Is man getting too big for the world?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

In strict epistemic terms that's true, but if these words are to be useful we generally accept that "objective" and "subjective" are qualitatively different things, and that intersubjective experience is the way we distinguish one from the other. If we insist on absolutes we collapse into Trollboy's hall of mirrors reality ("morality must be objective to be "real"" etc) that's wrong in practice and that leads nowhere.

In what way then is morality 'real'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not actually important to the argument but no, we don't actually need to do that. Quantum mechanics certainly predicts that some events have no specific cause. It provides a statistical framework but events such as one particular radioactive atom decaying at a particular time have no cause.

Relativity also makes it questionable whether the universe had a "beginning to its existence". Time, or rather space-time, is part of the universe. If we take relativity seriously, the universe is a four-dimensional object that contains time.

Which matters not a jot. The point is that we have no reason to believe any story that goes beyond the evidence, whether it involves a god, many gods, bands of magic fairies, universe creating spotty teenagers or none of the above, it's all just guessing.

As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.

What is the difference between no cause and no specific cause?

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best. It's the argument used for once the earth being flat, or indeed the argument that Leonard uses for free will - and surely you don't give it any credence in that?

[Nearly Sane]

In what way then is morality 'real'?

Surely the first question then is what do we mean by real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.

reason to believe eh,..........reeaaassssonnnn to beeelliiiiieeeeeve?

That's a funny phrase isn't it. Shouldn't it be reason to know?

Are you saying then atheists do not believe anything that they don't know?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Isn't the 'pragmatic intersubjective experience paradigm' exactly the ad pop dressed in its Sunday best. It's the argument used for once the earth being flat, or indeed the argument that Leonard uses for free will - and surely you don't give it any credence in that?

No. The pragmatic intersubjective experience of the speed of light in a vacuum gives us a working objective determination of the speed of light in a vacuum using the tools of reason and evidence. We can use those same tools and apply them to other questions - what shape wings create most lift for example - and test the results. There's a qualitative difference between that and, say, causal narratives about Thor causing thunder and lightning that make a sort of explanatory sense but that offer nothing to test.

Of course you could say that the tools of reason and evidence are themselves just the fruits of a different causal explanatory narrative but either we divide the lived experience into "'planes will lift me off the ground but chanting and burning sage leaves will not" or we don't. And if we do, then we label the explanations "objective" and "subjective" with no need for an appeal to absolutes. That you and I may just be bits of junk code in a celestial kid's computer game does not in other words invalidate trying to categorise and make sense of the world "we" appear to inhabit.

If we don't do that though and instead go nuclear as Trollboy attempted in his recent effort, then all bets are off and any truth is as valid as any other - including it seems those that contradict each other.         

[Nearly Sane]

Dearie me, bluehillside, experience is not methodology and you seem to have ignored the question of Leonard using the argument about unanimity to cover free will and then gone off on your obsession with Vlad. Why?

[Stranger]

What is the difference between no cause and no specific cause?

In the example I gave, there is a cause for radioactive atoms to decay but not for a specific atom to decay at a specific time.

reason to believe eh,..........reeaaassssonnnn to beeelliiiiieeeeeve?

That's a funny phrase isn't it. Shouldn't it be reason to know?

Are you saying then atheists do not believe anything that they don't know?

No and no.

[Maeght]

As was stated before, most atheists are not arguing that there cannot possibly be a god, just that there is no reason to believe that there is.

I think that is really important to state as I don't think many of the believers on here understand that. The arguments most atheists put forward on here are counter arguments to the points being made by believers in my view. God could exist and could have created the Universe and could answer prayers and so on but there is no reason to believe any of that - it is purely down to a state of belief or no belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the example I gave, there is a cause for radioactive atoms to decay but not for a specific atom to decay at a specific time.

No and no.

Your first point. Perhaps you can tell me then how you can extrapolate that to explain the coming into being of the universe.....

Secondly then if belief is different from knowledge then it is established by reason alone? In which case there would be plenty of reason to believe in a God of a certain type as there are reasons not to believe. Since this is not knowledge some commitment to any belief has to be made.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that is really important to state as I don't think many of the believers on here understand that. The arguments most atheists put forward on here are counter arguments to the points being made by believers in my view. God could exist and could have created the Universe and could answer prayers and so on but there is no reason to believe any of that - it is purely down to a state of belief or no belief.

While I agree that it isn't necessarily understood by some theists, I've seen it stated multiple times, and ignored and misrepresented continually.

[Leonard James]

I'm sorry guys, I should never have posted in this thread. My personal conclusion about the universe and its cause is too simple for such complex arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sorry guys, I should never have posted in this thread. My personal conclusion about the universe and its cause is too simple for such complex arguments.

Don't be sorry Len, sail majestically, get sunk majestically, salvage whatever you can majestically......

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

I rather like Vlads reply, me, I say, post and be damned

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Dearie me, bluehillside, experience is not methodology and you seem to have ignored the question of Leonard using the argument about unanimity to cover free will and then gone off on your obsession with Vlad. Why?

You're conflating "experience" with the methodology of reason and evidence. It's all "experience", but within it "we" develop and codify methods to help sort the probably true from the probably not true. And when the things we call "true" satisfy the tools of reason and evidence, then we ascribe to them the working term "objective", and when they do not we ascribe to them the working term "subjective". As we can't step outside our experience we can't decide on what's ultimately objective/subjective, but for pragmatic, working purposes the terms are useful and functional.

Using that paradigm, conjectures like "God" do not satisfy the tools of reason and evidence, so the claims made for them are subjective. Conjectures like paracetamol curing a headache though are testable using the tools of reason and evidence, so they're objective.   

[Nearly Sane]

This is bizarre, I am the one saying that experience and method are different, and yet I am the one conflating them? How does that work? You are the one saying there is something that is an experience paradigm which is not somehow an ad pop,  and yet again ignoring the points I was actually making as regards Leonard's position to continue your proxy war against Vlad.

The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.

[ippy]

NS,

No. The pragmatic intersubjective experience of the speed of light in a vacuum gives us a working objective determination of the speed of light in a vacuum using the tools of reason and evidence. We can use those same tools and apply them to other questions - what shape wings create most lift for example - and test the results. There's a qualitative difference between that and, say, causal narratives about Thor causing thunder and lightning that make a sort of explanatory sense but that offer nothing to test.

Of course you could say that the tools of reason and evidence are themselves just the fruits of a different causal explanatory narrative but either we divide the lived experience into "'planes will lift me off the ground but chanting and burning sage leaves will not" or we don't. And if we do, then we label the explanations "objective" and "subjective" with no need for an appeal to absolutes. That you and I may just be bits of junk code in a celestial kid's computer game does not in other words invalidate trying to categorise and make sense of the world "we" appear to inhabit.

If we don't do that though and instead go nuclear as Trollboy attempted in his recent effort, then all bets are off and any truth is as valid as any other - including it seems those that contradict each other.       

Arr the devil does exist, poor old N S.

I'm now going to extrasubject myself to taking the dog for a walk in the pursuance of intercaninal advancement but of course on a small scale.

ippy

[Stranger]

Your first point. Perhaps you can tell me then how you can extrapolate that to explain the coming into being of the universe.....

For example:-

Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I should emphasise that I'm not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it has the advantage of being an extrapolation from current theories and serves as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.

Secondly then if belief is different from knowledge then it is established by reason alone? In which case there would be plenty of reason to believe in a God of a certain type as there are reasons not to believe.

Knowledge is actually rather tricky to define and I have made no claim to it. What reasons are there to believe in "a God of a certain type"?

Since this is not knowledge some commitment to any belief has to be made.

No, this is where you continually misunderstand. There are endless stories that we could make up about (for example) the origin or cause of the universe. I don't have to make a choice to disbelieve in every one. That would be impossible anyway, as I couldn't possibly think of them all.

Some of those stories would involve something that somebody might think is a god of some sort (some would involve other fantastical beings or ideas) but why should I take those any more seriously than any other story?

We need reasons to take stories seriously.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This is bizarre, I am the one saying that experience and method are different, and yet I am the one conflating them? How does that work? You are the one saying there is something that is an experience paradigm which is not somehow an ad pop,  and yet again ignoring the points I was actually making as regards Leonard's position to continue your proxy war against Vlad.

The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.

If I've misunderstood you then I apologise, but it's not deliberately done. All I'm saying is that methodologies function within the lived experience, and that using them provides solutions we label "true" and discarding them provides conjectures we label "no reason to think is true". Gravity for example is in the first category, "God" in the second. None of these things though require absolutes to be functionally useful.

An ad pop is qualitatively different from a method-based approach because everyone believing in Thor for example still doesn't make Thor a method-apt proposition - there's nothing to test. The only "objective" thing you can say about them is that lots of people believed in them, but that's it.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

If I've misunderstood you then I apologise, but it's not deliberately done. All I'm saying is that methodologies function within the lived experience, and that using them provides solutions we label "true" and discarding them provides conjectures we label "no reason to think is true". Gravity for example is in the first category, "God" in the second. None of these things though require absolutes to be functionally useful.

An ad pop is qualitatively different from a method-based approach because everyone believing in Thor for example still doesn't make Thor a method-apt proposition - there's nothing to test. The only "objective" thing you can say about them is that lots of people believed in them, but that's it.   

And none of that is in opposition to anything I posted. I challenged Leonard on his ad pop, it's a clear ad pop as it has no mention of method. That we have spent thus amount of time with you creating the strawman is, IMO, because you and others follow the idea if someone argues against an atheist then they are somehow supporting a theist approach.

I don't need to point out the issues with Vlad's arguments as there are enough people doing that on the thread. That I don't indulge in the argument with him does not jean as you seen to have been propagating here that I agree with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For example:-

Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I should emphasise that I'm not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it has the advantage of being an extrapolation from current theories and serves as an example of how the universe might not have a specific cause.

Knowledge is actually rather tricky to define and I have made no claim to it. What reasons are there to believe in "a God of a certain type"?

No, this is where you continually misunderstand. There are endless stories that we could make up about (for example) the origin or cause of the universe. I don't have to make a choice to disbelieve in every one. That would be impossible anyway, as I couldn't possibly think of them all.

Some of those stories would involve something that somebody might think is a god of some sort (some would involve other fantastical beings or ideas) but why should I take those any more seriously than any other story?

We need reasons to take stories seriously.

But is the quantum vacuum from whence a thing can pop up spontaneously natural and physical?

And/or is the rule governing this....the reason natural and physical?

And is there any reason to suppose that the quantum vacuum from which the universe sprang isn't an aspect of an intelligence (before and up to a God) given governance is an aspect of consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And none of that is in opposition to anything I posted. I challenged Leonard on his ad pop, it's a clear ad pop as it has no mention of method. That we have spent thus amount of time with you creating the strawman is, IMO, because you and others follow the idea if someone argues against an atheist then they are somehow supporting a theist approach.

Actually if there is a bias a play it's not that one at all, but rather that Len is such a lovely chap that I feel quite protective about him. I'd argue the disagreement was more a relevant nuance than a straw man, but it's not interesting enough for either of us to revisit I'm sure.     

I don't need to point out the issues with Vlad's arguments as there are enough people doing that on the thread. That I don't indulge in the argument with him does not jean as you seen to have been propagating here that I agree with him.

I don't for one moment think that you agree wth him and nor have I propagated that - frankly I'd be a bit alarmed if you did given the collapse of reasoning it would entail.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The straw suppliers must be having parties as you and Vlad appear locked in a bidding war.

Well that makes the overall picture as meself as the straw meister and Hillside moving in both straw and Turds.

He must be planning to build something in the traditional style.

[Leonard James]

Don't be sorry Len, sail majestically, get sunk majestically, salvage whatever you can majestically......

Oddly enough, I don't feel that I have been 'sunk' at all. Everything I have said makes sense to me, and I suppose that is all any of us can say. Getting others to see our own "sense" is neither easy nor important. Life is for living and enjoying, and not worrying too much about hiccups along the way. 

[Stranger]

But is the quantum vacuum from whence a thing can pop up spontaneously natural and physical?

And/or is the rule governing this....the reason natural and physical?

As I said, I am not saying that this hypothesis is correct but it is a hypothesis based entirely on physics, so yes.

And is there any reason to suppose that the quantum vacuum from which the universe sprang isn't an aspect of an intelligence (before and up to a God) given governance is an aspect of consciousness.

The point is that there is no reason to suppose that any god is involved - once we depart from the physics and what might be extrapolated from it, we are guessing.

All the evidence we have is that consciousness can evolve in an environment that has some regularity, not the other way around. Calling physical laws "governance" is just playing word games.