Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Nixbits]

For it to have been created, it means, LOGICALLY, that what created it was NOT space, matter, time and energy. That is, OUTSIDE the universe.

I’m still not convinced. There is no space 'outside ’ the universe, by definition. So how can something be said to be ‘located’ where there is no space?

 

[Skeptic92]

I’m still not convinced. There is no space 'outside ’ the universe, by definition. So how can something be said to be ‘located’ where there is no space?

Is there only ever one sense to a term? If not, then is it not quite uncharitable to assume the sense of “outside” here refers to the spatial sense? Given that, it would mean that your interlocutor is asserting something plainly self-contradictory when there are perfectly cogent senses which avoid contradiction.

And if you are going to argue that there can only be one sense to a term, I’d like a proof of that. Given that contemporary philosophy of language tends to hold that doctrine of Chomskyan grammar is absurd.

 

[Nixbits]

Is there only ever one sense to a term? If not, then is it not quite uncharitable to assume the sense of “outside” here refers to the spatial sense? Given that, it would mean that your interlocutor is asserting something plainly self-contradictory when there are perfectly cogent senses which avoid contradiction.

That’s a fair point. But I don’t assert that there is only one sense of the term. It could be spatial, temporal, physical or relate to something else.

PRmerger stated that “The universe is all space, matter, time and energy.” To be ‘outside’ the universe means in no space, no time, no matter and no energy. I’m not suggesting that this is self-contradictory. I merely stated that “I don’t think that we necessarily even know whether ‘outside the universe’ has any meaning.” I’m still not convinced that a good case has been made for there being anything ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy. What evidence is there that suggests such a thing is possible?

 

[Skeptic92]

That’s a fair point. But I don’t assert that there is only one sense of the term. It could be spatial, temporal, physical or relate to something else.

PRmerger stated that “The universe is all space, matter, time and energy.” To be ‘outside’ the universe means in no space, no time, no matter and no energy. I’m not suggesting that this is self-contradictory. I merely stated that “I don’t think that we necessarily even know whether ‘outside the universe’ has any meaning.” I’m still not convinced that a good case has been made for there being anything ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy. What evidence is there that suggests such a thing is possible?

Simply possible? Then the fact there is no contradiction in something subsisting immaterial suffices. Which is not something most professional atheistic philosophers would deny. Especially given the dominance of a rather watered down platonism amongst physicists and philosophers and mathematics.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not surprising you ask that question because obviously freaks of nature have no rights whatsoever. Thank you for confirming your view that they are worthless human conventions.

Then what is your explanation?

In other words it is an argument from ignorance, an impressive expression which is valueless and meaningless…

If the word ‘emergent’ were truly meaningless, then how could you claim it is an argument from ignorance? You clearly understand what the word means, so it must have meaning.

It is an unverified description not a rational argument. We understand the statement “Nothing exists” but it is absurd.

On the contrary your participation in this forum implies that you **believe **

your behaviour is purposeful yet you attribute your origin to purposeless molecules which you believe have somehow become capable of ultimately explaining how all purposeful activity is ultimately purposeless! In other words you are trying to get something for nothing and thereby contradicting yourself.I think we’ve been through this before.

Irrelevant.

Getting some property from molecules that do not themselves have that property is trivially obvious. Given a sufficiently complex arrangement of complex molecules and sufficient time for advantageous variations to be favoured by evolutionary pressures, the property that may become present could also be complex.

It is not a question of complexity but adequacy. Your argument boils down to the belief that anything is possible if there is sufficient time for it to occur. How would you justify that hypothesis?

The expression “this word salad” reveals that you don’t understand the meaning of those terms and it is a waste of time and energy trying to explain them to you.

I’m deeply grateful that you’ve chosen not to. .

In other words you prefer to use a discourteous term like “word salad” and evade the fact that all our empirical knowledge is derived from introspection and sense data and is subordinate to abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love - which apparently count for nothing in your limited scheme of things. I’m sure your attitude is inconsistent with the way you regard and treat **persons **like your family and friends…

 

[Nixbits]

Then what is your explanation?

What is my explanation for what?

Your argument boils down to the belief that anything is possible if there is sufficient time for it to occur. How would you justify that hypothesis?

I wouldn’t attempt to justify this hypothesis because I don’t believe it.

In other words you prefer to use a discourteous term like “word salad” and evade the fact that all our empirical knowledge is derived from introspection and sense data and is subordinate to abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love.

In other words you prefer to focus on what you perceive as discourtesy and evade the question that I asked, which was: How is all of our empirical knowledge subordinate to moral discernment, spiritual insight, self-control and love? Please explain.

 

[Nixbits]

Simply possible? Then the fact there is no contradiction in something subsisting immaterial suffices. Which is not something most professional atheistic philosophers would deny. Especially given the dominance of a rather watered down platonism amongst physicists and philosophers and mathematics.

Are you saying that you think that the lack of contradiction is enough to establish that it is possible? If so, I don’t agree. There is no contradiction in the idea of me casting a magical spell to fire bolts of lightning at a target. Does that mean it is possible? I don’t think so.

 

[Skeptic92]

Are you saying that you think that the lack of contradiction is enough to establish that it is possible? If so, I don’t agree. There is no contradiction in the idea of me casting a magical spell to fire bolts of lightning at a target. Does that mean it is possible? I don’t think so.

Well, actually, there is a contradiction virtually present within that proposition. For man does not have the power to fire bolts of lightning, thus the proposition asserts that one, that is without the power to x, can x by its own power.

And, yeah. There is not a metaphysician out there who denies a lack of contradiction implies logical possibility. Whether they are Atheistic or not. So if you wish to deny, you are welcome to attempt to. But you’d be putting yourself in a position of knowledge over and above the professional philosophers and their consensus which has been in consensus for over a millennia.

 

[PRmerger]

We’ve been through this before. It’s not a cogent paradigm. But it’s not the paradigm of any atheist I know of. It’s a straw-man argument that mis-characterises the views of atheists.

Well, no atheist will admit to such, but it’s like this:

Atheist: I don’t believe cows are mammals.

Me: Yes, they are. Do you believe that only mammals make milk?

Atheist: Yes, of course!

Me: Do cows make milk?

Atheist: Of course!

Me: Therefore, cows are mammals.

Atheist: Nope. All I have said is that cows make milk. And mammals make milk.

Me: sigh!

 

[PRmerger]

I’m still not convinced that a good case has been made for there being anything ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy.

Well, yeah.

That entity that’s outside space, time, matter and energy is…God.

 

[Nixbits]

Well, yeah. That entity that’s outside space, time, matter and energy is…God.

Is that intended to be a good case in support of your proposition?

 

[Nixbits]

Well, actually, there is a contradiction virtually present within that proposition. For man does not have the power to fire bolts of lightning, thus the proposition asserts that one, that is without the power to x, can x by its own power.

I’ve probably not chosen a very good example. But I don’t think that there is necessarily a contradiction. A human does not have the power to fire lightning, but a magical spell (in the context of this example) is a set of instructions placed into the sensorium of a suitable immaterial entity that is able and not unwilling to manipulate the physical matter of our universe in such a way as to produce the desired effect. Magic is a practical art and not a science. The fundamental principles are not well understood. Emphasis is placed on application, not theory.

Now I fully accept that this is silly example. But I see no logical contradictions. But that’s not enough for me to conclude that it’s possible.

There is not a metaphysician out there who denies a lack of contradiction implies logical possibility.

This may be where we are debating at cross purposes. I wasn’t talking about logical possibility. I’m talking about actual possibility, i.e. Is it actually possible within the reality that we experience?

 

[PRmerger]

Is that intended to be a good case in support of your proposition?

Why don’t you clarify what you mean by my “good case”?

If you could offer the argument I’m proposing, that would be helpful.

 

[tonyrey]

Then what is your explanation?

Human rights based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Your argument boils down to the belief that anything is possible if there is sufficient time for it to occur. How would you justify that hypothesis?

I wouldn’t attempt to justify this hypothesis because I don’t believe it.

You have stated:

Getting some property from molecules that do not themselves have that property is trivially obvious. Given a sufficiently complex arrangement of complex molecules and sufficient time for advantageous variations to be favoured by evolutionary pressures, the property that may become present could also be complex.

Your failure to specify the amount of time required implies that you don’t know how long it would take to achieve “advantageous variations”. An open-ended argument imposes** no limits **on the possibilities. You also imply that complex arrangements of **impersonal **complex moleculescan create **persons **with the power of abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love. If they can perform that miracle they are surely capable of creating anything. What you fail to realise is that your hypothesis is self-destructive. If there is no self there is no self-control, self-respect, self-awareness, self-possession, self-sacrifice or self-determination. In other words life becomes meaningless.

In other words you prefer to focus on what you perceive as discourtesy…

It is not merely my perception but the term’s derogatory implications:

“Word salad”: a confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases, specifically (in psychiatry) as a form of speech indicative of advanced schizophrenia.

• wikipedia

How is all of our empirical knowledge subordinate to moral discernment, spiritual insight, self-control and love? Please explain.

Modern medicine is not based on out-dated atomism but on holism which treats the whole person and not merely individual organs. Our beliefs, values, feelings, emotions, principles, ideals, goals, choices, intuitions and decisions are far more valuable and significant than our instincts, habits, reflexes, impulses, reactions, sensations and conditioned responses. John Stuart Mill summed it up perfectly:

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.

- [Utilitarianism](http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1086777)

 

[fred_conty]

That’s the problem. I don’t think it is the logical conclusion. The discussion has been more like this:
NIX: I don’t accept the claim that God exists.
PR: So you think something can come from nothing?
NIX: No, I don’t claim that. But I don’t accept the claim that something cannot come from nothing.
PR: So you think something can come from nothing?
NIX: Nope. Still don’t. Really don’t . . .

There is no logical conclusion about whether or not something can come from nothing that can be derived simply from the weak atheist standpoint.

Something cannot come from nothing, or something can come from nothing.
You deny holding either one, or both of these assertions.

Then wouldn’t that be agnostic because it is denying knowing “whether or not”, and so this is saying simply “I don’t know”. Isn’t that what an agnostic maintains…he doesn’t know?

 

[Nixbits]

Something cannot come from nothing, or something can come from nothing.
You deny holding either one, or both of these assertions.

Then wouldn’t that be agnostic because it is denying knowing “whether or not”, and so this is saying simply “I don’t know”. Isn’t that what an agnostic maintains…he doesn’t know?

Correct. I agree. I am agnostic with regard to whether or not it is possible for something to come from nothing.

Quite apart from what I claim to ‘know’, I have stated that I do not hold the belief that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. Yet PRmerger repeatedly insists that this means that I hold the belief that something can come from nothing. However many times I deny this, PRmerger keeps insisting.

By analogy, I don’t claim to know exactly how many tea-bags there are in the jar in the office kitchen. It must be either an odd or even number. I don’t have the belief that the number of tea-bags is odd. Does that mean that I do hold the belief that the number is even? No. It doesn’t. It really doesn’t.

 

[Nixbits]

Human rights based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

TR: Precisely how have awareness and self-control emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control, remembering that there is a vast difference between inanimate objects and rational beings who have a right to life?
NIX: Incidentally, what do you mean by ‘beings who have a right to life’? What is your evidence for that?
TR: It is not surprising you ask that question because obviously freaks of nature have no rights whatsoever. Thank you for confirming your view that they are worthless human conventions.
NIX: That’s not my view, merely the straw man that you’re attacking.
TR: Then what is your explanation?
NIX: What is my explanation for what?
TR: Human rights based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

OK, it’s taken some effort but I’ve tracked back and worked out how we’ve got to this point. I asked you what you meant by beings who have a right to life. And, without providing that clarification, you’re now asking me for my explanation of human rights.

I don’t think that rational debate works that way. I merely wanted clarification of what you meant and you jumped to the conclusion that I disagree with you. Feel free to keep arguing against your own version of other people’s viewpoints, if you wish. It’s certainly easier than debating the views that they actually hold. But I don’t have enough spare time to spend on that sort of pointless pursuit.

 

[Nixbits]

Your failure to specify the amount of time required implies that you don’t know how long it would take to achieve “advantageous variations”.

What? I made a general comment about the process of evolutionary change and you expected me to specify a specific organism, duration and details of the type of change? Really?

An open-ended argument imposes** no limits **on the possibilities.

I disagree. There will always be limits on what is logically and actually possible. This is why I disagreed with your earlier statement when you said:

Your argument boils down to the belief that anything is possible if there is sufficient time for it to occur.

Given enough time, could you become the planet Jupiter, or become more powerful than God? No, of course not. Your statement was far too broad.

What you fail to realise is that your hypothesis is self-destructive. If there is no self there is no self-control, self-respect, self-awareness, self-possession, self-sacrifice or self-determination. In other words life becomes meaningless.

But I do not deny the existence of the self. What made you think so?

Modern medicine is not based on out-dated atomism but on holism which treats the whole person and not merely individual organs. Our beliefs, values, feelings, emotions, principles, ideals, goals, choices, intuitions and decisions are far more valuable and significant than our instincts, habits, reflexes, impulses, reactions, sensations and conditioned responses.

Maybe someone else can enlighten me, but I don’t see how this explains how “all of our empirical knowledge is subordinate to moral discernment, spiritual insight, self-control and love”. Maybe we need to break it down a bit. How is our empirical knowledge, for example that fire can harm us, subordinate to love? I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

 

[Nixbits]

Why don’t you clarify what you mean by my “good case”?
If you could offer the argument I’m proposing, that would be helpful.

OK, let me try to clarify. I said:

Nixbits:

I’m still not convinced that a good case has been made for there being anything ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy.

And you replied:

PRmerger:

Well, yeah. That entity that’s outside space, time, matter and energy is…God.

What I mean by ‘a good case’ is a reasoned argument with some justification to support it, not just an assertion. What convinces you that there is something ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy?

 

[Peter_Plato]

OK, let me try to clarify. I said:

And you replied:

What I mean by ‘a good case’ is a reasoned argument with some justification to support it, not just an assertion. What convinces you that there is something ‘outside’ space, time, matter and energy?

If there is only nothing ‘outside’ of space, time, matter and energy, then that nothing would have to be the cause of space, time, matter and energy. All space-time, energy and matter did have a beginning 13.8 billion years.

The reasoned argument is that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing has absolutely no potential for bringing something – in fact, everything – into existence. Nothing is nothing, after all. Something cannot come from nothing.

Ergo, there must be something outside of STEM to bring STEM into existence. And that something cannot be nothing. Nothing is absolutely impotent because it is the absence of every possibility and actuality. It is nothing.

There has to be something “outside” of STEM to bring space-time, energy and matter into existence. Nothingness has NO power to bring anything at all into existence.

This is not even open to doubt or challenge, unless you are willing to accept irrational and illogical premises.

Sure, humans can and do accept logical impossibilities all the time, but they can’t do so and remain rational or discuss things reasonably. Insanity and irrationality in humans is possible, but something coming from nothing is logically impossible and beyond doubt.