Don’t be so sure of yourself.Really? It's atheists that have the problem being too sure of themselves is it? Bollocks.
If humanism is to offer any benefits, it must begin with an acknowledgment of humanity’s vast ignorance and inability to learn much.
We’ve achieved so much, they will protest. And I am certainly happy that I get to live in a world with painkillers and antibiotics. But let’s not make too much of our achievements. Slamming atoms together doesn’t make us brilliant. It just means we’ve found new clubs to whack with.Why shouldn't we make much of our achievements? Yes, slamming atoms together makes us brilliant - hell, even knowing that there are atoms is something not to be sneezed at.
But many atheists, similarly burdened, invent other meanings. They reject gods but perceive humanity as a pantheon of godlike super achievers working their way towards the heavens.What a load of crap. Name names.
It is irrational to define belief in the supernatural as irrational. Belief in the supernatural is entirely natural.Belief in the supernatural is irrational. Also, there's no reason to assume that beliefs that are natural are also rational.
Religions offer an answer. You reject their answer. What is your answer?
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.
Belief in the supernatural is irrational.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.
Well, more looking at what some of the issues might have been with 'new atheism', a problematic concept in its own right. A lot of it I agree with - the arrogance inherent in the 'Brughts' nonsense, and the idea that belief or lack of belief in a 'god' tells you nothing useful about the person.
I think that it overplays the idea of some of the thoughts of those seen as 'new atheists' as being of use in thinking of atheists. Where it warns about the ease of stereotyping atheists, ironically perhaps because of the very simplicity of what unites atheists, I feel it indulges a bit in that.
https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2024/06/rethinking-atheism.html
Yep, you have to say 'what's the rational basis'? And if that's not forthcoming, 'irrational' is the valid conclusion.I think you are trying to dodge the burden of proof on a positive assertion there.
O.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Positive Assertion. You know what you have to do.
I only meant "irrational" in the sense that it is not evidence based.No, it’s argument based. I think you maybe conflating empiricism with rationalism here.
But not having evidence does not make a belief or argument irrational, Jeremy.
Edit: and I can support the assertion by pointing out that those who believe in the supernatural are unable to produce any evidence.
Of course, when evidence is discovered for a supernatural phenomenon, it immediately stops being supernatural.That statement alone will have propelled the online atheist community into an orgy of self abuse.
No, it’s argument based.
Except there are no sound arguments for it either. At least none that I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of people attempt them....I don’t agree.
I don’t agree.
I think you are trying to dodge the burden of proof on a positive assertion there.
I'm inclined to agree, what with you being the expert on dodging the burden of proof. However, then I look a the evidence:You need to say where the logical fallacy is and why suspension of the principle of sufficient reason is not itself special pleading.
There is a claim of 'god'.
"What's the rationale for that claim?" - various logical fallacies and special pleadings ensue, none of which constitute a rationale.
Ergo, it's an irrational position. It's not a derivation from logic, it's an observation about that absolute lack of logic. That's my basis for it - you're at liberty to try to disprove my conclusion, of course, and all you need is a logical thread that ends with 'therefore God'.
If it's all the same to you, though, I won't hold my breath - I don't look good in purple.
O.
I'm inclined to agree, what with you being the expert on dodging the burden of proof. However, then I look a the evidence:You seem to be flip flopping between rationalism and empiricism. When one of the arguments from a rationalist point of view fails, there is an appeal to empiricism and science. The goalposts are changed.
There is a claim of 'god'.
"What's the rationale for that claim?" - various logical fallacies and special pleadings ensue, none of which constitute a rationale.
Ergo, it's an irrational position. It's not a derivation from logic, it's an observation about that absolute lack of logic. That's my basis for it - you're at liberty to try to disprove my conclusion, of course, and all you need is a logical thread that ends with 'therefore God'.
If it's all the same to you, though, I won't hold my breath - I don't look good in purple.
O.
You seem to be flip flopping between rationalism and empiricism. When one of the arguments from a rationalist point of view fails, there is an appeal to empiricism and science. The goalposts are changed.
Again an argument without evidence can still be rational without scientific proof.
In cosmology, all arguments fall into that bracket.
As well as the flip flopping. You do have the outstanding charge of suspending the pursuit of cause or reason when it suits in this matter.
My money is that there are people who see the argument from contingency and the PSR as reasonable even though they are not prepared to accept the necessary being as the Christian God or God of any sort.
Alternatives, as I have pointed out are outlandish, suspend reason to suit, Close off discussion, mock science.
Again an argument without evidence can still be rational without scientific proof. In cosmology, all arguments fall into that bracket.
My money is that there are people who see the argument from contingency and the PSR as reasonable even though they are not prepared to accept the necessary being as the Christian God or God of any sort.
Alternatives, as I have pointed out are outlandish, suspend reason to suit, Close off discussion, mock science.
So we can add cosmology to the list of subjects you know fuck-all about. ::)Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is no where for it to go.
Quite possibly but the BIG problem with it is the inherent incoherence of the idea of something that couldn't not exist or be different. Why couldn't have not existed? Where is your precious principle of sufficient reason when that question is asked? Hiding under the duvet, muttering something that amounts to "it must be magic" from what you've said.
Argument from ignorance is a fallacy. The problems with the alternatives do not excuse the massive problems with your own preferred 'solution'. "We don't know" is a perfectly rational position to take.
Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is no where for it to go.
It IS the ultimate something rather than nothing.
I think you will find that the only thing that could prevent it from existing is itself. THIS IS THE INTERNAL REASON.
Now these conditions cannot exist with a contingent thing
Good description of a brute fact. ::)It's not a description of a brute fact at all.
And, of course, there is nothing to prevent endless types of things from existing, so its uniqueness is questionable. And why would it be the 'thing' it is and not something else? With nothing external to prevent existence, we would expect all sorts possibilities.
The only thing that could prevent existence in the absence of physical laws, would be self-contradiction (probably), so you're getting close to the idea that everything that is self-consistent exists, and we're off into Tegmark multiverse territory.
You've described a brute fact that could easily apply to the whole universe (space-time).
It's not a description of a brute fact at all.You mean this
It's not a description of a brute fact at all.
Is this the five-minute argument or the full half hour?Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.
Mindless contradiction is not an argument. You said that it exists because nothing prevented it from existing, so it could have been pretty much anything that isn't self-contradictory. That's a brute fact. There is nothing necessary about it and nothing to make it unique.
Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.Yes, you're either stupid or lying
There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing
Is BRUTE FACT.
There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.
But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.
That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.
Penny dropping?
Let me try to put you straight on brute fact.
There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing
Is BRUTE FACT.
There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.
But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.
That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.
Penny dropping?
Apparently not. You don't seem to understand the problem you've created. You said the only reason this 'necessary' thingy exists is because nothing prevents if from existing. That could apply to pretty much anything, so you have given no reason why it's the specific thingy you think it is.But not only is there nothing preventing it from existence there is also nothing bringing it into existence and yet it exists. It exists therefore in it's own right without due to anything else.
That means the specific thingy has no reason why it exists, so isn't necessary, it's just a brute fact, and could be the universe (whole space-time).
There is no reason why there is something rather than nothing Is BRUTE FACT.
There is a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It isn't you, alpha centauri, the milky way etc.
But there is a reason,
This reason must and cannot fail to exist.
That is wholly unlike. Things exist, end of.
Penny dropping?
But not only is there nothing preventing it from existence there is also nothing bringing it into existence and yet it exists.
It exists therefore in it's own right without due to anything else.
That does not apply to ANYTHING,Stranger.
So you assert.There is no loop of existence reasons. There must be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That reason must exist without recourse to any other reason because there is nothing else.
Which brings us right back to the fact that you have no logical explanation as to what it is that gives it this loop of existence reasons at the base of your hierarchy. It exists because it exists, because it exists.
It's either utter nonsense, a brute fact that could apply to pretty much anything that is self-consistent, or there is some reasoning that you're keeping a secret that tells us exactly how this looping dependency of existence works and why it applies to only one particular thingy.
it'sThe word meaning "belonging to it" does not have an apostrophe. Do try to get it right.
There is no loop of existence reasons.
There must be a reason for why there is existence rather than non existence. That reason must exist without recourse to any other reason because there is nothing else.
Now that is not true of anything as you said.
I do note that loops of contingent things are acceptable to many on here and you are right to point out that loops just hang in mid air unsupported
Of course there is, if the 'reason for existence' relationship points down to this undefined thingy, it then loops back to itself at the base. You don't like loops but you've just created one yourself.Blimey, you've even put a diagram showing the error you are making, the one pointed out to you.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jr4n045/Loop.jpg)
Or anything at all that you seem able to actually explain.
You do have a loop, whether you like it or not. And other people have, as far as I can see, not put forward any answer. I just don't known. You are just making up magic shit you can't logically explain.
Now where Russell went wrong with saying the universe just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.
Brute fact would be the necessary entity just is, period, with no justification at all on why that should be.
You place the reason for the necessary entity external to the necessary entity. You just can't seem to help yourself.
The ultimacy of the necessary entity IS explained. It exists since there has to be a reason why there is something rather than nothing.
It is the last, the ultimate and it's own reason.And even saying something is it's own reason might be as wrong a term as something apparently causing itself when what we really mean is it exists without the need for anything external.
Now where Russell went wrong with saying the universe just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.
Brute fact would be the necessary entity just is, period, with no justification at all on why that should be.
Alternatively;No, reasons are provided for a necessary entity. Others think it is the physical universe, some think it is the laws of physics, Some think there is an infinity of changes in some necessary medium....and some say the universe just is, period or appeal to infinite regress or circular heirarchy.
Now where Vlad went wrong with saying 'God' just is, period, is that he shuts down the question of why it is the way it is, and critically why it exists rather than doesn't...all on the word just and the full stop.
No I'm not. I'm saying the self-referencing loop makes no logical sense.I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.
Do you not understand the word 'explained'? This is just "I can't see why there is something rather than nothing, so it must be magic" and then making up the characteristics you want the magic to have.
It's a just-so story, and not even a very good one.
Which is exactly the problem you have because you can't explain logically why this thingy of yours couldn't not exist. You're just asserting that there must be such a thingy because you don't like not knowing or the alternatives.
Which is exactly what you've described, except you've tried to cover the logical problems with the meaningless label of 'necessary entity'. It's just logic- and thought-free, empty words.
I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.
There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.
But one suspects also that Russell would be wrong about the universe being brute fact.
I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.
There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.
But one suspects also that Russell would be wrong about the universe being brute fact.
No, reasons are provided for a necessary entity.
Others think it is the physical universe, some think it is the laws of physics, Some think there is an infinity of changes in some necessary medium....and some say the universe just is, period or appeal to infinite regress or circular heirarchy.
I don't have Russell's problem at all I'm not saying the universe just is an there's an end to the discussion. He has no explanation of why it should end in a single entity. He didn't offer any explanation because with brute fact there is none. It just is, period.
There is therefore sufficient reason for why a necessary entity should exist.
The only reasons you've given is that you can't accept anything else and you can't accept not knowing, so you've opted for a totally unexplained thingy that is magically its own reason for existing, by magical magic.We are at the point where the final entityor reason has been established as existing. Why it is the final entity or reason...because non existence provides no reason or entities.
Some would rather admit that we don't know than accept unexplained, incoherent magic.
You patently haven't given any explanation, so you have exactly the same problem. Just saying 'necessary entity' is not an explanation. Why can't you get that into your head? It's just two words that have no logical content. They are not an explanation.
You haven't given us a sufficient reason. "I can't think of anything else but magical magic that makes something its own reason, magically, by magic", is not a sufficient reason.
We are at the point where the final entity or reason has been established as existing.
We are at the point where the final entityor reason has been established as existing.
I shall wait till the penny drops.
You haven't established that there is any final, singular entity, and, since you can't explain its existence, even if it exists, it would just be a brute fact.In the matter of a singular or multiple final entities. If there were multiple entities we would ask why there were however many.
It has dropped for everybody but yourself, it seems.
Unless you can explain the logic of something that could not fail to exist, you have a brute fact. The fact that you don't like a brute fact and have blind faith in the universality of suffiicent reason, is not a such an explanation.
You are claiming there must be sufficient reason without teling us what that reason is for the existence of your bute fact, so it remains a brute fact, not a necessary entitiy.
In the matter of a singular or multiple final entities. If there were multiple entities we would ask why there were however many.
The reason would then be the final entity in the heirarchy.
I see you still have to join the dots on Brute fact and sufficient reason.
Concentrate on Russell's saying "The universe just is, and there's an end to it".That's the Key.
Why could it not have existed? Because there is no external context in which it can be prevented from existing. There is nothing external to be the reason. The buck has stopped because there is no where for it to go.
Why exactly one?https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
How do you know reality is a strict hierarchy?
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) You really can't be as dim as this silly nonsense suggests, you'd get confused about how to breath or eat. You have given us no reason whatsoever as to why your 'necessary entity' couldn't fail to exist and couldn't have been different. The closest you've got to anything remotely like a 'reason' is this:
which is a great paraphrase of "it just is, and there's an end to it".
I was talking about this 'argument' with somebody else on another forum who at least had the intelligence/honesty to admit that they couldn't explain the logic of a 'necessary entity' but that it must be the answer because they'd eliminated all the alternatives. This appears to be what you're saying, too, but you either can't see it or are not honest enough to admit it.
That, of course, is an argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) fallacy that has the added arrogance of assuming that you, or anybody else, has an exhaustive list of every possibility, and also puts it on a par with "it must be magic, innit?"
I think the time has come for someone to justify Russell's assertion that the universe just is and there's an end to it.
I'm not asserting that.
I think the time has come for Vlad to justify his assertion that the 'God' just is and there's an end to it.
I'm not asserting that.You've been asserting that since you discovered the philosophical meaning of "necessary".
I might propose that God is and give reasons why I suppose that is so. But not"......there's an end to it".You might? I'm looking forward to that, but I'm not holding my breath.
So, Gordon declines to support Russell.I think it's more likely that he declines to support your straw man version of Russell's argument.
You've been asserting that since you discovered the philosophical meaning of "necessary".You might? I'm looking forward to that, but I'm not holding my breath.I think it's more likely that he declines to support your straw man version of Russell's argument.We can all read Russell's assertion Jeremy. It is what it is.
We can all read Russell's assertion Jeremy. It is what it is.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Section on brute facts.
I think the time has come for someone to justify Russell's assertion that the universe just is and there's an end to it.
Never mind Russell, Vlad, who was making a philosophical point involving the fallacy of composition (that even if parts of the universe appear to be contingent that does not then imply that the universe as a whole must be contingent). Since that isn't what you are arguing for then your citing Russell is one of your red herrings.We're back at asserting that the PSR applies to everything except what it doesn't, and then some hand waving about what it might not apply to.
You are simply asserting 'God' as a brute fact.
We're back at asserting that the PSR applies to everything except what it doesn't, and then some hand waving about what it might not apply to.I think establishing it as brute fact or explained entity is probably secondary as establishing it reasonably.
It's the logical equivalent of the Indian rope trick.
I think establishing it as brute fact or explained entity is probably secondary as establishing it reasonably.Why is pounting out your failure to argue logically consistently have to back up atheism. That you have no idea how to construct an argument is irrelevant to atheism.
I think the universe or God or the necessary entity delete as applicable just is and there's an end to it is different from the universe or God or the necessary entity is and is the necessary entity and here's why are worlds apart.
If the latter is not observing the PSR then really a) So what b)How does it help atheism?
I think establishing it as brute fact or explained entity is probably secondary as establishing it reasonably.
I think the universe or God or the necessary entity delete as applicable just is and there's an end to it is different from the universe or God or the necessary entity is and is the necessary entity and here's why are worlds apart.
If the latter is not observing the PSR then really a) So what b)How does it help atheism?
Why is pounting out your failure to argue logically consistently have to back up atheism. That you have no idea how to construct an argument is irrelevant to atheism.Firstly, I accuse some atheists on this board of suspending the PSR as and when it suits their argument
Firstly, I accuse some atheists on this board of suspending the PSR as and when it suits their argumentRepeating assertions doesn't make them correct. I don't know of any atheist on the board who says the PSR is an absolute rule. That's what you do until you say it doesn't apply - special pleading.
Secondly, I accuse some atheists of this board of defining PSR as "everything must be explained by an external cause, reason and explanation whereas I and others define the PSR as everything having an explanation that is external or by way of the nature of that entity.
As far as I can tell. Everything explained externally has not been demonstrated whereas something necessary by nature has been, philosophically, from contingency and the failure of infinite regress to address any of the issues involved
Again, even if the necessary entity is a brute fact, how does that negate it's existence or help atheism?
Firstly, I accuse some atheists on this board of suspending the PSR as and when it suits their argument
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
Before you posted this link:I think it rather looks as though those wanting us to drop the logic of it are asking people to entertain all manner of cockamamy things like infinite regress, free floating loops of contingency etc.as if they were completely non controversial.
Which actual starts with: "The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason, cause, or ground." (my emphasis).
You might also like to look at this: The Principle of Sufficient Reason §8 - Quantum Mechanics (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/principle-of-sufficient-reason/quantum-mechanics/7965E275FBDB55CEC674EB108EF86BF5)
As far as I can see, it's only you who is putting some sort of blind faith in a human-made philosophical principle, that is seen as controversial even within philosophy, and hence has nothing like the status of a scientific theory and that appears to be contradicted by one of our best such theories. The universe (or reality, if you want) is not actually under any obligation to make sense to humans, which is basically what the PSR is demanding.
I think it rather looks as though those wanting us to drop the logic of it are asking people to entertain all manner of cockamamy things like infinite regress, free floating loops of contingency etc.as if they were completely non controversial.It rather looks like you are lying about what people are saying.
I'm afraid that psychology is redolent of people who don't want "To read the final page of the novel"
I think it rather looks as though those wanting us to drop the logic of it are asking people to entertain all manner of cockamamy things like infinite regress, free floating loops of contingency etc.as if they were completely non controversial.
I think it rather looks as though those wanting us to drop the logic of it are asking people to entertain all manner of cockamamy things like
... infinite regress...
...free floating loops of contingency...
etc.as if they were completely non controversial.
I'm afraid that psychology is redolent of people who don't want "To read the final page of the novel"
Firstly, I accuse some atheists on this board of suspending the PSR as and when it suits their argument
Secondly, I accuse some atheists of this board of defining PSR as "everything must be explained by an external cause, reason and explanation whereas I and others define the PSR as everything having an explanation that is external or by way of the nature of that entity.
As far as I can tell. Everything explained externally has not been demonstrated whereas something necessary by nature has been, philosophically, from contingency and the failure of infinite regress to address any of the issues involved
Again, even if the necessary entity is a brute fact, how does that negate it's existence or help atheism?
I think you are completely misunderstanding what is going on. The atheists here aren't making arguments of their own. They are simply knocking holes in your argument.Although let's be honest Jeremy, If we were to take the time, which I'm not prepared to at present it would boil down to this on your parts.i.e. a defence of naturalism, physicalism and
Although let's be honest Jeremy, If we were to take the time, which I'm not prepared to at present it would boil down to this on your parts.i.e. a defence of naturalism, physicalism and
Empiricism and agnosticism by any argument no matter how mutually contradictory or illogical.
Although let's be honest Jeremy, If we were to take the time, which I'm not prepared to at present it would boil down to this on your parts.i.e. a defence of naturalism, physicalism andNo it wouldn't. It would boil down to you asserting God and the rest of us asking for evidence of your assertion without any coherent response.
Empiricism and agnosticism by any argument no matter how mutually contradictory or illogical.
Utter bullshit.I’m beginning to think you are mistaking an “I don’t know” for an “I don’t know but it can’t be x”.
You have totally failed to put forward anything remotely like a coherent, logical argument, and what you've described is a brute fact with a label messily taped onto it with "necessary entity" scrawled on it in crayon. You cling desperately to the PSR, as if it was unquestionably universal, despite actual evidence that it isn't, even though your laughable claim doesn't really conform to it itself.
It is simply irrational to criticise 'agnosticism' with respect to questions we simply don't know enough to come to a reasonable conclusion about. Insisting that we must have answers to every question is utterly absurd. News flash: humans are not omniscient!
I’m beginning to think you are mistaking an “I don’t know” for an “I don’t know but it can’t be x”.
There are probably several atheists who do not believe in infinite regression, Are highly sympathetic with necessary entities, unitary entities, fundamental entities, ultimate entities, etc indeed the literature seems to contain the suggestion that the Christian God could not possibly be the necessary entity demonstrating at least an understanding of the terms which is superior to your own