Rethinking Atheism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

We can all read Russell's assertion Jeremy. It is what it is.

You're saying Russell's assertion "just is"?

The assertion was made in response to the cosmological argument. He was just refuting the premise that the Universe needs a cause.

[Stranger]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/facts/
Section on brute facts.

"According to a common definition, a brute fact is a fact that is unexplained, i.e. a fact of which there is no explanation." - that's exactly what you've described except that you're pretending that just labelling it 'necessary', without any supporting logic, makes it different.

Stupidity or dishonesty?

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.

Why? Who's proposing it?

I've repeatedly said that I don't know the answer and all I've said about the universe in this respect is that it doesn't appear to be contingent on anything else.

[Gordon]

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.

You are simply asserting 'God' as a brute fact.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

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.

It's the logical equivalent of the Indian rope trick.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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.

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Stranger]

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?

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Nobody has to come up with an alternative to point out that what you've proposed is logically nonsensical. Atheism doesn't need help. It's just the position that nobody has made a case for theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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
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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

Repeating 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.

You haven't demonstrated that anything is necessary, simply asserted it.


And both Stranger and I answered your babbling about atheism, and you've just ignored it. Again your inability to make a coherent argument is irrelevant to atheism.

[Stranger]

Firstly, I accuse some atheists on this board of suspending the PSR as and when it suits their argument

Before you posted this link:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

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

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Before you posted this link:

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

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.

I'm afraid that psychology is redolent of people who don't want "To read the final page of the novel"

[Nearly Sane]

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"

It rather looks like you are lying about what people are saying.

[Stranger]

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.

• Drop what logic? The PSR is a philosophical demand that reality conforms to what we'd like, that appears to already fail in one of our best tested scientific theories.
  
  
• Who (apart from you) is proposing all this 'cockamamy'? If all your hand-waving waffle means anything at all, it is 'free floating loop of contingency'.
  
  
• For about the 5 millionth time: I don't know. I don't have an answer and am not proposing one.
  
  
• Nobody needs to supply an alternative to dismiss logically incoherent drivel.
  
  
• You totally ignored the content of my post.

[Outrider]

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

Here we go...

... infinite regress...

Any danger of an explanation of why you don't accept the notion, or should we treat your assertion as some sort of gospel?

...free floating loops of contingency...

Any chance of a coherent explanation of why they're not a viable alternative?

etc.as if they were completely non controversial.

Nobody's suggesting they aren't controversial, but so is your notion of a self-realising complex intelligence springing unbidden from its own earhole as the result of the 'conclusion' that the universe couldn't simply emerge from nothing.

I'm afraid that psychology is redolent of people who don't want "To read the final page of the novel"

Thank you. I shall add psychology to the list of things I suspect you don't really understand, and shall look forward to buzzphrases like 'gestalt identities' being deployed like nonsensical grenades in the near future.

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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
Empiricism and agnosticism by any argument no matter how mutually contradictory or illogical.

Anyone would think your "victories" were fait accompli, that isn't what the literature, reference to which I have graciously placed in this thread, tells us at all.

[Stranger]

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.

Utter bullshit.

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!

[jeremyp]

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.

No 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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter bullshit.

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

[Stranger]

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 wish. When I say I don't know, I mean I don't know.

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

You don't seem to have noticed that part of what I've been saying is that, even if we accept some base of hierarchies idea, it becomes comical when you try to relate it to the Christian god.

I agree that an infinite regress of reasons seems rather unlikely, and that the obvious conclusion is that there is something genuinely fundamental. The problem arises when we ask why that exists, because the idea of something that couldn't fail to exist appears to be incoherent. I've read a number of versions of the argument, and spoken to other proponents of it on other forums, and none of them seem to be able to make it make any sort of logical sense.

It all basically seems to be "but, but... I don't like brute facts, and I can't think of anything else, so it must be".

The problem remains that nothing seems very satisfactory as an explanation for existence itself. Every proposed explanation seems flawed in one way or another, which is why I don't know.

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."

-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999)