Two questions:I believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation. — Andrew4Handel
You tell me your definition of "God" and I will derive from that definition "what counts as evidence for your God".But what counts as evidence for God?
That is where atheism teams up with evolution and the big bang to claim there is no longer any role for God in reality which I view as faulty and more of a faith position. — Andrew4Handel
1. Why do you "believe the existence of reality asks for an explanation"? — 180 Proof
2. Does this "explanation" beg the question (i.e. also requires its own explanation)? — 180 Proof
Quantum indeterminancy is "all around" every thing (i.e. QFT, quantum fluctuations). This is known with about nine decimal places of precision. Also, causality as such is not an explanation (i.e. what's the cause/s of causality? Oops! :yikes:).Because all around me things have causes. — Andrew4Handel
... which does not explain anything. :eyes:We may find an infinite regress of reasons ...
that is where I learnt atheist were attacking things like conscious states, meaning and values in order to shore up atheism and pushing for determinism. — Andrew4Handel
Because all around me things have causes. Cause and effect works and things don't pop into existence for no reason. — Andrew4Handel
...accept their own moral values on flimsy grounds... — Andrew4Handel
Consider: if "God" is conceived of as "uncaused" or "self-caused", why can't we conceive of what you call "the existence of reality" as uncaused or self-caused but without the non-evident middle man-"Creator" (as per Occam's Razor) instead? :chin: — 180 Proof
You can't really shore up atheism. Scientism maybe. — Tom Storm
You're incorrigibly talking in circles, Andrew. :roll:I personally don't think a god will appear as an explanation. But what a god stands for in an explanation ... — Andrew4Handel
Cause takes place within the world. There's no demand that the world as a whole be caused. — Banno
The quesrion of an 'ultimate explanation', especially in religious terms, is simply incoherent.You can't explain a mystery (existence or consciousness) with another mystery (god/s). God/s have no explanatory power. — Tom Storm
...accept their own moral values on flimsy grounds...
— Andrew4Handel
What grounds are they, then, that are shared by all atheists? That's a pretty shallow accusation. — Banno
Initially most atheists I have spoken to have accepted morality on no grounds whatsoever. — Andrew4Handel
Atheism would be a less compelling stance without evolutionary theory because how would people explain the existence of billions of plants and animals etc? — Andrew4Handel
Initially most atheists I have spoken to have accepted morality on no grounds whatsoever.
They just believe in moral entities and moral facts. They don't even feel they have to defend where there moral values came from. — Andrew4Handel
See Russell's "On the notion of causes".If there is a breakdown of casualty that undermines everything including reason and laws. — Andrew4Handel
Causal eliminativists argue that there is no metaphysical account of causation compatible with physics or compatible with the completeness of physics and, hence, that causal notions should, as Bertrand Russell (1912) urged, be expunged from the philosophical vocabulary. — Causation in Physics (SEP)
Russell suggested the counterexample: each person around me has a mother, therefore the human race as a whole has a mother. — Banno
Cause takes place within the world. There's no demand that the world as a whole be caused. it might, but it might not. — Banno
God is supposed to rid us of this by being uncaused. That's blatant question begging. — Banno
There may well be a lot of piss-poor atheists out there. — Tom Storm
Would you class Christopher Hitchens as one of these because he appeared to take this stance — Andrew4Handel
↪Andrew4Handel So nature itself isn't grounds enough for natural beings to conceive of and practice morality (i.e. eusocial cooperation strategies). Why? — 180 Proof
Scientifically-literate dis/believers abductively look for testable explanations within nature.So either atheists are not looking for an explanation for existence. — Andrew4Handel
Do we not all have an ancestral mother/female in common? — Andrew4Handel
They have a rational common sense notions of causality, where they use reasonable assumptions and not wild extrapolations to negotiate the environment successfully . So Russell appears to be (as was his style) straw manning the general publics reasoning ability. — Andrew4Handel
I quite agree, but that doesn;t seem to count in favour of your account. If you insist that every event has a cause, then you might at least allow that the cause be identified. Now you say they could be anywhere.It is not clear where causes take place. — Andrew4Handel
It is? So now you side with Bishop Berkeley. You'll find precious few who concur with such idealism.The world is a human perception — Andrew4Handel
So there are no causes unperceived? Again, your idealism will not sit well....and causation is a human perception. — Andrew4Handel
How does that work? Presumably the events one wishes to explain are in the world... that one billiard ball hits another, causing it to move, does seem to be dependent on there being billiard balls. Our idea of causation appears very much to be dependent on there being a world in which there are events and their consequences.Our model of causation is not dependent on there being a world. — Andrew4Handel
He addresses the issues you raise about morality reasonably but without distinction. — Tom Storm
What is the supposed argument here? That because we "negotiate the environment successfully", everything must have a cause? How is that supposed to work? — Banno
The way I defined morality in the post you quoted from will do for the sake of this discussion. Why do you believe, Andrew, that nature doesn't ground a definition of morality like mine that has no need of 'supernatural support'?It depends on how you are defining morality. What does morality mean and where did you learn the notion from? — Andrew4Handel
The only relevance of gods here is that they are attempts at explanations and to some extent causal explanations. — Andrew4Handel
I grew up in a Plymouth brethren church — Andrew4Handel
think he helped set the tone of the debate with this type of comment:
“I challenge you to find one good or noble thing which cannot be accomplished without religion.”
This is an example of him taking for granted that there are good and noble things which the moral nihilist is challenging.
It helped other atheists assert you can be moral without God without arguments. When the question really is does morality itself make any sense without God. — Andrew4Handel
If you insist that every event has a cause, then you might at least allow that the cause be identified. — Banno
The world is a human perception
— Andrew4Handel
It is? So now you side with Bishop Berkeley. You'll find precious few who concur with such idealism — Banno
Our model of causation is not dependent on there being a world.
— Andrew4Handel
How does that work? — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.