Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[PickyPicky]

If you’d like we could shift this to PMs so I can actually find your response and we can engage i a meaningful discussion

I hope you don’t shift it — it would be interesting to follow such a discussion.

 

[Economist]

In this forum, the one who asserts must back up his claim. You claim you ar3 already familiar with the arguments so show us the errors.

As for this, you said that there were errors.

Unfortunately this approach proved to be fruitless in similar conversations. The apologists claimed that words used by Aquinas mean something else in the modern era. But, since you insist, there is a short critique. The source is: Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover​

Summary​

In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

Explanation​

Aquinas uses the term “motion” in his argument, but by this he understands any kind of “change”, more specifically a transit from potentiality to actuality.[14] (For example, a puddle growing to be larger would be counted inside the boundaries of Aquinas’ usage.) Since a potential does not yet exist, it cannot cause itself to exist and can therefore only be brought into existence by something already existing

The error is obvious​

Aquinas attempts to generalize from the particular to the whole. which is a basic fallacy. The words: “we can see that at least some things are changing”. From that no general principle can be reached. Also in the times of Aquinas the concept of motion / change was not understood in the light of modern physics.

And at the end of his argument he says: “This everyone understands to be God.”

The others can be refuted in a similar manner.

 

[Bradskii]

Economist:

Because if you do, it is not helpful. None of the so-called philosophical proofs can withstand the scrutiny of reason, and even if they could, none of them would lead to the biblical God of Christianity.

The arguments are for the existence of God the Creator and are all reasonable. The God of Christianity is a different argument.

It’s a common problem that Christians face. Without realising it. What you should have said is ‘The arguments are for the initial existence of a god (definition required) who was the creator of this universe’.

Spell god with a capital G and describe that god as the Creator with a capital C and you are already showing your hand. You are already talking about the God of Christianity. I hope you don’t play poker for money.

 

[Bradskii]

o_mlly:

In this forum, the one who asserts must back up his claim. You claim you ar3 already familiar with the arguments so show us the errors.

As for this, you said that there were errors.

Unfortunately this approach proved to be fruitless in similar conversations. The apologists claimed that words used by Aquinas mean something else in the modern era. But, since you insist, there is a short critique. The source is: Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover​

Summary​

In the world…

To be fair to Tom, he had limited physical knowledge. If he was around today I’m sure that his arguments would contain a lot of conditional phrases.

 

[Economist]

To be fair to Tom, he had limited physical knowledge. If he was around today I’m sure that his arguments would contain a lot of conditional phrases.

Very likely. But his arguments are taken seriously, in the inexact format they are presented. He had no idea about the Brownian motion of molecules (for example), his idea was that the universe is like a huge pool table, and everything can be reduced to God’s cue-stick, which started the whole shebang in motion.

His lack of knowledge should not be looked down. But the lack of understanding by his followers must be pointed out.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

To be fair to Tom, he had limited physical knowledge. If he was around today I’m sure that his arguments would contain a lot of conditional phrases.

Very likely. But his arguments are taken seriously, in the inexact format they are presented. He had no idea about the Brownian motion of molecules (for example), his idea was that the universe is like a huge pool table, and everything can be reduced to God’s cue-stick, which started the whole shebang in motion.

His lack of knowledge should not be looked down. But the lack of understanding by his followers must be pointed out.

I’d treat his arguments with a lot more respect if they contained a few more phrases such as ‘as far as we are aware…’ and ‘from what we seem to observe…’.

He may well have thought such terms were implied. But nobody accepts them as such. As Voltaire said: Doubt is an uncomfortable position. But certainty is absurd.

I think he may have been right. But then again, I’m not really sure.

 

[Pattylt]

If you’d like we could shift this to PMs so I can actually find your response and we can engage i a meaningful discussion.)

May I request you keep it public? Even a new thread? I’m very interested in this. Thanks.

 

[IWantGod]

By blind natural processes alone, is inserting God the only possibility? Why? You accept emergence to have occurred, right? Why isn’t that enough? Is your point that emergence must use God.

I accept that nature has emergent properties, i just don’t think it’s relevant.

I will give an analogy of my argument. But this analogy is only to give you an idea of the principle dynamic underlying my argument and it is not a suggestion that the analogy is my actual argument.

Lets suppose nature could produce a house using blind natural processes alone, a house made entirely of biological materials. And it has a biological door with a locking mechanism and a keyhole (all arranged naturally). Now lets suppose that later on down the line within the vicinity of the house an organism evolves that is shaped like a key, and that organism climbs up the door and unlocks it.

The argument would be that the relationship between the lock and the key, while being emergent properties of nature, is not a relationship that occurs by chance. It is not a coincidence that there is such a thing as a lock, and neither is it a coincidence that down the evolutionary line a key evolved that could unlock the door. This relationship cannot be explained by blind natural processes.

Now, this analogy has a flaw that my actual argument does not have, since it could be by chance, no matter how unlikely, that an object could evolve in such a way that it just happened to have the right shape that could unlock the door, and it just happened to find the lock and turn in the right way to open it. Although it is curious that this object happened to evolve in the vicinity of the door and found the lock. But that’s besides the point.

The point i’m trying to make is that the key presupposes the existence of the lock, accept in this case i would be wrong because i would be ignoring the possibility of an object taking on the required shape of a key purely by chance. Thus the argument would fail, or be reduced to a probability argument, and i don’t like those arguments.

My actual argument doesn’t suffer from this problem, since it is not by chance that there happens to be the possibility of a subject/object dynamic. The possibility of a nervous system, a brain, and sensory perception prepossesses an environment that can be sensed and known. Thus it really isn’t a coincidence that given the possibility of an environment that can in principle be known, that we should find in the midst of the evolutionary process a knower. The possibility of the two presuppose each-others possible existence, and blind natural processes cannot be the cause of that possibility without foresight and intention.

Thus either we say that the subject/object dynamic is a brute fact. Or we say that something with foresight and intention intended for the possibility of that relationship through the processes of biological evolution.

Like i said, there are traits in existence that presuppose the existence of an environment.

 

[IWantGod]

I’m really, really trying to understand your arguments. I fully admit I may just be too dense to unpack it.
When you say we can’t explain the possibility of their emergence of relationship using blind natural processes, how are you defining possibilities? Statistically? physically impossible? Unlikely?

No. I am talking about ontological possibility. There is a progression of actualised possibilities and this is simply to say that possibilities are becoming actual and this is how the object of our experience generally progresses. There is something that ultimately makes all this possible, and not only that, it is something that determines, not only the possibility of something, but also what possible effect should follow from a possible cause.

We have to assume that this is true because the alternative would be an arbitrary brute fact. Particular effects would arbitrarily follow from causes, possibilities would be arbitrary, and physical behaviour in general would be arbitrary, and there would be no explanation for the consistency we see in nature. In other-words a brute fact.

 

[Techno2000]

Like i said, there are traits in existence that presuppose the existence of an environment.

Right, like how did the angler fish know it was going the need a light.

 

[Pattylt]

Like i said, there are traits in existence that presuppose the existence of an environment.

Could you give me one that can not be merely an evolutionary progression? Maybe that will help if I could focus on one specific trait where evolution couldn’t use a step by step with many failures to achieve? Thanks.

 

[Bradskii]

Pattylt:

By blind natural processes alone, is inserting God the only possibility? Why? You accept emergence to have occurred, right? Why isn’t that enough? Is your point that emergence must use God.

I accept that nature has emergent properties, i just don’t think it’s relevant.

I will give an analogy of my argument. But this analogy is only to give you an idea of the principle dynamic underlying my argument and it is not a suggestion that the analogy is my actual argument.

Lets suppose nature could produce a house using blind natural processes alone, a house made entirely of biological materials. And it has a biological door with a locking mechanism and a keyhole (all arranged naturally). Now lets suppose that later on down the line within the vicinity of the house an organism evolves that is shaped like a key, and that organism climbs up the door and unlocks it.

Like i said, there are traits in existence that presuppose the existence of an environment.

A post I would expect from Techno. But not you. His angler fish question shows the same level of understanding of the process.

 

[IWantGod]

High Guys! Evolution explains everything!

I know how evolution works and i agree with it. In fact, the knower and the object known could be the result of spontaneous action or entirely random processes and it still wouldn’t have any relevance to whether or not my argument is right or wrong.

And to be honest with you i wouldn’t go with Technos example, but he does get the basic gist of what i am saying.

You simply have no comprehension of what i am saying, and that’s okay. Lets move on.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Aquinas attempts to generalize from the particular to the whole. which is a basic fallacy. The words: “we can see that at least some things are changing”. From that no general principle can be reached. Also in the times of Aquinas the concept of motion / change was not understood in the light of modern physics.

And at the end of his argument he says: “This everyone understands to be God.”

I would argue that modern knowledge of physics only bolsters Aquinas’ argument.

Aquinas’ argument doesn’t only encompass those things which are actually changing, it also deals with those things that have the potential to change, to be changed, or to be different from what they are. This encompasses everything from your puddle, to the foundational laws of physics that govern the structure of the universe.

Just because a thing is not in an active state of change does not mean that the principle no longer applies to it.

All things which exist in this universe appear to be contingent, there are forces external to themselves which govern their current state. We know this is true even for seemingly constant things like the laws of physics because of our studies of quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.

There is no evidence that anything in the whole of material existence is not acted on and influenced by external forces.

Based on the definition of potentiality given in your link:

any “possibility” that a thing can be said to have

we can arrive at the following.

A: The laws of physics do not appear to be absolute at the quantum level. This means that there are forces external to those laws which influence their operation. There is also some evidence that certain “constants” shifted over time, especially in the moments immediately following the big bang.

B: All observed physical things are influence by the laws of physics.

C: per A and B, all things are subject to changeable laws and are therefore changeable.

D: An infinite regression of changes is impossible, given that, with infinite “moments” of change prior to the current one, it would be impossible to ever reach the current point of change in the line of changes. (If there is an infinite distance to travel before I reach my current location, then I can never reach where I am because there is an infinite distance to travel before I get here.)

E: per C and D, if all physical things are changeable (contain potentiality), and change cannot regress infinitely, there must be a point at which change began. This point of commencement, this unchanging cause, is one starting point for the discernment of God.

And at the end of his argument he says: “This everyone understands to be God.”

Given the context and time of his writing, this is not an improper generalization. His world was distinctly Catholic, and pretty much every philosopher, scientist, etc, he knew would have been Catholic. This is an accurate statement given his context.

---

I’m going to try to make this my only post today. I’m mid-deadline, so I need to be focusing on my work. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[PickyPicky]

D: An infinite regression of changes is impossible, given that, with infinite “moments” of change prior to the current one, it would be impossible to ever reach the current point of change in the line of changes

Yes, this argument never convinces me. How long would it take to reach the current point of change in an infinitely regressing universe? An infinitely long time. How much time is available in an infinitely regressing universe? An infinitely long time.

 

[PickyPicky]

E: per C and D, if all physical things are changeable (contain potentiality), and change cannot regress infinitely, there must be a point at which change began. This point of commencement, this unchanging cause, is one starting point for the discernment of God

Disproved if premise C is true.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yes, this argument never convinces me. How long would it take to reach the current point of change in an infinitely regressing universe? An infinitely long time. How much time is available in an infinitely regressing universe? An infinitely long time.

Picky, just a preface, if I’m going into this level of detail I can really only debate one person at a time. I’m not going to be able to keep my thoughts straight if I respond to everyone who takes issue with my argument. I apologize, but I’m going to have to limit the majority of my action in this discussion to Economist’s responses.

That being said:

#1: We know that time is not infinite. As a quality of physical existence, time began when physical existence began. All evidence we have says that our universe had a starting point, as such there is no possibility of there being infinite time through which to process an infinite sequence of changes. There is no evidence for any universes existing prior to this one, and even if there was it would only push the question up a level, not answer it.

#2: Even if there was infinite time, you could still never reach a definite point in the causal chain because there would always be an infinite number of steps prior to that point, so you could never actually reach that point.

You have to understand, while we use number to talk about infinity, that’s really not accurate. Infinity is endless, there is no “number” of steps you could take that would progress you don’t the chain of infinity. If I take an infinite number of steps, there are still an infinite number of steps to go before I reach the next point… There is no way to begin travelling down an infinite sequence, so you could never be said to have reach any point on it.

Last post for the day, sorry. If you’d like to continue the discussion later I’d be happy to, but as I said, I need to limit my responses to just the Economist, since he’s the debate I’m actively engaged in.

 

[Bradskii]

And to be honest with you i wouldn’t go with Technos example, but he does get the basic gist of what i am saying.

An angler fish is the basic gist of what you are saying? How does evolution know it needs a light? Gosh, I wonder how it knew that birds need wings. I mean, they would plummet to the floor every time they lept from a tree if it wasn’t so fortuitous that they have them. Coincidence? Surely not!

And a humming birds beak is just the right shape and length to enable it to feed on nectar (you know, like a key in a lock). Coincidence? I think not!

And it is absolutely amazing that everyone on the planet has just the right amount of skin to cover their bodies. Coincidence? Yeah, sure!

Or maybe you have some examples you’d like to propose. Although something tells me you know where this is going and you will exit the conversation as a means of damage control.

 

[PickyPicky]

Last post for the day, sorry. If you’d like to continue the discussion later I’d be happy to, but as I said, I need to limit my responses to just the Economist, since he’s the debate I’m actively engaged in.

Quite understand. I’ll dip out.

 

[Techno2000]

IWantGod:

And to be honest with you i wouldn’t go with Technos example, but he does get the basic gist of what i am saying.

An angler fish is the basic gist of what you are saying? How does evolution know it needs a light? Gosh, I wonder how it knew that birds need wings. I mean, they would plummet to the floor every time they lept from a tree if it wasn’t so fortuitous that they have them. Coincidence? Surely not!

And a humming birds beak is just the right shape and length to enable it to feed on nectar (you know, like a key in a lock). Coincidence? I think not!

And it is absolutely amazing that everyone on the planet has just the right amount of skin to cover their bodies. Coincidence? Yeah, sure!

Or maybe you have some examples you’d like to propose. Although something tells me you know where this is going and you will exit the conversation as a means of damage control.

You forgot how does the Earth know how to be the perfect distance from the Sun…Coincidence