause”.[/b]

If the big bang was the start of time then there was no “nothing” before the big bang because there was no “before”! -and therefore the universe didn’t come from “nothing”! -it just merely existed at the start of time.
So, to further clarify, although I don’t thing the universe has existed forever, I think it (probably) had no “cause”.

-------------------hamilton----------------------------------

You say these words as if they are supposed to make sense? There "was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before" ????

What you are saying that nothing cannot exist if there is no time for it to exist in? So therefore it's impossible for something to exist unless there is time for it to exist in? The whole point about nothing is that it doesn't exist anyway. It's a state (or non-state) of non-existence of anything. If one must have time for existence to exist then how did time come to exist in the first place? Did time create itself?

It seems to me that you do infact believe that the universe just "started" out of nothing and that's that. You just phrase it in a particular way to make it sound more palatable. This is what you believe in effect------- No time - no time---- poofhph!!!! - TIME! + UNIVERSE!!!! All of this inexplicable and without cause!!!!

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying here.....I would love to go right to the wire on this one with you. If you want to that is.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If the big bang was the start of time then there was no “nothing” before the big bang because there was no “before”! -and therefore the universe didn’t come from “nothing”! -it just merely existed at the start of time.
So, to further clarify, although I don’t thing the universe has existed forever, I think it (probably) had no “cause”.

----------- e.....I would love to go right to the wire on this one with you. If you want to that is.

…You say these words as if they are supposed to make sense? There "was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before" ???? .…

So you don’t make sense of that. This makes me think, although this is a fundamentally simple concept, it is, admittedly, in a way, a hard to understand concept and is beyond some peoples understanding even when I state it as simply and plainly as I can. If you still don’t understand it then I guess you never will and thus this conversation cannot serve any further useful function.

-But, before you have a chance to misunderstand me here, I am NOT insinuating anything from that!:
-I only half-understand relativity because there are certain concepts in it that, although are fundamentally simple, are hard for me to really understand. I do not conclude from that that those concepts do not “make sense” in the objective sense for I am sure they would “make sense” to a greater intellect than I.
I just accept it is merely my limitations of (or lack of) intellect that is the sole reason it doesn’t quite “make sense” to me. We all have our own limitations to our intellect.

…What you are saying that nothing cannot exist if there is no time for it to exist in? So therefore it's impossible for something to exist unless there is time for it to exist in?.…

No. I would say it doesn’t even make sense to simply say “there existed nothing” unless you either specify or imply exactly at what TIME and place you are referring to where this “nothing” exists (that’s assuming it makes sense to say “nothing exists&rdquo😉.
So I am not sure these above questions even make sense.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Because the watchmaker is blind? There is no suggestion in the blind watchmaker (and yes I have read it + the selfish gene) that life is anything other than a chance process which exists for no reason in particular. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins (like many atheists) would reject the idea (on a cosmic level ) that the universe is here for a reason and is s direct roots in accidental chaotic randomness. There is no escape from these two places.

Well, I have not read those books, so I'll accept your analysis of them. If they say that life is random then they are unfamiliar with basic science. Maybe they mean they cannot calculate the results of a specific situation, but that's chaos theory - deterministic systems following very specific natural laws but so complex humans do not have the ability to calculate what happens and so it seems to be random.

Now that I've addressed "random" and "chance" let's talk about "reason" and "rational". This is a different topic. "Reason" and "rationality" require a mind, while the lack of randomness does not.

what might lie at it's core?

Huh? You mean the center of the universe? It doesn't exist as far as I know.

Surely to suggest that the universe is not a complete accident

Again, accidents require [/i]minds[/i] who try to do something but fail and instead have an accident. You keep using terms that assume there's a person in charge when the question is whether or not there is a person in charge! You're Begging the Question.

"Reason" and "rationality" are NOT the opposites of chaos! Order is the opposite of chaos, and irrationality is the opposite of rationality and reason.

Originally posted by knightmeister
saying a “god” explains the mystery of existence doesn’t explain the mystery at all -if a “god” explains the mystery of existence then what explains the mystery of the existence of “god”? -it just replaces one unanswered question with another.------------hamilton-------------------------------------------

Your mindset is such that you still assume t The answer to the question is to realise that the question is ultimately meaningless.

…Your mindset is such that you still assume that the answer to the problem lies in an "explanation". The problem with this is that any explanation requires further explanation (ad infinitum -infinite regress). …

So? In what way does this prove all rational explanations false? (if that is what you are implying?). -And, if it does, doesn’t that mean that what you perceive as all your “rational explanations” on this matter are, in fact, either false or untrustworthy?

…Once you let go of this then the answer lies not in an "explanation" but in a REALISATION… (my emphases)

The belief that you have a “REALISATION” without an accompanying "explanation" (nor observation) = blind faith.

…There is no "why is he there" because nothing put him there. The answer to the question is to realise that the question is ultimately meaningless. …

What do you mean by “WHY” in the above? -do you imply “purpose” or “logical explanation” or both?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Well, I have not read those books, so I'll accept your analysis of them. If they say that life is random then they are unfamiliar with basic science. Maybe they mean they cannot calculate the results of a specific situation, but that's chaos theory - deterministic systems following very specific natural laws but so complex humans do not have the abi ...[text shortened]... e of chaos, and irrationality is the opposite of rationality and reason.

Huh? You mean the center of the universe? It doesn't exist as far as I know. -------------------------------------------------------------young----------

Oh , come on , you know what the question is. What is behind reality as we know it. What caused everything to exist? Why is it here as opposed to not here? etc etc

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You say these words as if they are supposed to make sense? There "was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before" ???? .…

So you don’t make sense of that. This makes me think, although this is a fundamentally simple concept, it is, admittedly, in a way, a hard to understand concept and is beyond some peoples understanding ...[text shortened]... akes sense to say “nothing exists&rdquo😉.
So I am not sure these above questions even make sense.[/b]

I would say it doesn’t even make sense to simply say “there existed nothing” unless you either specify or imply exactly at what TIME and place you are referring to where this “nothing” exists (that’s assuming it makes sense to say “nothing exists&rdquo😉.
So I am not sure these above questions even make sense.-----------------------------hamilton----------------------------------------------------


The questions are valid and make sense in that we don't have adequate language to describe this. Nothing obviously cannot "exist" because if it existed it would actually be something ( and not nothing) .

However if we can agree to not get caught up in semantic pedantry we might get somewhere. The closest term we could use might be the complete absence of existence (time , matter, energy etc). So when I say nothing existed I DO KNOW full well the limitations of such language , BUT---- I think we both know what we are talking about.

So , if we agree to give these terms some slack , can we get on to the debate? What I want to know is whether you conceive that the Universe exists from the point of the big bang but "before" the big bang was a complete absence of any existence.

Can we stop playing with words and actually address the issue now?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I would say it doesn’t even make sense to simply say “there existed nothing” unless you either specify or imply exactly at what TIME and place you are referring to where this “nothing” exists (that’s assuming it makes sense to say “nothing exists&rdquo😉.
So I am not sure these above questions even make sense.-----------------------------hamilton---------- ce of any existence.

Can we stop playing with words and actually address the issue now?

To me, the statement:

"there was no nothing before the big bang because there was no before"

-isn’t just a trick of semantics -it represents a real concept about reality. You may mistaken it for just a trick of semantics because you fail to understand the real concept behind it. I cannot address the issue without reference to this concept for you seem to think that I believe the universe “came from nothing” and I don’t! -and the reason I don’t is because of this very concept you fail to understand (and call just “playing with words&rdquo😉.

I am uncertain if most atheists would literally believe “the universe came from nothing” so you may be misrepresenting the position of most atheists. Certainly most atheists would not believe that we come from totally random event as you make out -random mutations may be a part of evolution but obviously some outcomes in evolution are more common than others thus we obviously didn’t come from PURE randomness for there would be partial predictability in how things evolve. Also, I am sure virtually no atheist believes that the whole universe came from pure random events as you seem to make out because there is no reason nor evidence for that. So you severely and completely misrepresent atheist views all round.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one is an Atheist who doesn't believe in free will (hard determinist) and has not time for anything remotely to do with intelligent design what are the implications of this?

One can believe that..........

1) the very heart of the universe and all reality has it's foundations in logic , reason and consistency and is intelligently and rationall and random chance because that's what many Atheists say they really believe in , is it not?

Sorry, KM, but I don't know a single atheist who subscribes to 2). In particular, I don't know a single atheist who thinks "all life and reality is basically the product of blind, random chance events", taken for what I think that means at face value. And didn't you also saddle him with "hard determinism" (by the way, I don't know many hard determinists, either)? Does a hard determinist think that "random" events occur (maybe we are equivocating on the word)? And I'm not sure if I know any theists who subscribe to 1) because I cannot figure out what 1) is even supposed to mean.

Regarding the rest of your argument, please clarify what sorts of belief and thoughts you think the atheist is not in a position (and doesn't have a 'basis'😉 to "trust". Surely you cannot be claiming that the totality of the atheist's thoughts and beliefs are thereby defeated in virtue of his atheism. That would be ridiculous since many of the thoughts and beliefs of the atheist are in this context dialectically symmetric to many of those of the theist (as a simple example: basic beliefs that simply have no basis beyond that they are evident to the senses, or true by definition, or etc). As another simple example: while the atheist may think that abiogenesis was a product of chance, he can maintain that the diversity of life that now exists is largely the product of natural selection. In that case, surely he has a basis for trusting many of the deliverances of his cognitive faculties and his senses -- in particular, those that more or less must be reliable in order to relate with the many aspects of "survival" and "fitness" broadly construed, plus perhaps any of those that would attend other deliverances of selection. Surely you have at least considered these very minimal cases? So, I would like clarification on exactly what sorts of beliefs you think are defeated for the atheist just in virtue of his atheism.

My guess is that the beliefs you think are defeated for the atheist will largely come down to theoretical inquiries that don't really have much to do with survival. For these, you may have reasons to think the deliverances of our cognitive faculties are not as reliable, given the atheist's naturalism. But I wonder just why you think your theism would grant you some special level of reliability here? As far as I can tell, the bible is pretty tight-lipped when it comes to praising knowledge and understanding, especially concerning theoretical inquiries. Your god seems to admit them pretty dumb, as long as they are willing to relate with him in the ways he demands. In fact, if I were megalomaniac bent on garnering attention and love for myself, I would want my minions pretty dumb and certainly morally stunted, such that they would be willing to follow my commands and rules without any pesky questioning attitudes regarding justification. So I'm a bit confused why the deliverances of your cognitive faculties can be assumed to be more reliable than the atheist (in virtue of your different bases) in those areas where you would challenge the atheist. You just sort of state the "very heart of the universe and all reality has it's foundations in logic , reason and consistency" and thus you can trust your faculties. As far as I am concerned, that's more or less meaningless blather. I'm interested in your actually making a considered case, rather than throwing out some nonsense.

Beyond that, I'm not really sure where you would be able to go with your argument. After all, I could postulate some arbitrary god who would want us to have near-perfect deliverances of cognitive faculties in all subjects. Wow, we could really trust our faculties in that case! That would be really awesome! Does that mean that such a god exists? Of course not. I fail to see how this argument of yours actually has anything to do with the de facto question of whether or not such a god as yours actually exists. Or maybe all you're trying to do here is attack the consistency of the atheist's position. In that case, I would recommend you read Plantinga's arguments on why he thinks naturalism is in a similar sense self-defeating. I think his arguments still fail, but they are, quite frankly, a lot better than yours. They might give you some ideas on how to proceed.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================================
You really don't get it do you. The whole point is that the mystery of existence is endless and cannot be "solved" .
=====================================


I guess it never occured to you that there is something called "Speaking for yourself".

You assume if it is not solved for you it is not solved for ...[text shortened]... on to you. Could be that you're only opened and waiting for your prefered answers.[/b]

So knightmeister is a vocal atheist on these boards?

You're comic relief, jaywill.