Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[rumborak]

What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.

rumborak

[Adami]

And why are we still arguing about this? This doesn't have anything to do with the OP...

There is no empirical evidence that god exits though.

While I agree with you, this statement alone just created 2-3 pages at least of "But the universe can't have existed by chance" "yes it could" "nuh huh" etc.

[Omega]

Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.

In what way?

If you are talking about the particles, I'll have refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture A universe from nothing. Now if you are talking about the credence of the god claim. Well when there is no evidence of what came before something but there is evidence of how it can come to be. The most realistic and logical probability would be the one we see evidence for.   

Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe From Nothing" is based on a misunderstanding of the word nothing; he defines it as empty space or a quantum vacuum. These things are certainly not nothing. A more apt name for his lecture would be "A Universe from Something".

[Omega]

What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.

rumborak

Are we back again to discussing "things that exist in the universe yet are uncaused"?

[Ħ]

What is the point of arguing about a Prime Mover if we aren't even sure what tools are adequate for that discussion? My point right now is that there's a multitude of casual assertions happening that I don't think hold up at all. You seem to have a much stronger desire for set laws than I have, H.

rumborak

You've got two options.

1. Time has no cause, and you're left with the definite problem of the impossibility of an infinite series of past events.
2. Time has a cause, and you're left with the possible problem that causation is time-dependent.

[rumborak]

Quite indeed. You just corroborated my notion that we have way too little understanding to make definite statements about this.
For example, it could be argued that the universe caused god to exist. Please show me how that could not be.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Quite indeed. You just corroborated my notion that we have way too little understanding to make definite statements about this.

rumborak

I don't know if we don't know. All I know is I don't know (and you don't either, as you just said). I don't know enough about the nature of causation or any philosophy about it at all. But I can say with confidence that we cannot disregard an argument based on the possibility that causation is time-dependent.

Besides, since the belief "causation is time-dependent" leads definite impossibilities down the line, isn't that enough to disprove it?

[Omega]

For example, it could be argued that the universe caused god to exist. Please show me how that could not be.

rumborak

So the universe, which began to exist, caused a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being to come into existence?

[rumborak]

I don't think it leads to impossibilities at all, just not things that are intuitive.
Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash, I truly wonder how you can convincingly say A is the cause of B when it comes to these realms.

rumborak

[Ħ]

I don't think it leads to impossibilities at all, just not things that are intuitive.

An infinite series of past events is not only unintuitive, but it doesn't logically hold up.

[rumborak]

Can you quickly outline how it would lead to that?

rumborak

[Ħ]

Two arguments from wiki:

1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3) An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

1) An actual infinite cannot be completed by successive addition.
2) The temporal series of past events has been completed by successive addition.
3) The temporal series of past events cannot be an actual infinite.

To me, the second argument is stronger, because premise 1 is obvious and premise 2 is a way of saying "We are in the present".

I don't know how the first argument's premise 1 can be proven, but if it can, than the argument should flow smoothly.

[El JoNNo]

So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?

[Ħ]

So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?

1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.

[Omega]

1.) Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, 2.) or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash

rumborak

1.) This is absurd. Postulating that the universe, which came into being and therefore was caused to come into being would then somehow create a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being is just absolutely ludicrous.
2.) This is also logically absurd, for in order for the universe to cause its own existence, the universe must exist. You are left with the conclusion: before the universe came into existence, the universe existed. This, too, is ludicrously and patently absurd. And to think that Dennet actually defends this position in his book Breaking the Spell. You'd expect better from a so-called philosopher.

[El JoNNo]

So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?

1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.

But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.

and with that I'm off to bed.

[Omega]

I don't know how to the first argument's premise 1 can be proven

Making a distinction between actual and potential infinity, Hilbert's Hotel, You Can't Pass Through an Infinite Number of Elements One at a Time, and Counting to or from infinity help re-enforce premise 1.

[Ħ]

So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?

1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.

But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.

If an object is outside time, you cannot make any statements relating it to time (e.g. X is young, X is old). I don't think that has been done in this discussion.

[Sigz]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.

Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.

[El JoNNo]

So an infinite regress is impossible yet an infinite all powerful being is?

1) The nature of God does not affect those two arguments.
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinite God is not an actual infinite.

But I thought the whole point was that this god was infinitely old? Because he is outside time.

If an object is outside time, you cannot make any statements relating it to time (e.g. X is young, X is old). I don't think that has been done in this discussion.

Here's the problem though. This whole putting an intelligent entity at the beginning of the universe when the same can be applied to the area of space that accommodated the Big Bang. I could just say that there was empty space before the Big Bang and it is outside of time and gave rise to the universe. Which would be more likely then an intelligent being with omnipotence.

[rumborak]

1.) Again, I wonder, who's to say the universe didn't cause god, 2.) or its own existence? This isn't some blablah hogwash

rumborak

1.) This is absurd. Postulating that the universe, which came into being and therefore was caused to come into being would then somehow create a timeless, immaterial, omnipotent being is just absolutely ludicrous.
2.) This is also logically absurd, for in order for the universe to cause its own existence, the universe must exist. You are left with the conclusion: before the universe came into existence, the universe existed. This, too, is ludicrously and patently absurd. And to think that Dennet actually defends this position in his book Breaking the Spell. You'd expect better from a so-called philosopher.

Why is God above all your arguments here? I would like to see a good argument why the universe can't do what you so conveniently reserve for god. I mean no offense, but you know jack shit what the universe is. Yet you reserve for your deity capabilities that you apparently don't want anything else to have.

rumborak

[Omega]

This is getting nauseatingly silly, rumborak.

[El JoNNo]

It's a valid question.

[Rathma]

Indeed.

[eric42434224]

Yup

[Omega]

Perhaps tomorrow, although I believe I've already answered that.

Goodnighty 

[rumborak]

[Rathma]

Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism.

Dear Omega,

Nope. Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.

Sincerely,
the Internet

[Ħ]

Atheism is the firm stance "God does not exist". This is both the traditional and correct definition of atheism.

Dear Omega,

Nope. Atheist: A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods.

Sincerely,
the Internet

Those are the same thing.

[Rathma]

Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo. 

[Ħ]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.

Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.

That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.

We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.

[Ħ]

Nah. Me for example - I don't believe in God but neither do I believe in the nonexistence of God. Sort of how a theoretical physicist might not believe in the Higgs boson but doesn't completely deny it either. If I completely denied the existence of God (I believe this is called strong atheism) (and Dawkins seems to come pretty close to this though he'd probably deny it), then yes I'd be on the other side of the spectrum. But mere non-belief is just neutral, imo. 

Then you're an agnostic - you withhold judgment on the issue. You aren't sure of the existence of God.

[Sigz]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.

Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.

That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.

We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.

It's nothing like a brain in vat argument. We can know (as best as one can) things about the way our universe works. At this point, however, we cannot know anything about what's external to that. To take a brain in a vat example, a brain hooked into a computer can learn about the world that's being simulated around it. It can't learn anything about the world it physically inhabits.

I'm not being skeptical, and I'm not questioning everything we know. I'm simply pointing out the limits of our collective experience.

[Ħ]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.

Existence outside the universe is not 'geographic location', it's literally outside everything we've ever known and experienced, and as a species most likely ever will. You have no reason to make any assumptions about it.

That is akin to 'brain in a vat' skepticism. No one can disprove it. And it could be true - there's nothing that's barring it from not being true; if the extrauniverse is above logic, then literally anything is fair game. But if this skeptic approach does anything, it does too much: you must be distrusting of everything, even that which is confined in the universe. How do we know what assumptions are valid in the use of logic? How do we know what 'valid' even means? Furthermore, this extreme skeptic approach discredits itself. It's self-defeating.

We could suggest unprovable hypothetical scenarios for both the inside and the outside of the universe. But these hypotheticals aren't helpful to a person who is actually seeking to believe something, who needs 'arbitrary' foundational beliefs, like the belief in the consistency of logic.

It's nothing like a brain in vat argument. We can know (as best as one can) things about the way our universe works. At this point, however, we cannot know anything about what's external to that. To take a brain in a vat example, a brain hooked into a computer can learn about the world that's being simulated around it. It can't learn anything about the world it physically inhabits.

I'm not being skeptical, and I'm not questioning everything we know. I'm simply pointing out the limits of our collective experience.

Doesn't our experience teach us about abstract truths which aren't dependent on reality? For example, we have the idea of a right triangle and what kind of relationships the sides of the triangle have to each other and so forth. But a true right triangle does not exist in reality.

[Sigz]

The 'abstract truths' of a triangle exist only if the space it inhabits is Euclidean.