I agree it's immaterial if the science and the maths break down at the singularity. But you can't just stop at the singularity and say things like there is no before, or prior state for example.

Well, actually, yes you can. Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory, "before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense, word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).

needless to say, I'm not holding my breath

Well, actually, yes you can.

No you can't because we have an example of something that exists and can be discussed, the universe which originated in the Big Bang. If we can talk about that one, then we can talk about other ones, or other types of them, or something else. Certainly something which is evidenced in this universe and might be present in another.

Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory

What breaks down is the maths and physics, not philosophical questions about origins, or other things.

The word of interest here is "meaningful", philosophically we can consider things which science can't, because science is only concerned with hard evidence. Philosophy can recognise the role of meaning in understanding ideas and speculate on realities which may only be indicated by evidence.

"before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense,

As I said, it's only nonsense when one is referring to some event of the contents, or products of the Big Bang as prior to the event itself. Something which is self evident and I agree with (well except for a notional undefined substance, or state, which did the exploding).

Now there might be another Big Bang with a different signature or universe and nature. Tell me I'm wrong to say that?

word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).

Talk about word salad.
Anyway, just because we don't have a scientifically rigorous understanding of the processes involved in the Big Bang, doesn't mean that we can't refer to one, or its contents.

For example I suggest that just like there are large numbers of atoms in our world, there may be large numbers of Big Bang events, in formations, as there are formations of atoms in our world. What's wrong with that?

Enai De A Lukal
175
↪Frank Apisa
If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.

I asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I'll ask again. What is your evidence/arguments for the following assertions-

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions? — Enai De A Lukal

Easiest assertion to show as wrong.

All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.

But you cannot.

So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.

I thank you good folk for entertaining me.

180 Proof
1.5k
Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions?
— Enai De A Lukal
C'mon Frank Apisa show your "evidence or arguments" him/her like you showed me. :razz: — 180 Proof

And I thank you for that same reason, 180.

About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist

In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.

I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.

Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.

So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:

UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.

Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:

I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.

But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless.

EricH
165
↪Frank Apisa
About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist

In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.

I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.

Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.

So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:

UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.

Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:

I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.

But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless. — EricH

Thank you, Eric. In my opinion, that was the most reasonable reply to what I am saying thus far.

Keep in mind that I am offering what I MEAN when I use the word "gods." I am not in any way suggesting that is the only "definition" of the word...just that it is what I mean when I use it.

As for the "supernatural" thing...I reject that completely. ANYTHING that actually exists, whether we humans can perceive it or sense it in any way...IS NATURAL. It does not become supernatural simply because we humans cannot perceive it (at this stage of our evolution.)

We discover new "things" and new ways of discovering "things" all the time.

If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. I am not ignostic. My position is stated as completely and clearly as possible in my statement as offered...without the changes you have suggested.

If the gods have to be "supernatural" (apparently meaning they must be things that do not exist)...we've simply lost contact in the discussion.

In any circumstances, I hope you see that my challenge is directed to people who say, "There is at least one god"; "there are no gods"; "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

I challenge anyone who asserts any of those things...and claim the assertion is based on logic or science to prove it.

If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. — Frank Apisa

For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.

Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?

And my answer:

1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic.

Don't think so, Jorn. — Frank Apisa

Are you telling me what I was on about with my own comment...? Odd.

EricH
166
If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that.
— Frank Apisa

For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.

Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?

And my answer:

1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic. — EricH

As I said, I you want to be "ignotic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that.

If you want to identify as theistic, pantheistic, atheistic, agnostic...or anything else...I respect that.

jorndoe
993
Don't think so, Jorn.
— Frank Apisa

Are you telling me what I was on about with my own comment...? Odd. — jorndoe

Even odder that you think that is what I am "telling you."

You suggested that I zoomed in on the wrong word.

I am saying that I didn't.

If you have some point to make that you did not succeed in making...that is on you, not on me. I am free to "zoom in" on whatever I choose to zoom in on.

Easiest assertion to show as wrong.

All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.

But you cannot.

So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.

I thank you good folk for entertaining me.

You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile:

Well, once you figure out precisely how we can meaningfully extend talk of temporal or causal relations backwards in time to/past the Big Bang singularity, you let us know. Until then your optimism that we can do so, somehow, some way, doesn't amount to much.

This is a particular interpretation of the theory and not exactly the one or only. — substantivalism

General Relativity, cosmic expansion and the cosmic background radiation, what is the alternative to the BIg Bang?

Well, once you figure out precisely how we can meaningfully extend talk of temporal or causal relations backwards in time to/past the Big Bang singularity, you let us know. Until then your optimism that we can do so, somehow, some way, doesn't amount to much.

But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin, or the existence of other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity we find ourselves in.

So the origin might be in a substance, nothing, or some existing state, which results in Big Bang events. Which is your preference?

Regarding other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity. There might be a spectrum of Big Bang events. There may be other entirely different places, forms of existence. You are now going to have to tell me why we as philosophers can't discuss these possibilities in the light of empirical evidence found in our world?

But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin

But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity". But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe. We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200, until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.

But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity"

I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang. This does not necessitate a prior event, it is an enquiry into how it originated. The means by which it originated might not be temporal, or spatial, or might involve separate temporal, or spatial events. Separate from the contents of the Big Bang event.

. But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe.

Its only nonsense if you make the assumption that universal, or absolute time originated in the Big Bang we see before us. Are you making that assumption?

We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200,

Science can't (this is not a scientific discussion).

until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.

Yes close the discussion down, nothing to see here.

Even scientists speculate about this stuff, are they spouting gobbledegook?

Enai De A Lukal
178
↪Frank Apisa
Easiest assertion to show as wrong.

All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.

But you cannot.

So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.

I thank you good folk for entertaining me.
You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile: — Enai De A Lukal

I most assuredly am not "in over my head."

You are doing the equivalent of a theist asking an atheist to prove there are no gods. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Look at what I have "asserted."

I am essentially saying that anyone ASSERTING that they have arrived at "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" (or vise versa) VIA SCIENCE OR LOGIC...bears a burden of proof for that assertion.

There is no burden of proof on my part...and it is not blind guessing.

If YOU make such an assertion...do it, if you can.

People who claim that logic and science leads them to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are like people who claim "there is a GOD"...I KNOW this because of the personal relationship I have with that god. Two sides of the same coin.

People who claim that logic and science leads them to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are like people who claim you (others) can have the god reveal itself to them if only they "accept" the god. Two sides of one coin.

That kind of atheism is not a result of logic or reason or science. It is the result of blind guessing...and bears a burden of proof.

You could easily destroy my argument by offering a SINGLE syllogism (that a logician would accept) with a conclusion of "therefore there are no gods" or "therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." That is all you need...one offering of a P1 and P2 that does the job.

You won't...because you cannot.

Instead, you ask me to prove a universal negative.

Entertaining, but not enlightening.

How is the question of God's existence important? What will change once we know whether there's a God or not?

Take a close look at God's role in our lives and two among them is policiary and judicial - like Judge Dredd of comic book fame. Given this is so, isn't all the fuss about God very much like a band of thieves looking anxiously over their shoulders for signs of Judge Dredd?

Perhaps there's some other benefit to knowing the truth about God but right now I feel like, probably am, a criminal on his next job, scanning the locale for the men in blue. :sad:

How is the question of God's existence important? What will change once we know whether there's a God or not? — TheMadFool

Well, cutting to the chase, if there is (at least one) theistic g/G (i.e. "revealed supernatural agency") then ALL of our sciences are invalidated and histories mere fictions, because only that theistic g/G is real and only Its "revelations" are true and the moral values It espouses (i.e. "commandments") are objective - or, at the very least, all human endeavors contrary to, or inconsistent with, Its "revealed truths" are false and immoral by definition. Besides the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".

Well, cutting to the chase, if there is (at least one) theistic g/G (i.e. "revealed supernatural agency") then ALL of our sciences are invalidated and histories mere fictions, because only that theistic g/G is real and only Its "revelations" are true and the moral values It espouses (i.e. "commandments") are objective - or, at the very least, all human endeavors contrary to, or inconsistent with, Its "revealed truths" are false and immoral by definition. Besides, the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no". — 180 Proof

I thought science ignores the creator and channels its attention to the creation.

I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time.

The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho

Back here you criticized @DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage.

However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage.

But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning.

In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.

:up:

"I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies."

I thought science ignores the creator and channels its attention to the creation. — TheMadFool

I'd say science seeks "the creator" by studying "creation" (e.g. ... Hypatia ... Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Aquinas ... Spinoza ... Newton, Leibniz, et al). The scientist seeks the ultimate explanation (ToE) of the universe - whatever there is - or, failing that, some fundamental [process] that cannot even in principle be encompassed, or accounted for, by physics, that is, the super-natural. Perhaps "the creator" is just asymptotically over the (Planck? Hubble? Hartle-Hawking?) horizon - thus, the inexorable (metaphysical? theological? promethean/faustian?) drive to know infinitely more (about) "The Infinite". :fire:

EricH
167
↪Frank Apisa I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time.

The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho — EricH

I have not contradicted myself.

Back here you criticized DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage. — Eric

I did not such thing. I merely pointed out some observations I have made about people who use the descriptor "atheist" and suggested those elements should be included in definitions of the descriptor. The element (being convinced that it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one) would exempt agnostics like me from being called "atheists" because we lack a "belief" in gods. Agnostics like me ARE NOT convinced it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are. The whole likelihood (probability) is manufactured.

However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage. — Eric

How many times do I have to explain that I am using the term the way....I...am using it.

I am explaining how I use it...not demanding that everyone else must use it that same way.

I mean it to be: "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

If you think that to be so drastically different from what others mean...there is no way I can help you.

But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning. — Eric

I WILL object, because I am not an atheist...and I will not have to come up with a new line of reasoning. I will simply have to hope the individual with whom I am speaking will have a better understanding of what I am saying than you seem to, Eric.

In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.

Done...by noting that there is no inconsistency.

By the way, EricH...what do you say "atheist" means...and why do you say it?

Besides, the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".

It can't be answered (it is a bit more complicated than that*), also all those things that you say depend on it, only matter if one is a materialist, or a scientismist.


* you end up with a discussion of, if g/God appeared before you, could you still answer the question, or can g/God answer it for you (to which I would suggest no). Because you will already have concluded that if g/God doesn't appear before you there is no way to answer the question in the negative, an answer of no.

It can't be answered (it is a bit more complicated than that*), also all those things that you say depend on it, only matter if one is a materialist ... — Punshhh

Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391632

Btw, call me "scientific materialist" and I'll answer to that every time.

Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).

I meant philosophically, many have answered it by other means.

Btw, call me "scientific materialist" and I'll answer to that every time. — 180 Proof

What's that? And how does that help your cause in defending 'no God'? The truth is, it actually weakens your case because of your inability to describe conscious existence and other existential and metaphysical phenomena.

Alternatively, we are back to : When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

So how does your scientific materialism help you? Is everything material? How did consciousness emerge from a piece of wood?

Do tell!!

I'd say science seeks "the creator" by studying "creation" (e.g. ... Hypatia ... Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Aquinas ... Spinoza ... Newton, Leibniz, et al). The scientist seeks the ultimate explanation (ToE) of the universe - whatever there is - or, failing that, some fundamental [process] that cannot even in principle be encompassed, or accounted for, by physics, that is, the super-natural. Perhaps "the creator" is just asymptotically over the (planck? hubble? hartle-hawkin?) horizon - thus, the inexorable (metaphysical? theological? promethean/faustian?) drive to know infinitely more (about) "The Infinite". :fire: — 180 Proof

I suppose you're right. Let's be realistic about the whole god thing. Assuming your position that it is, in fact, the creator we're ultimately seeking, what do we have to go on? The creation itself, right? Like the detective par excellence in a good mystery novel, put the "crime scene" under the microscope and make your deductions. What sort of a creator-god does the evidence support? A benevolent ruler or an evil genius or a clumsy dolt or maybe it could all be just an accident?

All that set aside, the evolution of the God concept evinces a clear trend toward a Judge Dredd persona - from bickering bands of powerful beings the divine has whittled down to a single entity entrusted with our welfare and empowered to ensure it.

Note also the fact that those who are most bothered about god's ontological status are those who are specialized in the morality sector viz. religious groups. I don't see scientists trying very hard to settle the matter one way or other. In fact, scientists, at least those who make the headlines, seem to be making an effort to disprove god, an indication that they've somehow managed to, in addition to other things, decouple morality from an all-powerful entity i.e. scientists seem to have made a break from the traditional and popular Judge Dredd characterization of God. I believe scientific indifferrence and even frank antagonism toward God serves as some indication that people are only interested in God's existence because he's just a better version of Judge Dredd.