It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]Existence must operate by a set of laws.


What is the legislator from which these laws came into existence ?

If you say that these laws just are then that is problematic. For then that contradicts your idea that existence must operate by a set of laws. The laws themselves seem not be be subject to any law.[/b]

Have you read through the thread yet? I think your questions are more or less answered already.
It is my belief that existence must operate by a set of laws which result from or consist of brute facts. What those brute facts are could itself be called a 'law' or 'brute fact'.
I don't see how that is contradictory.
I think you are suffering from knightmeisters 'everything must have a cause' syndrome.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you read through the thread yet? I think your questions are more or less answered already.
It is my belief that existence must operate by a set of laws which result from or consist of brute facts. What those brute facts are could itself be called a 'law' or 'brute fact'.
I don't see how that is contradictory.
I think you are suffering from knightmeisters 'everything must have a cause' syndrome.

I think you are suffering from knightmeisters 'everything must have a cause' syndrome.--------whitey-------------------

Please do try to understand dear fellow. I do not think that everything must have a cause. I'm simply stating that something that does not have a cause is an inexplicable mystery that cannot be understood.

In comparison you treat the idea that existence may be uncaused with a cavalier , hey ho attitude which betrays a lack of wonder at what this actually implies. All Atheists have a hidden agenda to play down any sense of awe or mystery in order to propagate the idea that existence is basically mundane and can be understood quite rationally.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…If a fact has an explanation then it is not inexplicable. ..…

If it has a known explanation -yes -it is not inexplicable.

….If a fact hasn't been explained yet (but looks as if it could be ) then it is something we don't yet understand. It's not a mystery as such because it's just not yet able to be explained in terms of some ...[text shortened]... t all to have existed ?
.…

I assume the answer to both these questions to be “no”.[/b]

If there is nothing to fathom about a fact then why should the fact that there is nothing to fathom about that fact be regarded as a mystery!!!?---------------------------------hammy-----------------------


Normally this is not an issue. However , in the case of the origins of all existence it's a biggy. This is not just any old fact we are talking about here - it's THE brute fact of existence. Did existence just pop out of nowhere for no reason?

Ok , so what you are saying is that existence itself may well be uncaused (or eternal or inexplicable) . For you it's a simple brute fact.

For me it's about appreciating the nature of this fact. Contemplating it. Existence exists and we cannot say why or how. It just IS. Science has broken down and can go no further. Rationality cannot tell us anymore. So at the very least all we can do is contemplate something which we know we cannot fathom or ever understand.

If you think about this it's a radically different way of looking at existence. The scientific mind instinctively wants to ask "but why does it exist? and how?" - the response from existence is eternal silence. It cannot be fathomed.

I'm wondering myself why you don't find that mysterious. Or at least fascinating?

You might say "why is a flower amazing? - it's just a flower - it's just a fact that it is a flower". But you would have missed something about how to appreciate existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If there is nothing to fathom about a fact then why should the fact that there is nothing to fathom about that fact be regarded as a mystery!!!?---------------------------------hammy-----------------------


Normally this is not an issue. However , in the case of the origins of all existence it's a biggy. This is not just any old fact we are talking s a flower". But you would have missed something about how to appreciate existence.

…Did existence just pop out of NOWHERE for no reason?
.… (my emphasis)

No. How can it “pop out of NOWHERE” if “NOWHERE” doesn’t exist anywhere?
Obviously I don’t have such a peculiar belief.
I am just suggesting that there is no premise for the belief that there is existence for a “reason” -that is all!

…Ok , so what you are saying is that existence itself may well be uncaused (or eternal or inexplicable) ….

I am saying that existence itself IS uncaused although the universe had a beginning and there is nothing inexplicable about existence itself being uncaused.

….For you it's a simple brute fact. ..…

Correct.

….Existence exists and we cannot say why or how. It just IS...…

Correct.

…Science has broken down and can go no further.
..…

In what sense has “Science broken down” if there is nothing “further” for it to explain?
-you are using confused logic (illogic) here.

…. Rationality cannot tell us anymore.
.…

You mean rationality cannot tell us anymore once there is nothing “more” to explain?
-there is nothing wrong with rationality.
-there is something wrong with irrationality.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Please do try to understand dear fellow. I do not think that everything must have a cause. I'm simply stating that something that does not have a cause is an inexplicable mystery that cannot be understood.

I simply find 'inexplicable mystery' to be the wrong words for 'does not have a cause' because that is all you really mean by them. You simply want to spice it up a little.

In comparison you treat the idea that existence may be uncaused with a cavalier , hey ho attitude which betrays a lack of wonder at what this actually implies.
But we all seem to agree that it is a fairly trivial thing to deduce that there must exist some uncaused events (brute facts) and that all existence depends on them. I for one think that they could easily be far more common than you like to admit. I also see no good reason for treating them specially or expressing wonder every time my dice comes up 'five'.

All Atheists have a hidden agenda to play down any sense of awe or mystery in order to propagate the idea that existence is basically mundane and can be understood quite rationally.
That is a serious over generalization. Many atheists I am sure have never really thought about explaining existence rationally, and many (possibly over a billion in China) are quite comfortable with the idea that it is not all that rational and have various mystical beliefs etc.
You on the other hand clearly have an agenda to show that the universe is 'mysterious' but I can't seem to fathom why. It certainly doesn't provide any fuel for a theistic argument as your observations apply equally to any possible model of the universe. If anything it goes against you in that it highlights the fact that if God exists he is at heart a 'brute fact'.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Did existence just pop out of NOWHERE for no reason?
.… (my emphasis)

No. How can it “pop out of NOWHERE” if “NOWHERE” doesn’t exist anywhere?
Obviously I don’t have such a peculiar belief.
I am just suggesting that there is no premise for the belief that there is existence for a “reason” -that is all!

…Ok , so what you are sayin ...[text shortened]... lain?
-there is nothing wrong with rationality.
-there is something wrong with irrationality.

-there is nothing wrong with rationality.----------------------------------------------------------------------hammy-------------------------------------

Agreed . It's just limited that's all. Infact if you think about it it's entriely rational to take a more contemplative approach to existence , because rationality cannot take us any further.

What is wrong is to make faith in rationality into some kind of "dogma" that cannot be trangressed.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Did existence just pop out of NOWHERE for no reason?
.… (my emphasis)

No. How can it “pop out of NOWHERE” if “NOWHERE” doesn’t exist anywhere?
Obviously I don’t have such a peculiar belief.
I am just suggesting that there is no premise for the belief that there is existence for a “reason” -that is all!

…Ok , so what you are sayin ...[text shortened]... lain?
-there is nothing wrong with rationality.
-there is something wrong with irrationality.

there is nothing inexplicable about existence itself being uncaused.
==============hammy==================

But if it is uncaused then it's impossible to explain how or why existence exists , yes? We cannot say " here is the reason or explanation for our uncaused existence " - if we say such a thing it would prove that existence is not uncaused afterall.

My premise is that only caused things are capable of being understood or explained because by definition something that is explicable must have a cause in order for it to be understood.

Let me put it another way. Can you think of anything in the universe that has been fully understood or explained that is uncaused?

You can't. Logically something that is uncaused has to be inexplicable by definition. If it was explicable then it would have a cause that would enable an explanation. If I explain to my child how thunder happens I explain it in terms of what causes thunder. It's the same with star formation , icebergs , manned flight , fire , etc etc - any number of explicable events and substances.

The mechanism by which uncaused existence exists cannot by definiton ever be understood or ever be explained. If it could then it would not be uncaused.

Therefore , it seems entirely reasonable to describe an inexplicable and impossible to understand existence as "mysterious"

Why is this a problem? How many different definitions are there of "mysterious"?

Some definitions of mystery......

1. anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown: the mysteries of nature.

2. any affair, thing, or person that presents features or qualities so obscure as to arouse curiosity or speculation: The masked guest is an absolute mystery to everyone

Let's look at a definiton of explicable.........

1–adjective not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.

Seems fairly clear to me. The problem is that unless you actually understand the basic paradox here (eg that an uncaused existence must also be logically inexplicable) then you cannot grasp what I am saying. If you really think that an uncaused existence can be explained and understood then you are kidding yourself.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Did existence just pop out of NOWHERE for no reason?
.… (my emphasis)

No. How can it “pop out of NOWHERE” if “NOWHERE” doesn’t exist anywhere?
Obviously I don’t have such a peculiar belief.
I am just suggesting that there is no premise for the belief that there is existence for a “reason” -that is all!

…Ok , so what you are sayin ...[text shortened]... lain?
-there is nothing wrong with rationality.
-there is something wrong with irrationality.

In what sense has “Science broken down” if there is nothing “further” for it to explain?--------------------hammy--------------------------

There IS something for it to explain - EXISTENCE . The last time I looked existence was pretty well something and there's a heck of a lot of it as well. It's ...erm.....like everything.

Therefore , in our quest to explain and understand the universe science reaches a point where it cannot help us anymore. I suppose to say science has "broken down" is not technically correct , but one can say that science has gone as far as it can go. If we are riding on the car of science and thinking it will give us the ultimate truth , we will find it wanting.

This is where contemplation comes in. It's a different way of "understanding" existence.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So how DO you feel about the prospect of existence being inexplicable in any rational scientific way? Do you just say to yourself - "ok , that's the way it is and we will never know why" . Doesn't it make you think or contemplate the nature of existence?

If , fundamentally , existence is inexplicable and beyond rational understanding then that has ...[text shortened]... existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed?

So how DO you feel about the prospect of existence being inexplicable in any rational scientific way?

I don't even know what it means to say that "the prospect of existence [is] inexplicable in any rational scientific way". Is that supposed to be a faithful restatement of the proposition that there exists at least one brute fact? Maybe we are just on very different wavelengths here.

that has implications for the way we look at life and the world don't you think?

I'm not sure what you mean. What are these implications you keep talking about? Like, what are they? For example, how does the proposition that there is at least one brute fact implicate things about the way you look at 'life'?

I'm sorry that my "feelings" here don't mirror yours. I am sorry that I am just cold and calculated when it comes to what I take as descriptive inquiries into the world. Most of my passions and affections and feelings of absurdity fall squarely to the normative and considerations of justification thereof.

I agree that there are brute facts about existence. Do you agree that these brute facts are inexplicable and cannot be fathomed?

Maybe I am just being difficult, but I don't really understand what you mean by "inexplicable and cannot be fathomed". I think brute facts, by definition, have no explanation. Beyond that I am suspect of your interpretations.

Originally posted by knightmeister
-there is nothing wrong with rationality.----------------------------------------------------------------------hammy-------------------------------------

Agreed . It's just limited that's all. Infact if you think about it it's entriely rational to take a more contemplative approach to existence , because rationality cannot take us any further.

W ...[text shortened]... wrong is to make faith in rationality into some kind of "dogma" that cannot be trangressed.

…Agreed . It's just limited that's all. .…

Agreed.

…Infact if you think about it it's entirely RATIONAL to take a more contemplative approach to existence
…. (my emphasis)

Err -no. it is only “entirely RATIONAL” to take an “entirely RATIONAL” approach by whatever definition of “RATIONAL” you choose. If what you mean by “contemplative approach” is the use of prayer or meditation to find out what the truths about reality are then that is clearly not “RATIONAL” by virtually any stretch of a definition of the word “RATIONAL” because “RATIONAL” surely means involving PURE REASON to judge what the truths about reality are.

….because rationality cannot take us any further.
..…

-but it can take us as far as we can without the use of idiotic illogic.

….What is wrong is to make faith in rationality into some kind of "dogma" that cannot be transgressed.
...…

The “make faith in rationality” in your above statement is a self-contradiction.
Using reason is, in a way, the opposite of using faith -reason leads to beliefs that have a premise consisting of either logic or evidence or both while faith is just belief without this kind of rational premise.

Originally posted by knightmeister
there is nothing inexplicable about existence itself being uncaused.
==============hammy==================

But if it is uncaused then it's impossible to explain how or why existence exists , yes? We cannot say " here is the reason or explanation for our uncaused existence " - if we say such a thing it would prove that existence is not uncaused af ...[text shortened]... t an uncaused existence can be explained and understood then you are kidding yourself.

…But if it is uncaused then it's impossible to explain how or why existence exists , yes?
.…

Yes -because there is no “how or why existence exists” therefore nothing to explain and therefore no mystery -we have been over this ground before.


…Can you think of anything in the universe that has been fully understood or explained that is uncaused?
….

Yes -why random quantum events exist -we can “understand” them only in a restricted way mainly by mathematical models that describe the probabilities and their general behaviour but, the fact remains, a PARTICULAR random quantum event can be “uncaused”.

….You can't.
..…

I just did!

….Let's look at a definition of inexplicable.........

1–adjective not explicable; incapable of being accounted for or explained.
...…
(spelling corrected -you said “definition of explicable” and not “definition of inexplicable&rdquo😉

-this proves by point -“incapable of being accounted for or explained” obviously implies that for something to be “inexplicable” then there has to be something there to be “accounted for or explained” -if there is no such thing there then there is nothing there to be “inexplicable”.

Originally posted by knightmeister
In what sense has “Science broken down” if there is nothing “further” for it to explain?--------------------hammy--------------------------

There IS something for it to explain - EXISTENCE . The last time I looked existence was pretty well something and there's a heck of a lot of it as well. It's ...erm.....like everything.

Therefore , in our que
This is where contemplation comes in. It's a different way of "understanding" existence.

…There IS something for it to explain - EXISTENCE .
.…

No. If “EXISTENCE” is a brute fact then, by definition of “brute fact”, there in NOTHING there to “explain” because there is no “explanation” for a “brute fact” to be discovered.

…If we are riding on the car of science and thinking it will give us the ultimate truth , ….

I am not seeking the “ultimate truth” because I don’t think it exists.
I am sure many scientists also don’t think it exists (at least some of the better ones) as there is no scientific bases for such a belief and thus are not seeking this non-existent “ultimate truth” -you are making some strange assumptions of what is science -science is simply knowledge gained by scientific method -that is all!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…There IS something for it to explain - EXISTENCE .
.…

No. If “EXISTENCE” is a brute fact then, by definition of “brute fact”, there in NOTHING there to “explain” because there is no “explanation” for a “brute fact” to be discovered.

…If we are riding on the car of science and thinking it will give us the ultimate truth , ….
...[text shortened]... ptions of what is science -science is simply knowledge gained by scientific method -that is all![/b]

ill tell you whats a mystery Mr. Hamilton, how im gonna survive our chess game!

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you are suffering from knightmeisters 'everything must have a cause' syndrome.--------whitey-------------------

Please do try to understand dear fellow. I do not think that everything must have a cause. I'm simply stating that something that does not have a cause is an inexplicable mystery that cannot be understood.

In comparison you tre ...[text shortened]... ropagate the idea that existence is basically mundane and can be understood quite rationally.

Very good post !! The mystery is the poetry, and the juice of everything. Put the calculators away for a minute, and breath in the wonder of it all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Therefore , in our quest to explain and understand the universe science reaches a point where it cannot help us anymore. I suppose to say science has "broken down" is not technically correct , but one can say that science has gone as far as it can go. If we are riding on the car of science and thinking it will give us the ultimate truth , we will find it wanting.

I disagree. If science was able to prove that a given phenomena was a brute fact then it would be the ultimate truth (about that phenomena) and fully explained. Whether science is capable of identifying brute facts I do not know, but you have not shown any reason to think otherwise.

This is where contemplation comes in. It's a different way of "understanding" existence.
What do you mean by that? What is this 'contemplation' you talk of? I sure hope you don't plan to start up with your 'My God is irrational therefore all the logical problems fall away when he's involved'.