20 Jul '11 16:08>4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIsn't this idea the very foundation of evolution?
Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
I guess you don't know very many people! Isn't this idea the very foundation of evolution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
(And within such a view, what exactly would explain such laws to begin with?)[/b s of their point, how can any garden-variety atheist hope to honestly stand?
No. Evolutionary theory has no commitment regarding, say, the principle of sufficient reason. And why would the "very foundation" of evolutionary theory be constituted by some claim regarding the explanation of everything when evolutionary theory is obviously not in the business of addressing the explanation of everything?
Funny you should ask. That very question was put forth herein quite some time ago by yours truly, to much ridicule.
Well, here I think we can agree. If someone claims that some set of laws explain everything, that is a very strange claim indeed. What are they committed to regarding the explanation of those very laws? It seems they would be committed to the idea that such laws explain themselves, which is quite strange and difficult to understand, let alone the issue of plausibility. But, as I said, nobody I knows actually claims this. That atheists are committed to such a claim is a complete fantasy of yours.
So can it be assumed that these "brute facts" are to be given credit for existence?
WTF? No. Why would one assume that? I do not even know what it means to say that some set of brute facts "are to be given credit for existence".
I'd submit that neither you nor the atheists you know are able to explain morals/value systems [b]in light of the cause of existence.[/b]
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Could you please clarify. After that, what's your actual argument for it?