From nothing, Reason...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am not challenging his atheism on that point. I am saying his atheism does not apply to my assertion, as the assertion is based on the reality of the physical world (life as we know it) and further, that all atheistic explanations for that physical world take on varying forms of mechanisitic materialism. Since he isn't too sure that the physical world ...[text shortened]... nd yet explain the existence of that world without a reliance on God.

Is this clear enough?

Bbarr will have to speak for himself, but it is my guess that while he is agnostic about the
physical world (the idea of which confuses me in and of itself), such a position doesn't exclude
taking the physical world 'at face value.' Since he makes an atheistic stance, it means at the
very least he does not consider such a stance mutually exclusive to taking the physical world
at face value, and, consequently, doesn't exclude his perspective from this thread.

In any event, he can always accept (for the purposes of this discussion) as a given that the
physical world exists 'at face value.'

Lastly, I think he's already pointed out that there are atheistic explanations for the physical world
that don't rely on a mechanistic materialism (having given an example in his first post).

Nemesio

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am not challenging his atheism on that point. I am saying his atheism does not apply to my assertion, as the assertion is based on the reality of the physical world (life as we know it) and further, that all atheistic explanations for that physical world take on varying forms of mechanisitic materialism. Since he isn't too sure that the physical world ...[text shortened]... nd yet explain the existence of that world without a reliance on God.

Is this clear enough?

This is not clear enough. Please try again.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Bbarr will have to speak for himself, but it is my guess that while he is agnostic about the
physical world (the idea of which confuses me in and of itself), such a position doesn't exclude
taking the physical world 'at face value.' Since he makes an atheistic stance, it means at the
very least he does not consider such a stance mutually exclusive to ta ...[text shortened]... ely on a mechanistic materialism (having given an example in his first post).

Nemesio

His atheistic stance claims (apparently) that only thought exists, and therefore the physical world is (wait for it) immaterial. As such, his position must first state what is real before it can comment on any impetus. Hardly a majority (or even established minority) position.

It is fairly safe to say that most atheists hold to mechanistic materialism, ill-defined abberations notwithstanding. While bbarr was successful in bringing out an atheistic position relative to a different reality than the one held by the majority of people, subtracting the physical world from the equation ends in absurdity at the gate.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
This is not clear enough. Please try again.

Perhaps if you read the posts from the very beginning, it will become more clear to you. Repeating the same lines here will not make the assertion any more perspicuous.

What part(s) is/are giving you the most trouble?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
His atheistic stance claims (apparently) that only thought exists, and therefore the physical world is (wait for it) immaterial.

You are unfamiliar with the concept of agnosticism, then.

He stance does not make an assertive claim whatsoever; his agnosticism is based on having
insufficient evidence to confidently accept either that the material world exists or does not exist.

Thus, he has not concluded that the 'real world' doesn't exist and, I'm sure, is capable of considering
your claim that an atheistic stance while believing in the real world is somehow incongruent.


Nemesio

P.S., Bbarr: forgive me if I am misrepresenting you here.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are unfamiliar with the concept of agnosticism, then.

He stance does not make an assertive claim whatsoever; his agnosticism is based on having
insufficient evidence to confidently accept either that the material world exists or does not exist.

Thus, he has not concluded that the 'real world' doesn't exist and, I'm sure, is capable of consi ...[text shortened]... mehow incongruent.


Nemesio

P.S., Bbarr: forgive me if I am misrepresenting you here.

As usual, I should have been more precise. Until bbarr is able to come to a conclusion consistent with normative thinking regarding the reality of the physical world, his view precludes discussion as to the formation of said physical world.

Originally posted by Nemesio
You are unfamiliar with the concept of agnosticism, then.

He stance does not make an assertive claim whatsoever; his agnosticism is based on having
insufficient evidence to confidently accept either that the material world exists or does not exist.

Thus, he has not concluded that the 'real world' doesn't exist and, I'm sure, is capable of consi ...[text shortened]... mehow incongruent.


Nemesio

P.S., Bbarr: forgive me if I am misrepresenting you here.

Again, thanks Nemesio for your accurate explication of my position.

Freak: The real world is just that, the set of all real things. Whether amongst the set of the real there are material objects I do not know. Or, to put the point more clearly, I'm not sure we have a very well worked out concept of 'material' or 'physical', and hence I'm not sure what is meant exactly when somebody says of the real world that it is material or physical. What I do know is that there are objects and states of affairs existing or obtaining (respectively) that seem independent of the states or powers of my mind. I also know that there are no good physicalist accounts of consciousness, and it certainly seems like the phenomenal character (the 'qualia'😉 of my conscious states aren't material. So, perhaps idealism is true, and perhaps dualism is true, or maybe materialism is true and there is some reductionist (or elimative materialistic) account of consciousness that survives reflective scrutiny.

Regarding the putative origin of the real world, I'm not sure there ever was an origin. Why can't the real world be eternal? I'm certainly not going to defend any ex nihilo view of the origin of the material world, and I don't think anybody else should either.

Further, even if the real world isn't material, or isn't wholly material, that doesn't prevent a mechanistic interpretation of the world (since all that requires are determinative causal laws, and these laws could cover stuff-stuff interactions, or stuff-mind interactions, or mind-stuff interactions). But no atheist is committed, just by virtue of their atheism, to determinism in this sense.

Originally posted by bbarr
Again, thanks Nemesio for your accurate explication of my position.

Freak: The real world is just that, the set of all real things. Whether amongst the set of the real there are material objects I do not know. Or, to put the point more clearly, I'm not sure we have a very well worked out concept of 'material' or 'physical', and hence I'm not sure what is ...[text shortened]... ist is committed, just by virtue of their atheism, to determinism in this sense.

To the best of my knowledge, both sides of the eternal state of matter are currently under consideration: one for and one against, of course in varying forms.

What is not under wide debate currently is that there was a moment within which the physical world was 'born,' collectively known as the Big Bang. To explain the existence of that physical world since that moment up to the current moment, the atheistic viewpoint has been--- by and large--- mechanisitic materialism. Is this a servicably accurate description, or not?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To the best of my knowledge, both sides of the eternal state of matter are currently under consideration: one for and one against, of course in varying forms.

What is not under wide debate currently is that there was a moment within which the physical world was 'born,' collectively known as the Big Bang. To explain the existence of that physical world ...[text shortened]... by and large--- mechanisitic materialism. Is this a servicably accurate description, or not?

If, by "mechanistic" you mean "completely causally determined", then no, that is not an accurate description. Most people, including most atheists, endorse a libertarian conception of the will, and that is inconsistent with complete causal determinism. Further, even amonst those who reject libertarianism, there are those who think that quantum mechanics shows that some laws are stochastic and that some processes are metaphysically random (both claims being inconsistent with complete causal determinism).

Originally posted by bbarr
If, by "mechanistic" you mean "completely causally determined", then no, that is not an accurate description. Most people, including most atheists, endorse a libertarian conception of the will, and that is inconsistent with complete causal determinism. Further, even amonst those who reject libertarianism, there are those who think that quantum mechanics show ...[text shortened]... are metaphysically random (both claims being inconsistent with complete causal determinism).

I don't see how the will has anything to do with explaining the existence of the physical world. Perhaps you could elaborate on that one.

When I say most atheists hold to such a view, I do so on the grounds of the information that comes from such sources as:

http://www.atheists.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=17

Or, this quote from a fairly well-known atheist, Madalyn Murray O’Hair:

"The indestructible foundation of the whole edifice of Atheism is its philosophy, materialism, or naturalism, as it is also known. That philosophy regards the world as it actually is, views it in the light of the data provided by progressive science and social experience. Atheistic materialism is the logical outcome of scientific knowledge gained over the centuries."
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Perhaps if you read the posts from the very beginning, it will become more clear to you. Repeating the same lines here will not make the assertion any more perspicuous.

What part(s) is/are giving you the most trouble?

Repeating the lines won't; reexpressing them coherently will.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Repeating the lines won't; reexpressing them coherently will.

Others seem to grasping the ideas alright. Perhaps sitting closer to the screen may help.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't see how the will has anything to do with explaining the existence of the physical world. Perhaps you could elaborate on that one.

bbarr is simply pointing out that a majority of atheists endorse a libertarian view of freedom of the will; and that such a view is incompatible with causal determinism. So if you are claiming that a majority of atheistic stances entail causal determinism, you are wrong.

Could you clarify what you mean by "mechanistic"? Dicitionary.com has the following definition for 'mechanism':

Philosophy. The doctrine that all natural phenomena are explicable by material causes and mechanical principles.

If this is what you mean, then -- per above -- you are still wrong that a majority of atheistic stances entail mechanism. A libertarian view of free will would entail that the natural phenomenon of "free" willing is uncaused, thus precluding mechanism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Others seem to grasping the ideas alright. Perhaps sitting closer to the screen may help.

Your incomparable clarity is presumably why bbarr began his last post "If, by 'mechanistic' you mean "completely causally determined..."

Your Christian attitude shines through your posts. Keep up the good work!

Originally posted by LemonJello
bbarr is simply pointing out that a majority of atheists endorse a libertarian view of freedom of the will; and that such a view is incompatible with causal determinism. So if you are claiming that a majority of atheistic stances entail causal determinism, you are wrong.

Could you clarify what you mean by "mechanistic"? Dicitionary.com has the follow ...[text shortened]... tail that the natural phenomenon of "free" willing is uncaused, thus precluding mechanism.

Somehow the apples and the oranges have commingled resulting in a fruit salad mix. Back to the original question, phrased separately.

What explanation do atheists give for the existence of the physical world, both its beginning and current states?