Atheism: Cult or a religion?

[exan]

Your argument is refuted by history itself. In ancient Greece, with see the beginning of a rational explanation of the world. The Ionian philosophers broke from relying on mythical accounts of reality. Rational explanations of reality progressed in ancient Greece from the pre-Socratics, to Socrates, Plato and his Academy, and reached its peak with Aristotle and the Peripatetic School.

Rational reflection on nature discloses that it has not within it the reason or cause for its existence. The existence of contingent being must then be accounted for by a necessary being, one whose nature is not dependent on another for its existence. Aristotle provided demonstrations for the existence of a being on whom the world’s existence depends. This being we call God.

Historically, Aristotle’s arguments, especially as developed by Thomas Aquinas have not been refuted. Most assuredly, no one on CAF has ever put forth a compelling counter-argument.

Hence, the claim that there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God is the fairy tale agnostics and atheists must take for real.

Aristotele for his time, no doubt was on of the greatest thinkers for his time. His reasoning is philosophical deduction, used in many many ways. Why philosophical? Because it cannot be measured, but is based on reasoning alone. He, like many others wanted to know the cause of nature, and had a philosophy about it.

Later on great scientists have found more clues to what might have caused things in nature, but they were unknown in aritoteles time. Nature has given more clues than humanity could ever imagine about the cause of its existance. This proof is not complete, because not every step is known, it does portray a picture which points in the direction of showing ‘reasons’ and cause. Wether one fills in a higher beeing as part of this or not, is for now just philosophical, untill the true cause is known as fact, and the evidence would actually point to a higher beeing. As far as the creation of the universe goes, no higher beeings have yet been found. If they would I would probably faint and laugh, because I would have been wrong all the time. I don’t have issues with that, its just doesn’t seems to be any likely scenario to me.

As Socrates said only a wise man realises he does not knows everything. One can fill in a higher beeing or not, but in the end there is no exclusive evidence. It remains speculating in gaps. We can only rely upon what we think and reason and so far no evidence has been found beyond that for the existance of a god.

Do atheists and agnostics, -have- to accept artistoteles reasoning as proof for that god exists? No. Noone has to accept any philosophy, hell, people do not even have to accept physical proof like in evolution. And who cares. Why do you want us to believe there is proof based on a philosophy? Why can’t we agree to disagree? Though I realise, this reasoning must be proof for you, and there are many reasons for you and others to believe, they are not reasons for me or other atheists to believe the same.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which in this case would require more than a philosophy to proof a god exists. I am perfectly fine with gaps in my knowlegde and science points in a direction which makes more sense to me, though it is not the reason I am atheist. I realise to you this is proof, and many other things are. I don’t get what is the problem in accepting that not to everyone this is enough proof. For many people many reasons exist, and many conclusions exists, theres no reason to want everyone to believe the same. Why would we want to? I accept that you do not accept my reasoning as true, I don’t find it an insult, I respect it. No problem. Disagreeing on this is no reason for me to be upset. I hope you feel the same. Peace.

 

[Mosacked]

**Atheism:

Religion or Cult?**

Defined as: “ 2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents”

When I first began musing about this issue, I quickly dismissed “religion” as a possibility, given the necessity of a God or gods. On closer reflection I came to realize that they do recognize and serve several gods. Notably themselves and there “own superior intellects.”

One “must be” or so it seems, be exceedingly brilliant in order to regularly deflect, alter or redefine truth with the regularity that they are known for. I suspect this is a special calling one answers?

I must quickly point out what I share in this post is ONLY my personal opinion, and NOT necessarily that of the Catholic Church. Further, I stand outside the house of atheism, never having ventured in, and I can only glimpse through a dirty window into a dimly lit set of rooms.

Like others I am amazed at the positions put for by them. In so doing they sacrifice personal integrity, objectivity, openness to different and independent , and verifiably truthful thought, and more amazingly, there very own existence. [Oblivious to the notion: I think, therefore I am. And if “I am“, why and how?] They ignore the Universe, the uniqueness of the Human species who are both Physical Matter and Spiritual things [mind, intellect and freewill] as if this is a common and wholly natural occurrence in our Universe. There attempts to explain these spiritual attributes scientifically is simply astounding, in it’s reflective brilliance.

Choosing to ignore what they can’t explain. It takes a special kind if superior intellect to do this without doubts or even reflection. Quite amazing really. For example in our Galaxy which science tells us consist of BILLIONS of stars and planets, the only ONE that can be verified [yes I know it’s only been thousands of years; “give us time,”] to be able to support life, is Earth. Just luck of the draw I guess?

To hold to the “Big Bang theory” without explaining the origin of the stuff that went “BANG!” and to view the universes in all of it’s grander and consider it accidental or coincidental is a feat that can be accomplished only by a superior intellect.

I heard recently that about 15% of Americans [and growing] now hold to this atheist position. And here I thought “public education” wasn’t doing it’s job? Shame on me.

This is an issue Christianity must learn to challenge effectively, to tolerate charitably [lest I be accused of not taking my own advice, I quickly point out that I avoided the “S” word, and sharing truth itself is a great charity].

At it’s core, atheism denies all truth, accepts the concept oft put forth that something is only wrong if I declare it to be wrong, don’t judge me and I won’t judge you. It is being taught, propagated by our educational system, and like a “free candy store” is being entered, and accepted by the most vulnerable amongst us. Those who [in all ages, past and present] “know more and know better“ than there elders. Those who have not been instructed on how to actually think critically, or think things through, and those, oh so eager to take the easy road now, many believing [or at least hoping] it’s there only option.

So friends in Christ how do we respond to this challenge?

The answer to the opening questions seems to be yes and both. Atheism is a cult following in that it seems to lack prudent judgment and thoughtful reflection, tending more to robotic type responses. It is a religion in that it worships self on the high altar of superior intellect. Which by the way, too is a spiritual thing.

Love and prayer’s

Pat

PJM, what you just described above is similar to the Church Of Satan. Try visiting their website and go through their basic ‘doctrines’.

Satanism is exactly that…people honor themselves more than God, believe in doing things THEIR way and believing that everything is within their hands. But then, you’d not be surprised that many ‘Christians’ today are like that too! They go to church, they pray, but they do not live lives after Christ.

They do things the way they want (sometimes creditting these to God, after committing some unscrupulous acts to achieve their gains) and call it ‘blessings’.

The line has become so grey that its difficult to see exactly where exactly is the direction they are heading.

 

[itinerant1]

Later on great scientists have found more clues to what might have caused things in nature, but they were unknown in aritoteles time. Nature has given more clues than humanity could ever imagine about the cause of its existance. This proof is not complete, because not every step is known, it does portray a picture which points in the direction of showing ‘reasons’ and cause. Wether one fills in a higher beeing as part of this or not, is for now just philosophical, untill the true cause is known as fact, and the evidence would actually point to a higher beeing. As far as the creation of the universe goes, no higher beeings have yet been found. If they would I would probably faint and laugh, because I would have been wrong all the time. I don’t have issues with that, its just doesn’t seems to be any likely scenario to me.

It seems as if you think science can provide, at least in principle, answers to ultimate questions about the cosmos. The assumption is unwarranted. In any case, to justify your position you would have to make a philosophical argument. Yet, you don’t accord much credit to philosophy’s ability to provide genuine knowledge. Hence, your atheism has no rational foundation. Your atheism is a kind of faith in reverse gear.

It does not upset me in the least. I just have no idea why anyone could be content with an unfounded and unproven Weltanschauung.

 

[exan]

It seems as if you think science can provide, at least in principle, answers to ultimate questions about the cosmos. The assumption is unwarranted. In any case, to justify your position you would have to make a philosophical argument. Yet, you don’t accord much credit to philosophy’s ability to provide genuine knowledge. Hence, your atheism has no rational foundation. Your atheism is a kind of faith in reverse gear.

It does not upset me in the least. I just have no idea why anyone could be content with an unfounded and unproven Weltanschauung.

Science is busy in finding answers in untimate questions about the cosmos. It does not claim to have the answers all ready, just some answers. Where does it comes from, why do we exist. Stephen Hawking is particularly fond of this type of question, and getting to know the answers.

Evolution explains the diversity in species, evolution is no longer a theory but a scientific fact. Abiogenesis is a usefull theory on how life came into existance, and the newest theories about how the big bang started include M-theory and/or multiple universes. Note that theories in science are unproven models, which seem likely, but not proven yet. Unlike scientific facts.

For example evolution started as a theory 150 years ago, but now has enough proof so no longer is considered a theory but a scientific fact. Scientists, just like Socrates did do realise they do not know everything. They do not claim to hold the ultimate truth when they call something a theory, a theory means something is an acceptable and likely model, but not (yet) proven by enough evidence, though it might.

Big bang in fact also is a theory, though has aquired quite some evidence. It only becomes accepted as a scientific fact when there is enough evidence. Scientific facts are tested endlessly and by many scientists before they are accepted and also tried to be debunked repeatedly. Big bang is on its way to become scientific fact. Evolution is a scientific fact. That gravity exists is a scientific fact. A scientific fact always is open to be disproven off course, its not a dogma or undiscussable. Science is about finding the ultimate truth, proven truth, and preferably as proven and tested as possible. Thats what science is about. Sciene however, does not claim to know everything.

These facts and theories if proven answer the questions about where the universe came from, where we came from. In their theory/scientific fact form they point in a usefull direction. Current theories are quite good since noone has been able to debunk them yet, they are based on observation, they are not considerd proved by enough evidence, but do considered to be likely. The longer they survive and more researched they are the more likely they get.

Unlike you I do not claim my view about the evidence is nessecarily 100% right or science is 100% proven. Such claim would make no sense. I just claim I donot belive in any gods. I am satisfied with not knowing everything and I go for what I consider the most likely scenarios. They have to fit the universe as far as we know it, otherwise it makes no sense to me. Theories have to fit wat we observe and be testable unlike philosophies which are up for endless discussion. Theories can be proven or debunked, while philosophy never answers anything it remains an opinion issue.

A scientific reason for the start of the big bang is more likely to me than a “divine beeing” whos existance is unexplained. Physics laws work, can be tested, unlike religion. There is more proof for the big bang than for a divine beeing. Divine beeings are not logical to me, because they never popped into the equasion. Atheism = I do not believe in gods. Not = I have proof there are no gods. To me science simply provides the most likely scenario, backed up by more evidence than the other side. I do not claim this evidence is 100% proven etc. I am not that arrogant.

Your last line sugests you are not satisfied with an unfounded and unproven
Weltanschauung, so I assume you consider your own reasoning proven. That, my dear, is human arrogance. Because there is no factual proof that a god exists.

 

[itinerant1]

Your last line sugests you are not satisfied with an unfounded and unproven Weltanschauung, so I assume you consider your own reasoning proven. That, my dear, is human arrogance. Because there is no factual proof that a god exists.

I don’t need a junior high school level lecture on the state of science. Thanks for offering, though. Why do you refer to Socrates when you know nothing about him? Socrates can teach you about the immortality of the soul.

Unlike you, I do not proffer or subscribe to unproven opinions. It is not the strength of one’s convictions that counts, but whether one has a right to those convictions. My convictions are thought out, based on sound reasoning and evidence. You, on the other hand, are limited to what modern science discovers, and even regarding that, you seem to know terribly little.

I think you are keeping your mind and your heart encircled by a very small fence. You are stifling your potential as a human being while pretending to yourself that you are being real. If I met you in person, I could probably tell you within 5 minutes why you have made your world so awfully small.

Socrates says to “Know thyself.” You are very, very far from that. And you are very far from understanding anything Socrates. Do you even know the rest of the dictum that was abbreviated to “Know Thyself”?

I suspect that you are fairly young, had a public school mis-education, and exist under the illusion that you know something about life.

 

[AntiTheist]

Rational reflection on nature discloses that it has not within it the reason or cause for its existence. The existence of contingent being must then be accounted for by a necessary being, one whose nature is not dependent on another for its existence. Aristotle provided demonstrations for the existence of a being on whom the world’s existence depends. This being we call God.

And I’ll bet you think that this “necessary being” has magical attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and I’ll bet you think it’s an intelligent being that possesses a mind and cares about human beings and what they do, and he incarnated in a human form to give himself as a bloody sacrifice to himself for a loophole to a rule that he thought up himself…

See? Fairy tales.

[And that’s granting your premise that some “being” is “necessary” – we haven’t the foggiest idea of what came before the Big Bang, whether it was conscious, a force, a supernatural creature, a bunch of energy, a mind, completely natural laws, or something else entirely that we can’t even imagine. To jump to the conclusion that some “being” necessarily preceded the Big Bang is the height of presumption and fairy tale story telling]

 

[AntiTheist]

I think that OP has mistaken the categories of the terms. In my opinion, atheism is not a world-view in itself but rather a property of one. There are many world views out there. Some of them do include a deity (or more deities) - we call those ‘theistic world views’ and other ones do not include a deity and we call them ‘atheistic world views’.

This is correct and an important point.

 

[exan]

I don’t need a junior high school level lecture on the state of science. Thanks for offering, though. Why do you refer to Socrates when you know nothing about him? Socrates can teach you about the immortality of the soul.

Unlike you, I do not proffer or subscribe to unproven opinions. It is not the strength of one’s convictions that counts, but whether one has a right to those convictions. My convictions are thought out, based on sound reasoning and evidence. You, on the other hand, are limited to what modern science discovers, and even regarding that, you seem to know terribly little.

I think you are keeping your mind and your heart encircled by a very small fence. You are stifling your potential as a human being while pretending to yourself that you are being real. If I met you in person, I could probably tell you within 5 minutes why you have made your world so awfully small.

Socrates says to “Know thyself.” You are very, very far from that. And you are very far from understanding anything Socrates. Do you even know the rest of the dictum that was abbreviated to “Know Thyself”?

I suspect that you are fairly young, had a public school mis-education, and exist under the illusion that you know something about life.

A post in which you try to belittle me and insult me, does not give grounds to usefull discussion. You assume a lot about me without knowing me, you assume you know what I think without asking what I think. You even assume you know what will happen when we meet. It has no use to reason with someone with such an arrogant attitude, sorry.

 

[itinerant1]

And I’ll bet you think that this “necessary being” has magical attributes: omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and I’ll bet you think it’s an intelligent being that possesses a mind and cares about human beings and what they do, and he incarnated in a human form to give himself as a bloody sacrifice to himself for a loophole to a rule that he thought up himself…

Obviously, you know nothing about the philosophical demonstrations I referred to. So, why are you making snide comments about something you know zilch about?

See? Fairy tales.

I see a foolish jibe substituted for rational discussion.

And that’s granting your premise that some “being” is “necessary” – we haven’t the foggiest idea of what came before the Big Bang, whether it was conscious, a force, a supernatural creature, a bunch of energy, a mind, completely natural laws, or something else entirely that we can’t even imagine. To jump to the conclusion that some “being” necessarily preceded the Big Bang is the height of presumption and fairy tale story telling]

Obviously, you have not put any thought into this matter. Let me show you how utterly mindless are your comments.

First, I began by referring to Aristotle’s philosophical arguments for necessary being. A moment of thought would tell someone this does not involve science, since it pertains to a philosophical demonstration.

Second, the demonstration is not relevant to Big Bang cosmology since Aristotle lived in classical Greek times, which most people realize to be prior to the origin of Big Bang theory by Monsignor Édouard Lemaître.

Third, the philosophical demonstration remains independent of the state of scientific cosmology.

Fourth, as is evidenced by your odd comments about what came before the Big Bang, you falsely assume the argument involves a chronological element, before and after. However, the argument assumes an eternally existing universe, as in always was. Now read that one more time and think about it.

Hence, it difficult to find anything in your post that is even remotely relevant to the matter under discussion.

“The fool is happy that he knows no more.” – Alexander Pope

 

[AntiTheist]

A moment of thought would tell someone this does not involve science, since it pertains to a philosophical demonstration.

Science involves what we actually know about the world. We actually know that the universe (in its current form, anyway) had a beginning.

However, the argument assumes an eternally existing universe, as in always was. Now read that one more time and think about it.

Ok. What implies that it’s a necessary being with the magical properties that you attribute to it?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that a “necessary being” preceded the Big Bang. What’s your justification for thinking that it’s a being, and not a natural force or something we don’t know anything about?

 

[itinerant1]

Science involves what we actually know about the world. We actually know that the universe (in its current form, anyway) had a beginning.

Natural science is a particular way of knowing. It studies the relation of the phenomenal properties of physical things. It weighs, measures, calculates, and so on.

Hypothetically, if the universe had always existed, that would not affect the legitimacy of the arguments to a necessary being. Speculations about “prior in time” to the Big Bang are irrelevant to the argument.

Science does not tell us everything about the universe. Methodological naturalism limits science to phenomenal aspects of being. Science has nothing to say about the noumenal aspects of being. Noumenal reality lies outside the scope and competence of the natural sciences. The noumenal aspects of nature comes within the province of philosophy, classical philosophy especially. Philosophy is another way of knowing, a more abstract kind of knowledge.

Ok. What implies that it’s a necessary being with the magical properties that you attribute to it?

I have no idea what might imply that anything has magical properties. If I choked a Smurf and he turned sparkly red, would that be magical in your book?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that a “necessary being” preceded the Big Bang.

“Preceded” has multiple meanings:

1. Something can precede another thing chronologically, as in the Big Bang occurred before the earth was formed.
2. Something can be prior to something else logically, as in 2 precedes 3.
3. Something can be prior ontologically, in that a being is dependent for its existence or for a modification of its being by a “higher” being. The higher being is ontologically prior to that being which depends on it in some manner. Such a relation does not necessarily involve a strict chronological priority or precedence.

In an absolute sense of # 3, all beings that exist do not have within themselves the cause of their own existence, and therefore their existence is accounted for by something that is ontologically prior.

What’s your justification for thinking that it’s a being, and not a natural force or something we don’t know anything about?

A natural force has being, and it is a physical thing. Everything that science, especially physics, tells us about physical things and their properties, i.e. the properties of physical matter and energy, reveal that all things in the cosmos are contingent. They do not exist necessarily. The same conclusion would hold true of some unknown natural force since it is a natural force and presumably possess at least some of the qualities we see in everything else, even if it is only extension in space, or physical energy of some type.

As far as “something we don’t know anything about” is concerned, I am addressing that which you don’t know anything about.

From this we can see that if nothing that exists exists necessarily, then there is no reason why anything should exist at all . Yet, since things do exist, we must posit a being that exists necessarily and which accounts for the existence of all non-necessary things.

 

[AntiTheist]

Ugh, it’s been so long since I’ve dealt with this brand of metaphysical word game.

I’m going to continue to grant your premises and simply question the jump to a “being” at the end of your argument (and I assume an intelligent being?).

A natural force has being, and it is a physical thing. Everything that science, especially physics, tells us about physical things and their properties, i.e. the properties of physical matter and energy, reveal that all things in the cosmos are contingent. They do not exist necessarily. The same conclusion would hold true of some unknown natural force since it is a natural force and presumably possess at least some of the qualities we see in everything else, even if it is only extension in space, or physical energy of some type.

I’m not talking about the cosmos; I’m talking about whatever came before the Big Bang (if it even makes sense to talk about “before the Big Bang”). There’s no reason to think that whatever came before the Big Bang possessed the properties of the universe we observe.

So it’s possible that whatever preceded the Big Bang was unintelligent and still “necessary” according to the metaphysical word game you’re playing.

We have no grounds for declaring whatever came before the Big Bang an intelligent being – or making any statements about it whatsoever.

EDIT: When considering the premises of this word game, it occurs to me also that it is possible that the universe is entirely deterministic, meaning that everything that occurs is indeed necessary. [In other words, you have no grounds for your first premise]

 

[itinerant1]

Ugh, it’s been so long since I’ve dealt with this brand of metaphysical word game.

I’m going to continue to grant your premises and simply question the jump to a “being” at the end of your argument (and I assume an intelligent being?).

I’m not talking about the cosmos; I’m talking about whatever came before the Big Bang (if it even makes sense to talk about “before the Big Bang”). There’s no reason to think that whatever came before the Big Bang possessed the properties of the universe we observe.

So it’s possible that whatever preceded the Big Bang was unintelligent and still “necessary” according to the metaphysical word game you’re playing.

We have no grounds for declaring whatever came before the Big Bang an intelligent being – or making any statements about it whatsoever.

EDIT: When considering the premises of this word game, it occurs to me also that it is possible that the universe is entirely deterministic, meaning that everything that occurs is indeed necessary. [In other words, you have no grounds for your first premise]

You missed everything I said. You are still thinking on a horizontal plane, a horizontal line, so to speak. You make the logical error of going back in time, and then talking about what may or may not be prior to the initial singularity. Several times, I explained that this is exactly how not to think about the issue.

You need to re-read what I wrote and then think vertically, so to speak. If that does not work then I will have to pose the problem in the context of a hypothetical universe.

 

[AntiTheist]

Well, even if we’re thinking “vertically” and not “horizontally,” I still don’t see how you make the leap to an intelligent being at the end and not something unintelligent of which we have no knowledge.

I don’t agree with the premise that everything is contingent in the sense of “not necessary” or “doesn’t have to be” – I think it’s at least conceivable that everything that is is necessary.

And even if everything is contingent, it doesn’t follow that the universe as a whole is contingent – a set doesn’t have to share the properties of things contained in the set.

And even if it does follow that the universe is contingent, I see no justification for saying that a being lies at the end of the logical chain. It could simply be a mindless thing of which we’re not aware.

This argument – and I’m aware that there are even more complicated versions floating around – is an elaborate word game that makes the mistake of thinking that we can discover things about the world without observing the world. The ontological argument works in a similar way: you can’t think a being into existence.

[Note: I’ll be away this weekend and will return to raise more objections to the word game next week]

 

[stenlis]

Methodological naturalism limits science to phenomenal aspects of being. Science has nothing to say about the noumenal aspects of being. Noumenal reality lies outside the scope and competence of the natural sciences. The noumenal aspects of nature comes within the province of philosophy, classical philosophy especially. Philosophy is another way of knowing, a more abstract kind of knowledge.

Yes, but even ‘noumenal aspects of being’ can be evaluated as true or false in two ways
a) whether they are structurally correct and
b) whether they actually apply to reality or whether they misrepresent it

Mathematics in its pure form, for instance, is conceptual only and mathematicians only check the structural correctness when validating a mathematical theory. But mathematics can be applied to describe something real. The famous E = mc^2 is a mathematical concept that actually applies to an aspect of reality. We know it, because we can verify it experimentally.

But what about the kind of philosophy you are talking about here? Defining something and pondering about it does not make it real. Does your philosophy have ties to the reality? What are they?

1. Something can be prior ontologically, in that a being is dependent for its existence or for a modification of its being by a “higher” being. The higher being is ontologically prior to that being which depends on it in some manner. Such a relation does not necessarily involve a strict chronological priority or precedence.

In an absolute sense of # 3, all beings that exist do not have within themselves the cause of their own existence, and therefore their existence is accounted for by something that is ontologically prior.

For instance?

A natural force has being, and it is a physical thing. Everything that science, especially physics, tells us about physical things and their properties, i.e. the properties of physical matter and energy, reveal that all things in the cosmos are contingent. They do not exist necessarily.

Not quite. What does the first law of thermodynamics say about energy? What is it contingent upon?

From this we can see that if nothing that exists exists necessarily, then there is no reason why anything should exist at all . Yet, since things do exist, we must posit a being that exists necessarily and which accounts for the existence of all non-necessary things.

Well, maybe there is no reason for existence and your life does not matter one bit in the from the cosmic perspective. This is, however, hard to swallow for an arrogant human mind.

Or maybe there is a reason, which we cannot account for and our world-view is incomplete. Yet again, this is hard to accept for an arrogant mind that wants to claim absolute knowldge.

For when you posit a being that exists necessarilly (and thus accounts for everything), but you can’t account for it at all, you have accounted for nothing. You can’t define something into existence.

 

[itinerant1]

Yes, but even ‘noumenal aspects of being’ can be evaluated as true or false in two ways
a) whether they are structurally correct and
b) whether they actually apply to reality or whether they misrepresent it

Mathematics in its pure form, for instance, is conceptual only and mathematicians only check the structural correctness when validating a mathematical theory. But mathematics can be applied to describe something real. The famous E = mc^2 is a mathematical concept that actually applies to an aspect of reality. We know it, because we can verify it experimentally.

But what about the kind of philosophy you are talking about here? Defining something and pondering about it does not make it real. Does your philosophy have ties to the reality? What are they?

Classical philosophy, *philosophia perennis. *It studies reality from a different formal perspective (its formal object), than do the natural sciences, though their material object, the subject matter, remains the same.

For instance?

A tree is dependent for its existence on the sun.

Not quite. What does the first law of thermodynamics say about energy? What is it contingent upon?

The recent cosmological advances over an infinite, steady state universe, to a finite, expanding one is scientific evidence favoring the traditional philosophical view of the universe as contingent and temporal. First, the theory of entropy said that the energy used up in a particular area cannot be restored. The implication is that the universe is subject to generation and corruption. Then came the discovery of the convertibility of matter into energy, which altered the two theories of conservation. The addition of the theory of relativity and other scientific discoveries all point to a universe that is temporal – it has a beginning and will pass to an end.

Nothing within this universe, or the universe in toto has within it that which sufficiently accounts for its existence.

Well, maybe there is no reason for existence and your life does not matter one bit in the from the cosmic perspective. This is, however, hard to swallow for an arrogant human mind.

You are using “reason” here in a different sense. I have limited its stipulation to the causes of a thing’s existence, that which accounts for becoming or generation.

Or maybe there is a reason, which we cannot account for and our world-view is incomplete. Yet again, this is hard to accept for an arrogant mind that wants to claim absolute knowldge.

Only if we think we have not or cannot achieve an understanding of being and existence would we be unjustified in venturing an explanation.

For when you posit a being that exists necessarilly (and thus accounts for everything), but you can’t account for it at all, you have accounted for nothing. You can’t define something into existence.

We can account for necessary being in a limited way with a kind of analogy from the contingent, temporal beings in our experience of nature.

It is an analogical way of knowing necessary being. It is a being whose essence must be identical with its existence. This being is existence per se, which communicates existence to that which had no existence.

 

[stenlis]

Classical philosophy, *philosophia perennis. *It studies reality from a different formal

perspective (its formal object), than do the natural sciences, though their material object, the subject matter, remains the

same.

Doesn’t quite answer my question though. Is there something that can be checked against reality or do you just accept claims

that are structuraly sound?

A tree is dependent for its existence on the sun.

You were saying there were things that may not need to preceed each other chronologically. This is not the case - you must

first have a sun, then you can grow a tree.

The recent cosmological advances over an infinite, steady state universe, to a finite, expanding one is scientific evidence

favoring the traditional philosophical view of the universe as contingent and temporal. First, the theory of entropy said that

the energy used up in a particular area cannot be restored. The implication is that the universe is subject to generation and

corruption. Then came the discovery of the convertibility of matter into energy, which altered the two theories of

conservation. The addition of the theory of relativity and other scientific discoveries all point to a universe that is

temporal – it has a beginning and will pass to an end.

I was talking about energy, not about universe. The form of universe that we know (with stars and galaxies) probably had a

beginning and will have an end. But nothing suggests that the bulk of energy that the universe contains will ever cease to be

(or has come to be out of some state of ‘no energy’). Entropy only talks about the organization of that bulk of energy but not

about its existence. So - once again I ask you - what is [this bulk of] energy contingent upon?

Nothing within this universe, or the universe in toto has within it that which sufficiently accounts for its existence.

A bold statement. Can you prove that?
And if you could, you would be proving that god does not exist:

1. Universe is all that exists (any dictionary)
2. Universe does not have within it that which accounts for its existence
3. God accounts for the existence of universe (all that exists)
4. From 1) 2) and 3) - god is not among things that exist

Only if we think we have not or cannot achieve an understanding of being and existence would we be unjustified in venturing

an explanation.

I indeed believe that we have not achieved such understanding

We can account for necessary being in a limited way with a kind of analogy from the contingent, temporal beings in our

experience of nature.

It is an analogical way of knowing necessary being. It is a being whose essence must be identical with its existence. This

being is existence per se, which communicates existence to that which had no existence.

We can, but that ‘accounting for’ is conceptual only and it might not be true - it might not be an accurate representation of reality.

Let me give you a real-life example:
In 19th century scientists discovered some curious properties of light. To explain them they posited the theory of ‘aether’. This theory accounted for the mysterious properties of light. However, as it turned out, that theory was wrong. Those that formulated the theory could not imagine a different explanation, that was much more radical and unexpected, but it was correct - the special theory of relativity. That theory was shown to be correct by experiments and observations.

You came with a speculation as well. But can you demonstrate that it represents the reality accurately?

 

[AntiTheist]

We can, but that ‘accounting for’ is conceptual only and it might not be true - it might not be an accurate representation of reality.

Let me give you a real-life example:
In 19th century scientists discovered some curious properties of light. To explain them they posited the theory of ‘aether’. This theory accounted for the mysterious properties of light. However, as it turned out, that theory was wrong. Those that formulated the theory could not imagine a different explanation, that was much more radical and unexpected, but it was correct - the special theory of relativity. That theory was shown to be correct by experiments and observations.

You came with a speculation as well. But can you demonstrate that it represents the reality accurately?

Stenlis, thanks for this example. I had actually thought of this over the weekend and intended to bring this up – it’s perfect for this kind of conversation.

Finding out things about reality isn’t something you can do by thinking about it apart from evidence. We find things out about reality by actually investigating.

Anyway, back to the word game, which I don’t think actually works. The word game labels everything “contingent,” but I’m still not clear on exactly what this means. “Dependent upon the existence of something else,” I guess. But is really everything “contingent” in this sense? Cosmological constants? Logical absolutes? The laws of physics?

And even if you can somehow argue that every last thing in the universe is “contingent” in this sense, it doesn’t demonstrate that the whole system is contingent on something else. The “universe” is just the label we put on the set of all things. The set doesn’t necessarily share the properties of things in the set.

And even if you can somehow argue that the universe is contingent on something, it doesn’t follow that the something is 1) intelligent, 2) all-powerful, 3) all-good, 4) all-knowing. The “something” could be an unintelligent supernatural force like the Tao, or some kind of pantheist/panentheist force.

And once again, as Stenlis very nicely points out, even if you could somehow argue that all of the above necessitates the existence of an intelligent non-contingent being, it in no way demonstrates that it is the case unless you actually investigate what reality is.

This one was actually a kind of amusing word game, while it lasted, but it doesn’t have the staying power of a crossword puzzle.

 

[itinerant1]

Doesn’t quite answer my question though. Is there something that can be checked against reality or do you just accept claims

that are structuraly sound?

The claim begins with reflection on reality.

You were saying there were things that may not need to preceed each other chronologically. This is not the case - you must

first have a sun, then you can grow a tree.

You have taken the issue out of context and then mangled it. The context was that in which the beginning of the universe with the initial singularity was not pertinent to my analysis. We could hypothetically posit an eternally existing universe with no beginning, and that would suffice for my argument. Thinking “vertically”, at each moment in time, in which one being is dependent, may not be the kind of understanding you can grasp at this point.

I was talking about energy, not about universe. The form of universe that we know (with stars and galaxies) probably had a

beginning and will have an end. But nothing suggests that the bulk of energy that the universe contains will ever cease to be

I see, the universe may cease to exist but energy lives on. I’d like to see you unpack that one.

(or has come to be out of some state of ‘no energy’). Entropy only talks about the organization of that bulk of energy but not

about its existence. So - once again I ask you - what is [this bulk of] energy contingent upon?

In your mind it is not contingent on anything. It looks like an amorphous bulk that is self-contained and eternally existing. Sounds like Star Trek stuff to me, or more likely it’s the Force. Something to believe in though, but not very scientific or philosophical.

A bold statement. Can you prove that?
And if you could, you would be proving that god does not exist:

1. Universe is all that exists (any dictionary)
2. Universe does not have within it that which accounts for its existence
3. God accounts for the existence of universe (all that exists)
4. From 1) 2) and 3) - god is not among things that exist

I indeed believe that we have not achieved such understanding

We can, but that ‘accounting for’ is conceptual only and it might not be true - it might not be an accurate representation of reality.

Let me give you a real-life example:
In 19th century scientists discovered some curious properties of light. To explain them they posited the theory of ‘aether’. This theory accounted for the mysterious properties of light. However, as it turned out, that theory was wrong. Those that formulated the theory could not imagine a different explanation, that was much more radical and unexpected, but it was correct - the special theory of relativity. That theory was shown to be correct by experiments and observations.

You came with a speculation as well. But can you demonstrate that it represents the reality accurately?

It is difficult to see what relevance any of this has on the concept of contingent and necessary being. I suspect abstract notions of being are not something you can grasp. Hence, there is no way for this discussion to proceed.

 

[itinerant1]

Stenlis, thanks for this example. I had actually thought of this over the weekend and intended to bring this up – it’s perfect for this kind of conversation.

Finding out things about reality isn’t something you can do by thinking about it apart from evidence. We find things out about reality by actually investigating.

Anyway, back to the word game, which I don’t think actually works. The word game labels everything “contingent,” but I’m still not clear on exactly what this means. “Dependent upon the existence of something else,” I guess. But is really everything “contingent” in this sense? Cosmological constants? Logical absolutes? The laws of physics?

And even if you can somehow argue that every last thing in the universe is “contingent” in this sense, it doesn’t demonstrate that the whole system is contingent on something else. The “universe” is just the label we put on the set of all things. The set doesn’t necessarily share the properties of things in the set.

And even if you can somehow argue that the universe is contingent on something, it doesn’t follow that the something is 1) intelligent, 2) all-powerful, 3) all-good, 4) all-knowing. The “something” could be an unintelligent supernatural force like the Tao, or some kind of pantheist/panentheist force.

And once again, as Stenlis very nicely points out, even if you could somehow argue that all of the above necessitates the existence of an intelligent non-contingent being, it in no way demonstrates that it is the case unless you actually investigate what reality is.

This one was actually a kind of amusing word game, while it lasted, but it doesn’t have the staying power of a crossword puzzle.

I think you would be more comfortable with simple crossword puzzles, very concrete you know; whereas abstract analysis of reality is not something you can deal at all.