But even if you take issue with the notion of causality, it would seem you must agree with me that there is the potential of something that can exist without causality.
— Philosophim
Um, no. Aristotle somewhere makes the point that with either-or is also neither-nor. Recognizing that cause-and-effect is my invention (so to speak), mighty useful and dependable, I still ought to remember it's mine and not the world's itself. — tim wood

To clarify what I meant, if you do not believe that cause and effect is real, then you believe there can exist things that are uncaused. The only options to us are that causality exists, or causality does not exist right? Its either true, or false unless you believe there is something in between. If there is something in between, what do you suppose it is? Or is it an assertion that we are ignorant to it, and can never figure it out.

If causality as a model fits the world, then causality is something within the world. You do not believe that causality as a model fits the world, which is fine. But if that is the case, then by necessity, that means that the world exists without causality, and thus we can examine what a world would necessarily be if causality does not fit the world. If this thinking is wrong, can you explain why you think it is?

Everything so many yards, feet, and inches, while at the same time nothing is. — tim wood

While this is poetic, I do not believe this conveys a logical breakdown. Everything that has length can be measured in yards, feet and inches. We do not have to use the man made measurements of yard, feet, and inches, but if we do, they are very real measurements that give us logical conclusions about reality that can give accurate predictions and results. Measurement is an invention of humanity, but its application to reality is concurrent with, and not contradicted by reality either. Thus it is within the world, and not merely an imaginary whim of humanity.

Otherwise are we to say that measuring in yards, feet, and inches is wrong, and does not accurately reflect reality? If so, then there are questions and consequences with this. If you do not believe that causality reflects reality, then there are of course questions, and at least one consequence that there must be reality that exists without causality. I look forward to hearing your take!

To Tim's list I would also add

d. Things can exist without a prior cause — EricH

Hello EricH, thanks for contributing! Quantum fluctuations alone do not presuppose or prove an existence without a prior cause. Would you like to point out why you think we do?

You pre-suppose cause. I don't. Make me. That is, I do not grant #1 — tim wood

Ha ha! I can't make anyone agree to anything. But we can discuss and you can come to your own conclusions. Now that we're on the same page, let me address an earlier point you made.

The view I invite you to share is of something like William James's "blooming, buzzing confusion" - the world as. In such a view cause is manifestly one of many different kinds of templates we in our reason overlay the world with, to create our own sense of it - which makes it not any part of the world primordially. Perhaps most critically expressed, cause is a necessary part of a model, but not part of reality. Whatever depends on cause, then, is in at least that respect, not in reality. — tim wood

Here we are entering into Epistemology, and perhaps more specifically, how language represents the world. While this could explode into its own topic, I'm going to try to focus it for our purposes. In short, people can invent any language, words, or concepts they want. These can apply to reality, or they can be what we call "imaginary". Words and concepts that apply to reality and are not contradicted by reality, are considered viable concepts that apply to reality. This is science in a nutshell. While it is impossible to prove that the conceptual overlay is 100% absolutely true, it is the only reasonable conclusion as to what is true that can be drawn from the information at hand.

I have explained causality as essentially a state model of existential history. To break it down into its simple claims: There is history. We can evaluate and divide that history through our concepts of time. We are able to evaluate existence before a point in history, and at a point in history. Causality is the notion that a historical prior point leads to another later point on the timeline. From this we normally construct rules and reasons in the hopes such similar events are able to occur again, and thus we gain a greater control over nature. Physics for example. Without an understanding of physics, we would not be able to type the words on this electronic format that is zipped over elections on the internet.

But let us go even simpler. Causality is the idea that there must be a prior state that causes a current state to be. And that if that prior state did not occur, then the current state of a thing could not be. But perhaps it IS possible that a current state of a thing, does not require the existence of a prior state. Like you say, perhaps causality is not fundamentally necessary. In this case, I use the language, "First cause". Of course, I am assuming that this first cause will cause other things to happen. But what is interesting, is even if I remove the idea that this "first cause" will cause other things to occur, there is still the notion of something "uncaused".

So Tim Wood, I actually agree with you that causality is not fundamentally necessary in existence. Of course, I do not deny that causality also exists, as I see it as something that cannot be disproven. But even if you take issue with the notion of causality, it would seem you must agree with me that there is the potential of something that can exist without causality. And if that is the case, then you agree with my claim that an "uncaused" thing can exist. And if an "uncaused" thing can exist, then we can think about what would logically result from this.

And so point 4 remains unchallenged. If it is the case that there is no causality, no fundamental requirement that something exist prior to a current historical state, then there is no reason why a current state should exist in the way it does, besides the fact of its present existence. Are you in agreement so far, or are there issues you would like to address at this point?

Yours is a theology. — tim wood

Tim wood, I am not a theologist. Have you read the OP? I get the feeling you are coming to this thread with assumptions and letting it color your outlook. I say this because you do not seem to be addressing the points made. This is why I am reluctant to repost things already written in the OP. It seems you are taking point 4 out of context, when it was intended as a reminder within the context of the argument. Please read points 1 through 6 and point out where the flaw is in the points themselves, otherwise I feel we will both be on different ideas, and inadvertently be discussing straw men.

No, emotions are not all that matters, or make life worth living. When you are a child, emotions are the only way you assess the world. But as you grow older, you start to find rational links that many times defy your emotions. You learn to make decisions despite your emotions when you can clearly tell it is a better idea.

How do I know this? Well, I have suffered from depression for much of my life. Not "sadness", but there are times when I feel...nothing. I gain no pleasure from activities I normally enjoy. I feel no empathy or care for anything in the world. So how do I function? By rational choice. Sure, I may not feel like I enjoy my work that day, but I do it because I know I need my employer to see I am stable so that I can make money. Yes, I could sit on my couch and zone out for hours without a care in the world. But I rationally know that's not good. So I get up and I do "something".

When your life is run by emotions, then you are a slave to them. You are an animal that merely exists for the chemical whims of your pleasure and pain centers of the brain. But you can be more than that as a human being. You can think long term. You can make actions despite your body feeling nothing, or even screaming not to do it. When you feel nothing, you have to come to a conclusion on your own why your life is worth living. I have. It is worth living, simply to be. Even if one day I lost all emotion, and it never came back, I would still choose to live. I would still choose morals, and try to live a good path. Not because of feelings, but because I know what is right, and that my life is worth living.

Let's try this way. Let's assume you have as claimed logically proven the universe must have had a first cause. Right away the "logical" leaps out: why exactly is it there? — tim wood

Certainly. If you have not read the original OP, it will be necessary at this point. I don't want to re-paste the whole thing. =)

4. The logic of a first cause entails that there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist. In other words, you cannot claim "Its not possible for X to exist." To say there existed such a rule would entail "X exists because of Y". But there is no Y when X is a first cause. This can mean a first cause could be anything without limitation. X as a prime cause does not follow any rules besides the fact of its own existence. — Philosophim

But more simply, given it's logically proven, how do you get from there to any assertion that it applies to the universe? — tim wood

It is easiest to re-read points 1-6 again.

The relevance of relativity is not towards the relativity of duration, but towards the relativity of simultaneity. — SophistiCat

Yes, this is what I explained. But the fact of having relative observers does not negate that fact that you can assess time by one observer. Again, I can analyze all of time by Earth time if I wish. I just have to translate it into different observers time if that is important in my analysis. When examining the universe from now to its "beginning", we can easily set the relative time to Earth time, and evaluate the complete universe using that alone. Again, if the relative view point changes, we just math it up to continue to be in Earth time. So again, the state assessment I've noted fits in fine with relativity.

Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?
— Philosophim

Some other time perhaps. — SophistiCat

Well, that's ultimately the point of the puzzle. If you don't want to engage anymore, no worry.

Do you believe this to be an assessment of reality? — Philosophim

Is reason proven to be binding on all of reality? We can't even define what we mean by "all of reality". One universe, a trillion universes? We have no idea. — Hippyhead

Cool. So you believe this is reality. How did you conclude this?

Yes, we can. They key is their spatial occupation. Both of the balls are defined as individuals relative to the other by position. "This ball is not that ball over there". The only time we cannot create an identity between two balls is if we say the two balls occupy the exact same physical space as well. At that point, we could not identify a "second ball", and we would identify only one ball.

Now, can we make an identity of the balls like, "That is ball 1, and that is ball 2"? That requires a human in this case, as this would be in relation to our viewpoint and preference as to which ball was which. We could say, "Ball 1 is the ball to my left, and ball 2 is the ball to my right". If we watched and the balls shifted position, we could continue to identify them. Of course, as location and our ability to identify them by their location in relation to us is the only way we could identify them specifically, we would have to constantly track them to be consistent in our identity. If we looked away and the balls moved, we would have no way of knowing which one was our original ball 1 and 2 at that point.

Here we are again. The requirement for evidence is a rule of reason, a system of thought invented by a single semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. Reason is not a god proven to have binding authority over all of reality, but instead a tool proven to be useful in a limited context. — Hippyhead

Do you believe this to be an assessment of reality?

You would have to assume an absolute time for that, that is, something like a Newtonian universe. In a relativistic universe there is no fact of the matter about how the space-time is to be sliced along the time dimension (the technical term for this is foliation). — SophistiCat

I think you misunderstand. I was using a Newtonian model as the relativistic state. A "second" is an agreed upon unit of existent change. We can apply a "second" in any relativistic model, by taking an outside relativistic stance. For example, a second in Earth time is the same as a second within a black hole, but only differs in comparison to the other. We can invent a third timeframe in which we compare the two time frames and state, this is a second when evaluating the time that passes in comparing the two. This is why we can say a second in Black hole time would be 500 years of Earth time. In comparing the two, we can create a consistent model. Time can be put into units in either case, from an outside perspective.

In other words, the use of the word "second" is simply to convey, "Unit of time that a person wishes to place on the situation". The specifics of that second, whether it is black hole time or Earth time, are irrelevant. If one creates a time frame of a universe's existence, how the parse that up is fine as long as it is consistent. Thus we can take the frame of an entire universes causality, and create a model of division of time within that frame.

I only mention this, as relativity does not negate what I am saying about states. In fact, relativity is essential to my claim about states. Make the unit of time within whatever relative time frame you want. That doesn't negate the point. Regardless, lets not over complicate the issue and make this about relativity.

You are conflating reasons with causes — SophistiCat

Reasons are explanations as to why things happen a certain way. Reasons are determined by causes, causes do not come from reasons. We understand the reason why water freezes, after observing the cause of water freezing. A cause is the reason played out in history. The reason water freezes is the heat of the water molecules reach 0 degress celcius. If water than freezes, the cause is the actual fact of the water's temperature becoming 0 degrees celcius. A cause is an actualized reason, but a reason does not specify any particular cause. But a reason and a cause are tied together. One way to think of reason and cause, is like the abstract of a house cat, versus an actual house cat named Cloey.

Thus:

If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did. — Philosophim

Without any causality, or history of a things existence, then the reason for a things existence cannot be formed on a non-existent history. The reason for a causeless thing, is only the evidence of its existence, and nothing prior.

To the extent that this makes any sense, this was a very convoluted path to an uncontroversial conclusion: in a causal model with an initial state, the initial state is the cause of all subsequent states, and there is no cause for the initial state. — SophistiCat

Great! if we are in agreement on this point, then what do you think about my conclusion using the premises of the OP, that it is logically necessary that the universe's origin must have a first cause?

The "problem" then - quotes because it really isn't a problem - is to find "cause" primordially. And at best I can't. — tim wood

Not a problem. This puzzle however is within the causality model of reality. Knowing if causality is a truth of existence, or merely the posit of a human model, is a question of epistemology. That is too deep to go into here. So, I do understand where you are coming from, but to discuss the puzzle, one must at least entertain the idea that causality is a truth of reality that would exist even if human brains did not exist. No offense taken if this is something you are not willing to entertain.

Yes, some people hide behind specialized language and wordiness to appear like they know what they are talking about. But to also be fair, sometimes a person is working through the idea, and have not reached the mastery level of being able to convey an idea that is simple, clear, and concise. And then there are the instances in which a person is so learned in a particular specialized topic, that for those who understand the topic, the use of those words conveys the idea that is simple, clear, and concise.

Do not be intimidated by unfamiliar words or phrasing. Feel free to ask people to detail confusing or unclear parts of their post. An honest person who is genuinely interested in discussion and conveying their idea to you, will gladly attempt to do so. Someone who becomes offended or resists, is likely a pretender and not worth your time.

Why would someone need to demonstrate anything about reality if they are making a baseless claim? — ToothyMaw

The reason why it is a baseless claim is because it has no base in reality. You can always ask a person, theist or not, to back their claim about reality, with reality.

we were not disputing whether or not religious people's claims actually represent physical reality; what is relevant is that they aim to represent reality and fail to do so due to problems inherent to the language used, which is, once again, where Wittgenstein comes in. — ToothyMaw

The problem of the language, is that the language is making a claim about reality, without evidence to reality. I am specifying what the specific problem of the language being used is: It intends to convey reality without any evidence of it. I don't believe we are in disagreement here.

Microbes, atoms, quantum waves and distant galaxies didn't exist because we couldn't show them to be actual and necessary. — Hippyhead

Until we could show these things existed, we did not know they existed. A person could get lucky and imagine something that is true in reality. But to show that it is true in reality, there must be a demonstration of it. As of now, we know these things to be real with evidence.

However I do think the answer to the “hard problem” proper is trivial, and all the actual hard work is in answering the “easy problem”. And that the substantive question of why we have the specific kind of first-person experience that we have, rather than the trivial question of why we have any first-person experience at all, is bound up in the “easy problem” as well, because experience and behavior are inseparably linked. — Pfhorrest

Just had to agree with Pfhorrest on this one.

Here is the thing about language. We can invent whatever terms and ideas we want. But if we are going to claim these terms represent reality, we must show their actual or necessary existence in reality. There is nothing outside of space and time, because we cannot show it to be actual or necessary. Therefore a "transcendental being" is imaginary language, not language that describes reality.

So unfortunately, theists who describe God this way are describing an imaginary God, not a real God.

Tim Wood, thanks again for a good analysis. It makes me happy to see people seriously thinking about the issue. Your main issue is with the idea of cause, and first cause. Fantastic. I have not had a good discussion on this. SophistiCat, I hope my analysis below will always clarify what I mean, so feel free to contribute your own thoughts on this.

Let us think of slices of time as "states". At its most simple, we would have a snapshot. But we could also have states that are seconds, hours, days, years, etc. We determine the scale. Within a state, we analyze the existence that has occurred. Causality is the actual prior state, not potential prior state, that existed which actually lead to the current state we are evaluating.

If a state is of a larger scale than a snapshot, then we can subdivide this state. So let us say that I have a state that is two seconds long. I subdivide it into seconds. The first second is the cause of the second. It is not that the second "second" could have have existed without the full first second of time. We might state that in reality, only the last millisecond of existence within the first second, was needed to get the second second of existence. We then might say there were potential states of existence prior to that millisecond, that could have lead to that millisecond, that then lead to that second second.

But in the end, potential is not actual. The actual is what actually happened prior to that millisecond. Despite our idea that we only needed the last millisecond of the first second to have the existence of the second second come into being, the full actual chain of causality in milliseconds is the full first second.

So then what is a first cause? A first cause is when we reach on our scaled state, a state which has no actual prior state. If our scale is in seconds, there is no prior second. If a snapshot, there is no prior snapshot. We can imagine there are prior states. We can float possibilities. But as an actual existence, there is no prior state.

If there is no prior state, then there is no reason for the first state that is, to have existed. For the reason of a current state, is explained by the actual prior state. All we can say as to why a first state existed, is that it did.

So what I do here in determining the logical necessity of a first cause, is examine the entire state of the universe. We know what a finite state universe looks like now, but what about an infinitely regressive stated universe? At this point we are not positing actuals, but potentials. We are trying to see if a first cause is a potential, a contradiction, or a necessity.

When examining the potential of an infinitely regressive universe, if we subdivide it into its finite parts, there of course is no end. Just like I can divide seconds into milliseconds and so on, so can we divide the infinite into whatever scale we want. But we can also do the reverse. Just like I can make a snapshot as the state, I can make the state the sum total of the time of the universe's existence. I can look at the two second universe in the scale of "A universe", That is universe A. I can look at the infinitely regressive state universe and make the scale of "A universe", and call it universe B.

Once this is done I can ask a question. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe A? No. So there is no causality for its existence. I ask the same question about universe B. Is there an actual prior state that happened which caused universe B? No. So there is no causality for its existence. The only thing I can logically conclude from the above premises, is that there is no cause for the existence of any potential universe. Whatever universe exists, exists without prior explanation.

Lets examine this thought process before I move on. Does this clarify my position? Any holes, any questions? It is nice to dive deep like this.

No, I am afraid you've lost the thread. — SophistiCat

You'll have to explain where your confusion is a little more carefully. I responded clarifying this.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. — Philosophim

Do you understand that by "necessity", I mean actual, and not potential state? For example, for myself to exist now, I had to exist in the the state prior to now, because that state prior to now existed. We are not talking about possibilities, but actuals in this case. For example, I could have 3 possibilities that could cause X to occur, but when X occurs, then one of those causal possibilities is an actuality, and no longer a possible potential.

Does that clarify? And if you're still confused, try to point out in the explanation where I've lost you.

Perhaps you should read the points of the OP Tim Wood. A first cause does not necessarily need to be anything, as it is a first cause. First I demonstrate why it is logically necessary that there must exist a first cause. But, this first cause does not have to be a God, I only introduce that after the fact. In looking to my conclusions that there must be a first cause within the line of causality, do you see an error? After that, check out how I define the philosophical God. Is there a problem with that? This is one issue in which the OP itself must be taken into consideration, and not other people's responses.

It appears - I could be wrong and I have not read the whole thread - that there is confusion between and about man-made deities and actual deities. — tim wood

I think that is people placing their own outlooks into the argument, which sometimes happens in these discussions. This is a new take on the cosmological argument, which uses a philosophical God, and one that I have defined very specifically in the points. Your posts are always appreciated Tim Wood!

What I'm attempting to do here is called philosophy. — Hippyhead

No Hippy, what you're attempting to do is a one-sided point of your own ego which has devolved into trolling. I have tried discussing with you at length, but am now done. If you continue to post in this thread, I will report you for trolling. The mods have plenty of our posts to look through here.

Yes. It seems to me that the morality and purpose given to a believer and the morality and purpose that has to be determined by an atheist are the same. — Brett

I assume your idea of purpose and morality is essentially what a Christian God is all about. — Brett

No, it sounds like you've never been part of a religion before. I do not believe I have to keep holy on the sabbath day. I do not believe in condemning people who are gay. I do not believe in spreading the gospel of Jesus. I do not believe the Israelites are God's chosen. I do not believe that there is life after death.

There are also far more religions than Christianity. If I were a Muslim, I would not need to keep the pillars anymore. I would not need to visit Mecah. I would not believe that Mahamud is the prophet.

Remember how I stated religion tells you what morality is, while atheism means you have to determine it yourself? There are many conclusions that are drawn differently. I even noted that some atheists conclude there is no morality, and believe there is no purpose in life.

Does this clarify the difference?

Just thought you might want to be reminded of this one more time. — Hippyhead

I'm surprised to see you back Hippy. The only thing I'm reminded of is that you were soundly and utterly refuted when you could not answer the points I gave you. =) A good memory for sure on my end. But unless you have anything substantial to add to the forum, I'm going to spend my time chatting with people who are willing to have a good discussion.

Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense? — Philosophim

No, this won't work. Suppose A was caused by B, but it could alternatively have been caused by C. Neither B nor C are necessary for A to occur. — SophistiCat

Let me clarify for you, as I worried people will interpret it that way. I did not mean to imply potential prior states by "necessary". I mean actual prior states. Sure, A could be caused by B or C potentially. But in this case, A is caused by B. Therefore B is necessarily the prior cause of the A. Perhaps a better set of terms would be B is the actual cause of the actual A?

Thus for a first cause, there is no actual prior causality involved for its actual existence. Does this make sense?

I frankly find topics like causality to be more fun puzzles. — SophistiCat

Well, the entire thing is a puzzle of causality, so keep at it!

Well here I partly beg off. — Antony Nickles

All good, I give you full credit for attempting it! This is actually a classic twist on the cosmological argument for God. Its essentially a logic problem that tries to answer the question, "Is a God necessary or possible?"

If we are not considering "chains of multiple first causes" (moral chains, chains of actions, of identity, etc.) other than the creation of the "universe", then I'm not sure I can help. — Antony Nickles

I think you still can. The point of the puzzle is this is something original. No one has been trained in it. Its a challenge to tackle that just requires some logical thinking. And no, its not easy. It is no reflection on your capability whether you can, or cannot solve it. It is merely for fun to get you thinking. I will reveal the solution any time you feel like you're finished.

"If the "universe" is just the first thing created, than the question thins out so much as to not hold anything; if you mean the universe to include everything without exception (the "universe" of possible/inevitable things), then everything is caused initially together."

I'll requote where I introduce what a universe is.

8. What is a specific universe? It is a universe down to its exact positioning of the smallest molecule. Any deviation in particulates makes it a different universe. For our purposes, let us imagine that the prime cause in our universe is the big bang. — Philosophim

So a good eye on the fact that this does not clarify your concern. That is an excellent criticism. To clarify, no, the universe is not order of things created, it is the sum total of its causal parts. The prime cause of a universe is a first cause. But earlier we noted that there is nothing to prevent more than one first cause. So a universe could have started with two or more first causes. Or a universe could have began, and then first causes happened within that universe with no initial connective causality to anything within the first causal chain.

Even so, the entirety of those chains together would be the "universe". This does force me to tweak my claim I made earlier though. Instead of a universe being formed infinite to one by a God, its more like a first cause is formed with the infinite to one probability of being a God.

So, read over again my logic in how I conclude the infinite to one numbers. Instead of there being a certain power and knowledge requirement to create a specific universe, lets call it a power and knowledge requirement to make a specific causal chain from a first cause. This is a new avenue for me, and could be quite confusing. So if you are willing to explore this, feel free. If not, just request the original answer from me, and I'll gladly give it.

You're on the right train of thought with the first paragraph. You're overthinking it with the second paragraph. This is a philosophical God very strictly defined as "Having the knowledge and power requirements to create a specific universe". There is no mention of anything else. So dismiss all else. Morality? Not important. Immortality? Not important. Old man with beard or Spaghetti Monster? Unimportant. =)

Everything you need to consider to solve the issue is within the strictly defined definitions and words. Anything outside of these terms is irrelevant. So that being the case, consider how I conclude the probability of a God being a first cause is infinite to one. Does having multiple possible first causes negate my reasoning for claiming this?

↪Philosophim

Proof of another creature's belief?

:brow:

What would count as proof of that for you? — creativesoul

What you must prove is that another creatures belief cannot be put into a statement. One way to prove this is to attempt to genuinely put it into a statement, then show how that forms a contradiction.

You have to give an example CreativeSoul. What belief cannot be put into a statement? Its like saying, "There is an undetectable unicorn". You must give proof of its existence. If you can't, then we're not talking about anything real.

Here, have we thought about the possibility that both are the case? — Antony Nickles

Yes. There can be multiple first causes. But what is necessarily concluded is that all causality reduces down to a first cause. There may be separate causality chains that reduce down to separate first causes. This may be a step in countering the conclusion I made, but it alone is not enough to counter the conclusion I made. Can you flesh it out and show why this counters the claim?

If you are going to question the idea of causality, a definition here should clear up what is intended.
Causality - a necessary prior state in time for the existence of the current state in time. If there is no necessary prior state that entails the current state, then the current state is a "first cause" without any prior causality. Does that make sense?

Hi TVCL, sorry for the late response on this. Your philosophy is your own. If you wish to take it down that route, that is your choice. Just know that the criticism I gave of knowing truth will come back again and again, especially if you wish to make this better than a layman's theory. I am not saying you are wrong to conclude as you are, just spend a lot of time thinking on how best to answer these criticisms from people who are serious about epistemology. If you cannot give an adequate answer to their criticisms, it will cause a fatal hole in your theory.

And yes, I understand about the writing! I've been there myself, I'm glad my points helped. Keep at it, there's a lot of promise here!

I am going to be back on these boards a lot more this week, even with Christmas. I look forward to your details on choosing models!

So going back to my question, what exactly is it that atheists have chosen over being a believer? It seems to me the “truths” they believe in are the same as the believers. — Brett

I believe I attempted to answer that question, but to sum it up succinctly, believers are under the impression that there is a greater power. Atheists don't believe there is a greater power. Morality and purpose is given to a believer, while morality and purpose have to be determined by an atheist. Is there something else beyond this you are curious about?

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God?
— Philosophim

Yes. — Brett

A fantastic question then. Some atheists don't understand why people stay religious, even though "rationality" reveals the lack of evidence for the truth of the religious tenants. I do not view people who hold religion as lacking rationality, as many are good people who want to hold onto morals and a purpose in life. Good people will often hold onto morals and purpose in life, even if there are some underlying rational questions they have not answered.

And on the flip side, I hope you don't view atheists as "rational" but bad people who reject purpose and morality. The reason I started philosophy many years ago was to answer the questions of God, knowledge, and morality. Why are we here? What's it all for?

My conclusion after all these years is that we are a part of the existence all around us. Instead of a void, there are things. Life and non life are all jumbled together into this beautiful set of physical and chemical interactions that make something, over there being nothing.

We are parts of existence that have gained the gift or curse of realizing what we are. Of getting to see reality in a way beyond ourselves. Of being able to imagine a reality of what the world can be, and shape it. In this journey, you either come to appreciate it and love it, or resent it and reject it. The path to heaven or hell. Some people resent other existence. Try to tear it down if its beautiful. Some resent themselves. Some hate it all. They have seen the world, they see it as an abyss, and wish all of it would end.

Others, like myself, see the beauty of it all. We are amazed by the complexity. We love seeing other people live out their passions and dreams. We love the struggle of being able to live out our own passions and dreams. We go along our way, understanding we're all in this existence together, working, laughing, dreaming, and one day dying. So we make the best of the time we have. We help others have an easier and happier day. We do pursue our own dreams, but we try to elevate others along the way, not crush them.

When there is a God, you realize you have a choice. But your purpose is made for you, and you are set to follow that, or reject that. When there is no God, you realize you have a choice. But you make your own purpose. You are truly free, and you realize the ramifications of what you do are immediate, and not in the future. If I make fun of of a person I don't like so that they feel hurt, there will be no consequence in the afterlife. No reward or punishment. I will have to live with the fact I made another human being like me suffer for my own selfishness. Do I want to live like that? No.

The consequences of life become clear. There is no reward or punishment waiting on the other side. But was that why you wanted to be a moral person originally? Or did you want to be a moral person because it was right? That it made the world a better place? So instead of paving the way for the afterlife, you pave the way for today and tomorrow. Suffering needs to be ended now, as there may not be a later. There is no God who will come along and save people, so you need to do it yourself. It puts moral decisions in very real and stark terms. You understand there is a time limit, so you get things done.

Can a religious person arrive at these conclusions and do these things too? Yes. Some people cannot live in a positive way without the idea of a God or afterlife existing. They need a structure, and people telling them what to do. There is no shame in this, as we are a social race that also craves unity, family, and belongingness. Some people live their life better with atheism, but I also believe some people live their life better with religion.

So in the end, if you do not have the existence of another being dictating your purpose, then you dictate your own purpose. You obtain pure freedom, and the responsibility that goes along with that freedom. I hope that answers your question.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett

This is an oddly worded sentence. There is the assumption of replacement. So I am going to make a few assumptions here. Usually belief in God entails

1. Purpose and
2. Morality

Are you asking what atheists replace those two things with if they don't believe in a God? Or is there something different you would like to add?

— Philosophim

Well Antony, the original conclusion is infinite to one. And of course, its wrong. =) I haven't visited this in a while, and its interesting to see some of the replies. Most aren't actually examining the puzzle, but that's fine. The puzzle is difficult and that is not easily digested on a forum.

One way to look at it is to remove science and religion labels entirely, and focus at the methods of ascertaining knowledge instead. At its most simple, there is deduction, and induction. What methods do science and religion use to come to their conclusions? How useful and accurate are their methods?

If you're truly interested in uncovering knowledge, epistemology might answer your questions.

I hear ya Mayael. Feel free to post it here again if you would like. I'll keep an eye out for it and promise to give you the good kind of response.

"Perception starts with physical objects; something is physical if it can be perceived." Nothing has been said, and nothing has been elucidated. Rather, reality has been made dependent on observation, which actually smacks of idealism. — unenlightened

No, I'm trying to point out that perception cannot occur without there being a collision of two mediums. Its not an ideal, its simply a fact. You cannot use perception to contradict physicalism, as perception is a physical process. It is a result of physicalism, and not the cause of physicalism. Reality is not dependent upon observation, observation is dependent on reality. And reality, is what is physical.

If you are to counter physicalism, it will have to be something which does not allow the collision of two mediums. And if something can exist that cannot collide with another medium, then it is also beyond perception. An example would be, "nothing". "Nothing" cannot be perceived, only inferred.

Thus we can say reality is composed of the physical, and the nothing. Perhaps there is something else. But you can't use perception, which is a result of a tenant of physicalism called "collision", to contradict physicalism.

Perhaps we should clarify what being perceivable means. All perception starts with contact between two physical objects. We see because light bounces off other objects. We hear words through the physical contact of sound.

So what is physical is perceivable, because perception is a process of contact between two physical objects. That's not circular, that's just a description of a physical process.

Life is about survival. And there are many means to survive. Competition is about winning, not matter the cost. That is not necessarily survival. Sometimes cooperation leads to a better outcome for survival. Sometimes it does not.

Of course, we have an incredible gift, the human brain. We can decide that survival isn't the most important thing in our lives. It is our choice.