In what do atheists have Hope?

[Spock]

I don’t believe that life is wonderful.

That is interesting. For me, this life is great.

I define hope as the longing after something which is conceived as a good. It presupposes the recognition of a difficulty, or difficulties, that must be overcome.

Good definition. I hope (and that is my personal take on it) that my mind will be properly functioning as long as I live. I also hope that my body will be in relatively decent shape. Indeed, there are hurdles to overcome to achieve this. I exercise my mind by reading a lot, by playing games, and also by reading stimulating posts and answering them. I also exercise my body to stay in shape. Furthermore, I also hope to leave good memories behind, and to get that I spread love and caring to my immediate family and to my friends.

I don’t do drugs, never and have never will, except for the occasional glass of good ruby port together with the amino acids of a good piece of tenderloin cooked by infrared.

Don’t forget a good Saint Agur cheese (or Blue Castello, or Combonzola, or Le Bleu le Rustique), mixed up with your Port… that is a heavenly combination. Bite off a small piece of the cheese, chew it up a little bit, and take a sip of the port (Sandeman Special Reserve will work just fine) and chew them together. The two tastes will enhance each other. I learned this trick many years ago, and still cannot have enough of it.

Actually, your next paragraph seems to be putting words into my mouth. Some of your assertions really make no sense. To think that the universe needs no external cause is to furiously deny causality.

Causality is no “panacea”. It is an observed phenomenon within the physical universe. That does not mean that it can be applied to the universe.

To attempt to apply something to the whole, when it is applicable to the particular is the usual error called the “fallacy of composition”. Sometimes it is appropriate to generalize, other times it is not. Two examples: “all the tiles on the floor are white, therefore the floor is white” - is a correct generalization. However: “all the tiles on the floor are square, therefore the floor is square” is an incorrect generalization.

Pertaining your position: “all the instances within the universe are subject to causality”, therefore “the universe is subject to causality”, is incorrect because not all instances are subject to causality (actions of free will) and even if they were, it would not automatically follow that the universe is also subject to causality.

Finally, your last paragraph starts with a faulty premise. You state that I “substitute something which clearly exists (the natural universe) with something for what there is absolutely no proof.” that’s not the case at all. I place that which I believe to exist there, at that precise place, where science knows nothing at all.

The operating word is “believe”, which I have highlighted. Fine, you believe. But that is not a proof. My point was that both you and I have a starting point, which needs no explanation, which simply “is”. For me it is the physical universe, for you it is God, beyond it (whatever “beyond” means). From an abstract, mathematical point of view we have the same “model”.

I really appreciate your concern for my well being. Also, I will hope for your safe travel to and safe return.

Thank you very much. Fortunately I will have access to the internet during my stay overseas, so we can continue the dialog. Besides, my trip will commence at the end of April, so we have a lot of opportunity to exchange ideas until then.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Causality is no “panacea”. It is an observed phenomenon within the physical universe. That does not mean that it can be applied to the universe.

To attempt to apply something to the whole, when it is applicable to the particular is the usual error called the “fallacy of composition”. Sometimes it is appropriate to generalize, other times it is not. Two examples: “all the tiles on the floor are white, therefore the floor is white” - is a correct generalization. However: “all the tiles on the floor are square, therefore the floor is square” is an incorrect generalization.

all physical matter is determinatively causative, therefore the universe is determinitevly causative.

in this case the qualties of physical matter are the same qualities of the universe, as the universe is composed entirely of physical things.

the fallacy of composition doesn’t really seem to apply here.

Pertaining your position: “all the instances within the universe are subject to causality”, therefore “the universe is subject to causality”, is incorrect because not all instances are subject to causality (actions of free will)

as the brain is composed of physical matter and thereby subject to the strict mathematical laws of determinism, than free will is an impossibility.

 

[Spock]

all physical matter is determinatively causative, therefore the universe is determinitevly causative.

in this case the qualties of physical matter are the same qualities of the universe, as the universe is composed entirely of physical things.

the fallacy of composition doesn’t really seem to apply here.

All you have to do is prove it. All the tiles on the floor are square, therefore the the whole floor is sqaure???

as the brain is composed of physical matter and thereby subject to the strict mathematical laws of determinism, than free will is an impossibility.

Ever heard of emerging attributes???

 

[warpspeedpetey]

All you have to do is prove it. All the tiles on the floor are square, therefore the the whole floor is sqaure???

all the tile son the floor are white, therefore the floor is white.

all physical things require causation, as the universe is a physical thing, and specifically as a matter of physics, the universe was at one tiime a single thing, a singularity, then i think the burden of proof is on you, why should that one physical thing be excluded from the commonality of the rest of the physical things.

Ever heard of emerging attributes???

please explain exactly how that refutes determinisms mathematical grip on ones physical brain

 

[JDaniel]

That is interesting. For me, this life is great.

You know, when I was a tad younger and just at the cusp of all of my success after lots of hard work, I felt the same way. I used to say, “If I die tomorrow, I have lived a good life.” What I didn’t realize until later was that I was merely espousing a common human susceptibility to the joy of accomplishment. It was not hope. I would have been better off had I died then. Had I died then, I’d have slipped out of here with a smile on my face. I confused the ecstasy of prowess with the attainment of an ultimate end that did not include utter emptiness. I was a god.

Good definition. I hope (and that is my personal take on it) that my mind will be properly functioning as long as I live. I also hope that my body will be in relatively decent shape. Indeed, there are hurdles to overcome to achieve this. I exercise my mind by reading a lot, by playing games, and also by reading stimulating posts and answering them. I also exercise my body to stay in shape. Furthermore, I also hope to leave good memories behind, and to get that I spread love and caring to my immediate family and to my friends.

I have those same hopes. But, I know, down deep inside of me that they are nothing more than the insufficient hopes of a child. Meaningful at the child’s age, but, meaningless to an adult.

Don’t forget a good Saint Agur cheese (or Blue Castello, or Combonzola, or Le Bleu le Rustique), mixed up with your Port… that is a heavenly combination. Bite off a small piece of the cheese, chew it up a little bit, and take a sip of the port (Sandeman Special Reserve will work just fine) and chew them together. The two tastes will enhance each other. I learned this trick many years ago, and still cannot have enough of it.

Sounds exquisite. I will write it down and seek it out.

Causality is no “panacea”.

Lucky for me, I never said it was.

It is an observed phenomenon within the physical universe. That does not mean that it can be applied to the universe.

Where is it written that it cannot be applied to the whole universe? If I am drinking an entire bottle of port, and the taste of the first drop is splendid, I am absolutely certain the rest of the bottle will also be splendid. (Might even become better as I get near the bottom)

To attempt to apply something to the whole, when it is applicable to the particular is the usual error called the “fallacy of composition”. Sometimes it is appropriate to generalize, other times it is not. Two examples: “all the tiles on the floor are white, therefore the floor is white” - is a correct generalization. However: “all the tiles on the floor are square, therefore the floor is square” is an incorrect generalization.

Pertaining your position: “all the instances within the universe are subject to causality”, therefore “the universe is subject to causality”, is incorrect because not all instances are subject to causality (actions of free will) and even if they were, it would not automatically follow that the universe is also subject to causality.

First of all, I have already shown, in another thread, that free will is not the beginning of an uncaused effect, or series of effects. Even the effect that is desired by a conscious mind becomes causative. We are not rats in a maze hunting down some cheese, going left or right simply being drawn by the smell if it (even if it is the cheese you mentioned earlier). Our thought processes are causative.

Your scenarios are apples to oranges. We are not talking about an exigency that is as simplistic as the relationship between square tiles and square floors. We are talking about zero out of trillions upon trillions of actions in the universe, including the effect we call the big bang. So, even if logic does not allow it, the numbers preponderate it.

Here is the continuation of the explanation of the fallacy of composition from The Nizkor Project:
“It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion.”

The operating word is “believe”, which I have highlighted. Fine, you believe. But that is not a proof. My point was that both you and I have a starting point, which needs no explanation, which simply “is”. For me it is the physical universe, for you it is God, beyond it (whatever “beyond” means). From an abstract, mathematical point of view we have the same “model”.

It can’t be the physical universe because the physical universe was caused. I know that there are a sad number of recalcitrant “scientists” who continue to posit an uncaused universe. As I read them, they sound just like many creationists. Most of the scientific community will not dispute that the universe was caused, what many dispute is whether God caused it.

Thank you very much. Fortunately I will have access to the internet during my stay overseas, so we can continue the dialog. Besides, my trip will commence at the end of April, so we have a lot of opportunity to exchange ideas until then.

I look forward to it. You’ve chosen a good handle. It suits you well.:yup:

jd

 

[Spock]

You know, when I was a tad younger and just at the cusp of all of my success after lots of hard work, I felt the same way. I used to say, “If I die tomorrow, I have lived a good life.” What I didn’t realize until later was that I was merely espousing a common human susceptibility to the joy of accomplishment. It was not hope. I would have been better off had I died then. Had I died then, I’d have slipped out of here with a smile on my face. I confused the ecstasy of prowess with the attainment of an ultimate end that did not include utter emptiness. I was a god.

Hmm, may I ask you how old are you? I am 62 years “young”. And I still feel young mentally. I never lost my strive to see more, to taste more, to learn more. Could be that I have a lucky disposition.

When my mother was 82, and close to death, she discovered how beautiful are the different colors and textures of vegetation. The first time in her life she slowed down (she always was very busy “doing” things, sometimes doing two or three things at the same time). Slowing down, not doing anything special works wonders for me. Sitting in a hammock and see the evening approaching is one of my favorite times.

Where is it written that it cannot be applied to the whole universe?

Nowhere. It is the whole point. When you observe an attribute for all members of a collection, then this attribute may or may not apply to the collection itself. (Every ball is approximately a round object. The collection of a bunch of balls does not have a round shape - necessarily.)

It needs to be proven, not just assumed that the attribute of causality pertains to any collection of physical objects. And precisely that is what is missing.

First of all, I have already shown, in another thread, that free will is not the beginning of an uncaused effect, or series of effects. Even the effect that is desired by a conscious mind becomes causative. We are not rats in a maze hunting down some cheese, going left or right simply being drawn by the smell if it (even if it is the cheese you mentioned earlier). Our thought processes are causative.

You certainly stated that, but never proved it. Just what is your meaning of “free will”? If something (a decision) is “caused”, then it is not “free”. You can’t have it both ways, a “caused free” decision is a self-contradictory oxymoron.

Your scenarios are apples to oranges. We are not talking about an exigency that is as simplistic as the relationship between square tiles and square floors. We are talking about zero out of trillions upon trillions of actions in the universe, including the effect we call the big bang. So, even if logic does not allow it, the numbers preponderate it.

Not true. If there is just one counter example to a principle, then the principle is not universal. If it is not universal, then for every instance it must be proven to be correct.

In mathematics, you cannot get by with preponderance. No matter how many even numbers have been shown to be the sum of two prime numbers, it is still undecided whether the Goldbach conjecture is true or not. In exact sciences trillions and trillions of positive observations amount to nothing. And we talk about metaphysics here, not physics.

It can’t be the physical universe because the physical universe was caused.

This is the unproven assumption.

Let’s dissect the principle of causality. At best you can argue that every obseved physical object and event has been seen to be part of a physical causative action.

There are 4 possibilities:

1. cause physical, effect physical. Many observed events.
2. cause physical, effect non-physical. Many observed events.
3. cause non-physical, effect physical. No observed instances.
4. cause non-physical, effect non-physical. No observed instances.

So, the best assumption, going by the preponderance is that the physical universe has a physical casue. However, since the physical universe contains all the physical elements, it is a contradiction. Therefore the physical universe cannot have a physical cause.

From here it is a huge jump to say that the universe still “needs” a cause, and it must be non-physical. First, we have never observed a non-physical cause and a physical effect. Going by preponderance, it is impossible that a non-physical cause can exist.

The atheist stance is that the universe is the ontological foundation of space, time, matter, energy, causation, motion, etc… of all the physical ontological objects. Atheists do not “seek” for non-physical causes, because they see no need for one.

If you wish to establish that the universe has a non-physical cause, then you must show that non-physical causation is possible. And I wonder, how are you going to do that. There are no examples. And every causative connection has been shown to require some matter-energy interaction between the causing and caused events. Non-physical objects cannot have physical consequences. No matter what believers of paranormal phenomena say, no one could use “mental” energy to move a physical object.

So you are left with an impossible dilemma. You assume something that has never been observed, which contradicts all observations and the whole theory of established physics. Also you deny the existence of free will (the concept of “caused free” will is nonsense) and thus you undermine the whole Catholic dogma and secular concept of personal responsibilty. What do you get in return? At best an undefined, deistic, impersonal, non-physical casuative factor. Bad bargain.

Best wishes and have a very nice day. I am off to watch the birds.

 

[JDaniel]

Hmm, may I ask you how old are you? I am 62 years “young”. And I still feel young mentally. I never lost my strive to see more, to taste more, to learn more. Could be that I have a lucky disposition.

When my mother was 82, and close to death, she discovered how beautiful are the different colors and textures of vegetation. The first time in her life she slowed down (she always was very busy “doing” things, sometimes doing two or three things at the same time). Slowing down, not doing anything special works wonders for me. Sitting in a hammock and see the evening approaching is one of my favorite times.

I’m two years older than you, so respect your elders, young man! But, I too, have chosen to slow down. When I was hully gully I went pillar to post every day. I’ve been to so many places and done so many things that I learned that I can do close to home and get the same pleasure. The only other impetus that would get me to leave Florida, is to go to Colorado for some skiing.

Nowhere. It is the whole point. When you observe an attribute for all members of a collection, then this attribute may or may not apply to the collection itself. (Every ball is approximately a round object. The collection of a bunch of balls does not have a round shape - necessarily.)

It needs to be proven, not just assumed that the attribute of causality pertains to any collection of physical objects. And precisely that is what is missing.

As I provided you the common description of the Fallacy of Composition, from the Nizkor Project, that completely refutes your assertion, I proclaim me as the winner on this point. Sorry, Spock, and you know it. That’s why you’re jumping around, all over the place, trying to dazzle me with foot-work. I have already landed the knock-out punch!

You certainly stated that, but never proved it. Just what is your meaning of “free will”? If something (a decision) is “caused”, then it is not “free”. You can’t have it both ways, a “caused free” decision is a self-contradictory oxymoron.

My meaning of free will is exactly the same as the Catholic Church’s meaning. Yours is completely wrong. Even you can see that free will is not random choice. Here is the definition:

"Freedom (in the sense of free will, as we take it here) is the ability, when all requisites for acting are present, of either acting or not acting, of doing this or doing that. Ordinarily all voluntary acts are free acts, but, the concepts are not the same. A free act supposes two or more eligible alternatives, at least the alternatives of acting or not acting. If only one is possible, yet that is what the person would knowingly and willingly take were choice offered, his act would be voluntary without being free. Such an act would proceed from the will with a knowledge of the end (voluntary), yet one would be unable to refuse it (not free).

continued . . .

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nowhere. It is the whole point. When you observe an attribute for all members of a collection, then this attribute may or may not apply to the collection itself. (

It needs to be proven, not just assumed that the attribute of causality pertains to any collection of physical objects. And precisely that is what is missing.

1. the universe was, according to physics, was literally 1 thing, a singularity, not a collection of things.

the argument to violate causality from ‘collections of things’ is moot, there was no collection of things at the point of first cause.

scientific observation disproves the idea, unless you have some evidence, that leads us to believe that we should ignore that, i dont think we can.

1. by the same token, the universe was 1 object at the point of first cause, the fallacy of composition doesn’t apply to single objects.
2. there are trillions of tests per second of causality, and there has never, to our knowledge been a failure. yet you ask for proof of one particular test of causality.

i don think the burden of proof of one event in light of nearly an infinite number of tests over the time of the universe, is on us.

you need to give us a good reason, or proof of why we should discount the one act of causality.

. Just what is your meaning of “free will”? If something (a decision) is “caused”, then it is not “free”. You can’t have it both ways, a “caused free” decision is a self-contradictory oxymoron.

still, need an explanation of how emergent attributes deny observed physical determinism.

FONT=“Verdana”]Not true. If there is just one counter example to a principle, then the principle is not universal. If it is not universal, then for every instance it must be proven to be correct.

where is this one proven counter example?

In mathematics, you cannot get by with preponderance. And we talk about metaphysics here, not physics.

metaphysics, necessarily includes physics as part of the endeavor, though it is not an exact science.

This is the unproven assumption.

Let’s dissect the principle of causality. At best you can argue that every obseved physical object and event has been seen to be part of a physical causative action.

There are 4 possibilities:

So, the best assumption, going by the preponderance is that the physical universe has a physical casue. However, since the physical universe contains all the physical elements, it is a contradiction. Therefore the physical universe cannot have a physical cause.

true, the universe necessitates a non-physical cause.

From here it is a huge jump to say that the universe still “needs” a cause, and it must be non-physical. First, we have never observed a non-physical cause and a physical effect. Going by preponderance, it is impossible that a non-physical cause can exist.

and yet it is a logical necessity, much like an electron or any unobservable particle was. observation is hardly the standard for existence. we know electrons exist as a logical consequence of their effects, not because we can see them.

The atheist stance is that the universe is the ontological foundation of space, time, matter, energy, causation, motion, etc… of all the physical ontological objects. Atheists do not “seek” for non-physical causes, because they see no need for one.

in disregard of the logical necessity that physical matter cannot be the foundation, as it cannot cause itself, and wwe still have no reason to discount causality of first cause

If you wish to establish that the universe has a non-physical cause, then you must show that non-physical causation is possible. And I wonder, how are you going to do that. There are no examples. And every causative connection has been shown to require some matter-energy interaction between the causing and caused events.

and yet when the math and reasoning was done, we found subatomic particles, they existed though the only proof we had was logical examination of physical evidence.

Non-physical objects cannot have physical consequences. No matter what believers of paranormal phenomena say, no one could use “mental” energy to move a physical object.

why not? though the paranormal has nothing to do with the non-physical, as energy, matter etc, all have physical qualities.

non-physical, has none of those qualities. hence the name non-physical.

So you are left with an impossible dilemma. You assume something that has never been observed, which contradicts all observations and the whole theory of established physics.

what? thats exactly how physics is carried out. nor is there any contradiction in physics of the non-physical, as that is the study of the physical, it doesnt deal with the non-physical, nor can it as the same rules cannot apply.

Also you deny the existence of free will (the concept of “caused free” will is nonsense) and thus you undermine the whole Catholic dogma and secular concept of personal responsibilty. What do you get in return? At best an undefined, deistic, impersonal, non-physical casuative factor. Bad bargain.

Best wishes and have a very nice day. I am off to watch the birds.

we dont deny free will, we simply need a method by which determinism is broken. id stilll like to hear your argument on emerging attributes.

 

[JDaniel]

Does this ever happen? Only in one case: when man is confronted with the perfect good. This is so overwhelmingly good that there can be no motive for refusing it, and man cannot act without a motive. In this life the desire for happiness in general is of this type, as is the possession of God in the next life. But for all practical purposes voluntariness and freedom coincide, and in our study we can neglect the slight distinction between them.

Though every free act is voluntary, and every voluntary act except the one mentioned above is free, these two words have a different flavor. Voluntary emphasizes the strength with which the will knowingly adheres to the good proposed and pursues its aim. Free emphasizes the fact that the will is choosing this alternative at the very moment that it could be choosing the opposite. Hence strong emotion is said to increase voluntariness but diminish freedom; if the emotion becomes so strong that the man does not know what he is doing, he cannot will, and both voluntariness and freedom are destroyed." - Right and Reason, Austin Fagothey, SJ

Not true. If there is just one counter example to a principle, then the principle is not universal. If it is not universal, then for every instance it must be proven to be correct.

In mathematics, you cannot get by with preponderance. No matter how many even numbers have been shown to be the sum of two prime numbers, it is still undecided whether the Goldbach conjecture is true or not. In exact sciences trillions and trillions of positive observations amount to nothing. And we talk about metaphysics here, not physics.

Well, you will spin it as though from mathematics, and, I will construe it as from a court of law. And, I’ve never met a Goldbach I didn’t like!

Let’s dissect the principle of causality. At best you can argue that every observed physical object and event has been seen to be part of a physical causative action.

There are 4 possibilities:

1. cause physical, effect physical. Many observed events.
2. cause physical, effect non-physical. Many observed events.
3. cause non-physical, effect physical. No observed instances.
4. cause non-physical, effect non-physical. No observed instances.

So, the best assumption, going by the preponderance is that the physical universe has a physical casue. However, since the physical universe contains all the physical elements, it is a contradiction. Therefore the physical universe cannot have a physical cause.

While number three is indeed that proper choice of the 4 possibilities, it is your add-on assumption that is incorrect. Firstly, it is purely an asserted assumption. That you don’t know, or, that you don’t believe that there are observed instances is all that you can say with any validity whatsoever.

We say that there has been one instance of the third possibility.

From here it is a huge jump to say that the universe still “needs” a cause, and it must be non-physical. First, we have never observed a non-physical cause and a physical effect. Going by preponderance, it is impossible that a non-physical cause can exist.

Now you confuse sensory perception as the ultimate test of truth. you are now denying logic! So, mathematics should now, for you, become speculative and theoretical.

The atheist stance is that the universe is the ontological foundation of space, time, matter, energy, causation, motion, etc… of all the physical ontological objects. Atheists do not “seek” for non-physical causes, because they see no need for one.

No, atheists believe that the universe came about ex nihilo. Atheists have no other possibility except this one.

If you wish to establish that the universe has a non-physical cause, then you must show that non-physical causation is possible.

That is a patently absurd statement.

And I wonder, how are you going to do that. There are no examples.

Easy, from the logic of St. Thomas Aquinas.

And every causative connection has been shown to require some matter-energy interaction between the causing and caused events.

I’m sure you meant " caused effects". In any case, so?

Non-physical objects cannot have physical consequences.

You have already asserted, from unfounded assumptions, that you “have never seen a non-physical object (cause) have a physical (effect) consequence,” thus, how can you make this statement with a straight face?

So you are left with an impossible dilemma. You assume something that has never been observed, which contradicts all observations and the whole theory of established physics. Also you deny the existence of free will (the concept of “caused free” will is nonsense) and thus you undermine the whole Catholic dogma and secular concept of personal responsibilty. What do you get in return? At best an undefined, deistic, impersonal, non-physical casuative factor. Bad bargain.

And you sir, have created another whole set of junk assertions from from junk assumptions (no logic, no reason, no documentation), all of which I have effectively argued against and proven to be wrong using logic, reason and documentation.

I declare the winner to be: ME!

jd

 

[neploho]

A little background: I have been through the stages. As a kid, I was expected to attend Mass with my family. Through grade school and high school, I had no deep thoughts about the possibility of beyond life. In college - a Catholic college, at that - I began to doubt life after death and the existence of God.

So, in my freshman year, I decided that I was an agnostic. I believed that there were no valid reasons to support an affirmation of God. By my junior year, I had become a full-fledged atheist. My atheism carried on out into the world of life, work, marriage, kids, etc.

When I graduated college, I was a Philosophy major and a Chemistry minor.

Then, I had a personal revelation that I could not (and still cannot) describe as anything less than that I was given a glimpse into the supernatural. I took up Aquinas again, and began re-reading him. The logic of the “5 ways” convinced me that I had been wrong. Not only was there God, but also, there had to be God.

During my lifetime, I have been a millionaire, a father to three wonderful children, all of whom I love dearly, a relatively devoted husband , a business owner, the owner of fast, expensive cars, possessing the capability of going anywhere at any time, and, generally, became that person that has so much that he’s impossible to buy a gift for. For all of this, there persisted a hole right in the middle of me. All of this stuff didn’t amount to a gnat, as I mentioned in another thread. It left me unquenched. It left me with nothing that I could reasonably define as “hope”.

As time went along, I was slowly becoming a lazy Catholic. I did not press my kids to go to Church, I did not press that my wife convert from Lutheranism, I skipped Mass due to work and time constraints - I became the epitome of a pseudo-religious materialist. However, the certainty that Aquinas’ proofs gave to me never left me.

When I came out of my atheism stage, the idea of Hope made perfect sense. What we call the higher (or, theological) form of hope had secure grounding in the inescapable truths from Aquinas" proofs. God existed, for me, so it was easy to position him as the object of good that I hoped to achieve by the end of my life. That idea gave me comfort, faith and a continuously growing hope.

It was not until I became aware, through my joining CAF, that there was a world of people out there who, at most, vehemently hated God (the “idea” of God), therefore he doesn’t exist, or, at the least, disbelieve that the god was the Catholic God. In reading the posts of these people, there did not appear to be any sense of “longing”, or missing something. Maybe a little hostility, but, I explained that away by thinking that they must have come from another forum where anger was a persistent mantra.

I have a question that requires seriousness and absolute honesty. It is not directed at those members who are “churched”, but, rather it is aimed at the agnostics, atheists and non-theists. Here it is:

If the “good” that is God is not the object of hope for you, what is?

Life itself is not doing it for me. The universe does not do it for me. The grand pursuit of pleasure does not do it for me. There are others, none of which do it for me. I believe that any honest agnostic, atheist, or non-theist would have to agree, if these questions were asked silently, in themselves, and answered with sublime honest-ness.

I need your help. You are, obviously, persevering. What causes you to persevere? What keeps you from giving it up to the sea, as the three football players just did? Or, what would cause you to give up on striving?

jd

I do not mean to be rude but I find it difficult to swallow that a philosophy major would find Aquinas’ five “proofs” sound.

Anyway, I don’t really what you mean by “hope”. I have my life, which I more or less enjoy, and try to make the world a better place. That’s about it. Once I get out of college I’ll try to work in human rights.

 

[JDaniel]

I do not mean to be rude but I find it difficult to swallow that a philosophy major would find Aquinas’ five “proofs” sound.

Anyway, I don’t really what you mean by “hope”. I have my life, which I more or less enjoy, and try to make the world a better place. That’s about it. Once I get out of college I’ll try to work in human rights.

Welcome.

I don’t mean to be rude either, but, I find it difficult to conceive of a secular religion. If you knew as much about philosophy as you pretend, you would know that the two are antithetical.

jd

 

[neploho]

Welcome.

I don’t mean to be rude either, but, I find it difficult to conceive of a secular religion.

Being secular is not a religion. I was asked my religion, I do not have one, so I put down “secular” as in, I am secular and have no religion.

If you knew as much about philosophy as you pretend, you would know that the two are antithetical.

jd

you would think

 

[JDaniel]

Being secular is not a religion. I was asked my religion, I do not have one, so I put down “secular” as in, I am secular and have no religion.

you would think

Touche.:crying:

Although, you could have put down, “none”.

jd

 

[neploho]

Touche.:crying:

Although, you could have put down, “none”.

jd

yes, I’m sorry if that was not clear. I’ll change it.

 

[JDaniel]

More beyond this life.

Well, I don’t know how old you are, but, as one gets older, and gets ever closer to the end of life, one hopes that one will move into another dimension, so to speak, upon dying. I do not look forward to my soul’s simple annihilation. I hope for life after death. And, I hope for that life to be the one without all of the heat and fire! :bounce:

Obviously, this hope comes with a presupposition.

If you are young, give it time; you’ll get there, too.

jd

 

[Spock]

As I provided you the common description of the Fallacy of Composition, from the Nizkor Project, that completely refutes your assertion, I proclaim me as the winner on this point. Sorry, Spock, and you know it. That’s why you’re jumping around, all over the place, trying to dazzle me with foot-work. I have already landed the knock-out punch!

Don’t make assumptions about what I know.

My meaning of free will is exactly the same as the Catholic Church’s meaning. Yours is completely wrong. Even you can see that free will is not random choice. Here is the definition:

"Freedom (in the sense of free will, as we take it here) is the ability, when all requisites for acting are present, of either acting or not acting, of doing this or doing that. Ordinarily all voluntary acts are free acts, but, the concepts are not the same. A free act supposes two or more eligible alternatives, at least the alternatives of acting or not acting. If only one is possible, yet that is what the person would knowingly and willingly take were choice offered, his act would be voluntary without being free. Such an act would proceed from the will with a knowledge of the end (voluntary), yet one would be unable to refuse it (not free).

The quoted definition is correct, and it invalidates the notion of determinism. No one said that freedom necessarily equals “random” (though it can happen), only that it is not determined by outside factors. The correct philosophical phrase is that humans are primary causative agents.

Well, you will spin it as though from mathematics, and, I will construe it as from a court of law.

Court of law? Ever since when was science determined by “voting”?

We say that there has been one instance of the third possibility.

A great example of how to create a circular argument. The third possibility is what you hoped (and failed) to establish, and to introduce it also as a supporting argument is a serious logical error.

No, atheists believe that the universe came about ex nihilo. Atheists have no other possibility except this one.

It is getting tiring to see your baseless assumptions about what other people believe.

Easy, from the logic of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Logic is only as good as its premises. Aquinas’s logic is based on unsound premises.

You have already asserted, from unfounded assumptions, that you “have never seen a non-physical object (cause) have a physical (effect) consequence,” thus, how can you make this statement with a straight face?

Indeed, and all am asking to see one example to show that I am wrong. Where is the beef??

I declare the winner to be: ME!

If it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, by all means, declare whatever you want. When I look at the judges (both atheists and well-educated believers) all I see is a grin on their faces, shaking their heads and many shrugs. Not even one agrees with you.

 

[Spock]

1. the universe was, according to physics, was literally 1 thing, a singularity, not a collection of things.
2. by the same token, the universe was 1 object at the point of first cause, the fallacy of composition doesn’t apply to single objects.

The physical nature of the singularity is still unknown.

1. there are trillions of tests per second of causality, and there has never, to our knowledge been a failure. yet you ask for proof of one particular test of causality.

Absolutely.

Look at your room. There are far more than a few, measly trillions of air molecules in it. Their motion is random. In theory, it is possible that all the air molecules will navigate to one corner, and the rest of the room becomes a vacuum. The chances are infinitesimally small, but still more than zero. This is the same problem. Trillions of observations amount to nothing. All they establish that the probability of an uncaused event is very, very small.

But we are not talking about physics here. The principle of causality is not determined by pointing to trillions of supporting events.

you need to give us a good reason, or proof of why we should discount the one act of causality.

Because you are the one who wishes to prove, not simply substantiate causality.

still, need an explanation of how emergent attributes deny observed physical determinism.

If you wish to know the mechanism, well, so would I, and so would many people. However, the point is simple. If we have true free will, then it cannot be caused or determined, because these two are logically contradictory.

You may believe in free will, or you may not. (Some people do not). But you cannot believe in a logical contradiction, namely that our free will is also subject to causation.

metaphysics, necessarily includes physics as part of the endeavor, though it is not an exact science.

Metaphysics is about physics, or to be more precise about reality.

and yet when the math and reasoning was done, we found subatomic particles, they existed though the only proof we had was logical examination of physical evidence.

Excellent. Now show me one example of a non-physical “object” and it affecting a physical one. Every scientist will be nominating you for the Nobel prize.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not mean to be rude but I find it difficult to swallow that a philosophy major would find Aquinas’ five “proofs” sound.

they have been a instrumental part of western philosophy for centuries.

maybe you could tell us what you find unsound.

 

[neploho]

they have been a instrumental part of western philosophy for centuries.

maybe you could tell us what you find unsound.

First you back up your first claim there

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The physical nature of the singularity is still unknown.

yet we know it was a singularity as opposed to a collection of things, further from outside that singularity, even a collection of things would causally be one thing, in the same way that a balloon is a collection of air particles.

Absolutely.

Look at your room. There are far more than a few, measly trillions of air molecules in it. Their motion is random.

whoa there, the motion of of air is not random. the air is subject to the same mathematical determinism as every other particle in the universe.

In theory, it is possible that all the air molecules will navigate to one corner, and the rest of the room becomes a vacuum. The chances are infinitesimally small, but still more than zero. This is the same problem. Trillions of observations amount to nothing. All they establish that the probability of an uncaused event is very, very small.

funny enough but thats the same arguemnt i use to show that it is almost mathematically impossible for the universe to be a ‘random act’ as opposed to the creation of an independent actor

that aside, this under cuts your argument doesn’t it, it seems to buttress the idea that the chances of that one single event being uncaused as infintesimal.

possible only as an intellectual exercise, not likely, probable, or ever seen before at all.

meaning that to say the universe is uncaused is unreasonable.

But we are not talking about physics here. The principle of causality is not determined by pointing to trillions of supporting events.

every other theory in science is predicated on its predictive power, the closer to reality, the better the theory.

as causality seems to perfectly describe reality, in fact, there is no time when it has been
shown to have a proven exception.

it seems that the priciple is as rock steady as other laws, such as thermodynamics, gravity, boyles law, etc,

Because you are the one who wishes to prove, not simply substantiate causality.

as above trillions of experiments every second seem to prove it as all other physical laws are proved.

If you wish to know the mechanism, well, so would I, and so would many people. However, the point is simple. If we have true free will, then it cannot be caused or determined, because these two are logically contradictory.

You may believe in free will, or you may not. (Some people do not). But you cannot believe in a logical contradiction, namely that our free will is also subject to causation.

i think i spoke a little wrongly here, what i am trying to say is that there is no such thing as free will ina deterministic universe. there is simply no mechanism for it.

the causality of it is an aside to that principle.

though i have an arguemnt for the non-physical based on free will myself. free will just doesnt fit a deterministic universe.

Excellent. Now show me one example of a non-physical “object” and it affecting a physical one. Every scientist will be nominating you for the Nobel prize.

as the very nature of a non-physical object precludes its interaction with physical matter under the constants of this universe,

i dont see a way to show you other than logical necessity, the same manner in which we deduced the existence of all other particles.

you do believe in electrons dont you? same thing here, we can logically deduce its existance from its effects.