@Christoffer
@Devans99

I can't believe how civilised this conversation has been so far. Awesome!!! :up:

So if the arguments for a start of time are excepted, presentism is impossible, implying 'more than only now exists'. That sounds a lot like Eternalism. Some of the physicists believe in Eternalism/Spacetime. Einstein famously believed free will was an illusion. — Devans99

I don't think eternalism excludes free will or morality, but that is only because I believe they are not products of objectivity. I should further explain...the existing human is a paradox insofar as he represents a point where time and eternity intersect. In time, anything is possible, but eternally, it has all been written. Or, maybe it is the reverse, God knows.

Religion is a confusing mess in this area. The omniscient of God requires he knows the future but free will is required in order to send folks to hell. I would not like to be a theologian; very tricky job. — Devans99

Yes, the common theological notions of heaven and hell are very counterproductive. Presentism can account for heaven and hell in a much more real and direct way.

To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. — Christoffer

But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. So, you will not satisfy him by simply saying he is not crazy, you need to become one of them.

So there's no belief to be seen. — Christoffer

Are you saying atheists believe nothing? I find that assumption to be more fantastical than that God can be proven.

My argument is the first cause must be timeless; IE able to see all of time in one go, IE eternalism must apply. That is not really enough to convince people. A start of time also rules out presentism, but again it's quite an abstract argument so I can see why people will not be convinced. — Devans99

Damn right your not going to convince anyone, but is that really the point? Religion is a movement inward, as Kierkegaard says, it is the "passion of the infinite". And by presentism, do you mean immediate existence?

Eternalism is a rational basis for faith, although faith in no way relies on rationality, like belief. That eternalism implies a predetermined and fatalistic existence, means that, from the religios perspective, even if what was going to happen could be known with absolute certainty (which is impossible), it remains that nothing could be done to change what will happen.

But in the deeper sense, faith has already resigned from any concern over the fate of the world. It is focused inwardly... ...

Deism is more science friendly than a theism. It's a believe that there was a first cause who created the universe, but is not actively involved in the universe day to day. The first cause does not have unreasonable attributes (like the 3Os). Knowledge is to be found in science rather than ancient scripture. — Devans99

Thanks. That helps.

Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. — Christoffer

They will never succeed in convincing atheist.

Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutiny knowledge over the other. That's just logic. — Christoffer

The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies.

Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective. — Christoffer

That is completely reasonable. In fact, I would argue that theist agendas have done more to hurt than help their first cause (did you catch that wacky play on words?). But, religion and faith has nothing to do with understanding, and any time it does, it fails.

(I'm a deist). — Devans99

What's the difference between deists and theist?

It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". — Christoffer

They certainly believe in their methodology.

I believe that in recent times, we have moved further away from the truth. — Devans99

Someone said: "the present age has too much knowledge and not enough existence."

Still we must keep on trying. — Devans99

I agree. So let's...

So I think for simple questions, it is possible to 'know the mind of God' — Devans99

Indeed. But not in any way that would serve as proof to an athiest.

Do you believe in miracles?

. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause. — Devans99

The question then, is there a part of me that is eternal and infinite? If affirmative, this would be the only way I could directly relate to the Eternal and Infinite in itself. But how can I directly communicate this immediacy to the atheist, who requires exactly this as the necessary proof of God? Impossible I say.

Faith, as in religion, is a belief is something very specific. Faith in the unknown, or rather a fascination with the unknown is somewhat closer to atheism. — Christoffer

For the non-atheist, faith is more like a specific intention in relation to the uncertainty of the unknowable. Atheism is more of a belief that the knowledge that can be extracted from the unknown is reliable. The difference between faith and belief: faith is a fixed and necessary position; belief is amendable - any alteration in understanding has the potential to change one's belief.

Mexican hat — Devans99

I gotta get me one of these.



This fits nicely into my point about God's unintelligible intellect. We try, with science, to understand how it happens, but we know so little, it is a pathetic ignorance.

Considering fine tuning...how can we possibly understand fine tuning at the level of God? If I was an atheist, I would definitely reject fine tuning as evidence of god. (Add. I can never understand the mechanic, simply by dismantling an engine he designed and built.)

And concerning the arrow of time, what can we possibly know about the archer who fired it, other than looking at the composition and trajectory of the arrow. If I were an atheist, I would definitely reject the arrow of time as evidence of god.

I don't think we have to completely understand intelligence before we can recognise it in other situations — Devans99

But we do if we are going to adequately explain the unintelligible intelligence of God to an athiest.

So you have a ball balanced on top of a sphere; the symmetry breaks when the ball falls to one side. I would have thought that the 'cause' of the symmetry break is the fact that the ball was slightly off centre to start with? If it was perfect; it would never fall to one side? — Devans99

It's not my theory, but I think it adds interest to the topic. I just take these theories at face value, they hold no real importance to me. But if you are compelled to look deeper, I suppose you could decimate it through conceptual analysis.

And I'm not sure how symmetry breaking can create matter. And it does not help if it does because it leads to infinite density. — Devans99

I believe the gyst is that tachyon condensation leads to a vaccuum, and out of the vacuum, the basic component of matter appear out of nowhere. But, do yourself a favor, don't kill yourself analyzing quantum field theory, it is a long and looping thread.

To be an uncaused cause clearly requires an internal driving force / self motivation. That is likely requires some form of intelligence. — Devans99

I hope I'm not treading old ground, but, what about a self-caused first cause?

nothing would logically exist without a first cause. — Devans99

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is exactly that. I'm not saying it is the answer to a cause-less effect, but it should be closely considered.

The question of whether the first cause is intelligent or not: — Devans99

How is it possible to qualify the unqualifiable? Can we really even talk about an ultimate and absolute intelligence, when we barely know barely shit about the pitiful human intelligence?

If you restrict the definition of God to 'creator of the universe' then there is actually plenty of evidence for such a proposition: — Devans99

But there is no absolute evidence to convert the committed atheist. Either the proof is inadequate and demands more (e.g. the cosmological or teleological arguments). Or the proof is indirect and unqualified because it cannot be directly verified (since God, as it were, is akin to a direct relation of subject to subject, and as soon as that relation becomes subject to object, the direct proof is negated).

It is correct for the atheist to reject such proofs. In the first mode of proof, no finite explanation can sufficiently circumspect an infinite reality; and, if the non-atheist respects the smallest extent of God's so-called magnificence, he would refrain from all such trivialities. And in the second mode of proof, the non-atheist is severing his direct relation to God, as subject to subject, by reorienting himself toward the objectivity in which the atheist is confined.

That's the general idea. I'm no scientist, but I understand this is one theory of how matter comes into existence, into existence from nothing.

And given that matter is absolutely determined by time and space, I agree that existence from nothing would imply some type of infinite and eternal reality underlying all material existence. In fact from the perspective of material existence, it is correct to say the infinite and eternal would appear as nothingness.

(I might postulate that matter comes into existence as a result of thought, but I don't want to incite a disgressing topic here).

What about spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum field theory?

That might count as a cause-less effect.

We sceptics are asking for evidence of the territory, and you are telling us that the map exists. We aren't asking about the map. If, say, the map is a map of Atlantis, then we are clearly being reasonable by asking for evidence of the territory. And the concept of God is like a map of Atlantis. — S

The problem is that the territory and map are qualitatively opposed. The moment you draw the map, it negates the territory by focusing all attention to the map as if it were the actual territory.

Athiest are correct in rejecting any evidence of God, in the sense that they are looking for direct evidence, but the only possible evidence that can be provided is indirect. They are wrong in the sense that they are looking for the evidence in the all wrong places.

That, also, doesn't sound very empirical.


FAIL!!!

You are right, what am I doing conversing with qn insignificant twit.

So what you're saying, in summary, is that you're a troll. — whollyrolling

Its highly likely that you are the best philosopher on TPF.

You can experience genetics by observing their behaviour, and then you can have your findings peer reviewed by a number of critical experts who attempt to vilify your results in some way. — whollyrolling

Doesn't sound very empirical.

Then stfu. Your verbal masturbation is obscene.

Please share your brilliant thoughts on how genetics have no place in determining who we become. — whollyrolling

How can you experience genetics? It certainly can't be explained empirically.

You have so many empty words. — whollyrolling

It is evident you have no answer to how empiricism solved the problem of induction. I don't even think you know what that problem entails.

Just read the conversation between Terrapin and I, that should give you some context.

We are not born a blank slate though, obviously. — whollyrolling

Someone has no clue what empiricism is.

↪Merkwurdichliebe

You are humiliating yourself. — whollyrolling

I never skip a chance to humiliate myself, especially if it means ragdolling and flambaying a meaty sap like you.

whollyrolling is rolling into a hole.

I don't think he'll be able to escape.

The same questions aren't being asked within empiricism. — whollyrolling

Ok, then tell me how empiricism solved the problem of induction.

Everything that has been determined about our surroundings has been through empiricism. Please feel free to explain what philosophy has done for humanity apart from its isolation of wealth as the epitome of knowledge. — whollyrolling

But what has been determined? Why are all the same questions still being asked?

Phenomenology is a direct response to the critical errors of empiricism. It identified the biggest error which is failing to introduce movement and transition into logic. It has no concept of mediation, so it is unable synthesize the terms of immediacy. As such it becomes fixed on the dialectic of immediacy and maroons itself in reflection and understanding.

And, philosophy has done nothing for humanity but get it lost in speculation. But philosophy promises nothing, in fact from the beginning, Plato posited the uselessness of philosophy.

Yes, a key point that is often ignored or glossed over by empiricists is that they are basing their positivism regarding the metaphysical provenance of science on nothing more than personal preference for a mechanistic worldview; and if they rightly try to eliminate the latter, they will indeed be left with, as you say, "absolute doubt or solipsism", since there is no way to get from an empirically eliminativist paradigm to the fullness of human experience. — Janus

Excellent point!

The final outcome of empiricism is some possible understanding of things — whollyrolling

Actually, you are wrong. The final outcome of empiricism is absolute doubt or solipsism.

Well, you can tell well enough if there's a consensus by looking at the language (from an objective perspective --utterances, text, etc.) folks are associating with their concepts. — Terrapin Station

Ok. So, we can say: we create unified concepts by indirectly relating to the concepts of others through utterances, text, etc. Given this, it shows that any unified scientific concept is extremely unscientific.

Well, you can't literally have a collective concept. Concepts are inherently individual, personal. — Terrapin Station

Then we will have to conclude: if we have no literal collective concepts, then there is no way to unify a concept, literally, so that it might be studied in some degree of objectivity, e.g. at a physical level. But it might be possible to do so nonliterally...whatever that is.

This was supposed to be about the source of morality, remember? There was never any claim that neurobiology can adequately explain morality. It can definitely provide insightful information on the source of morality, and those who are saying that this isn't adequate are just coming across as complacent. — S

The question we are considering is whether or not neurobiology can adequately explain the source of morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.

The article I linked in a previous post (Intentionality and “free-will” from a neurodevelopmental perspective) claims that neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality because it it is not a unified concept at the physic level.

Complacency? More like diligence.