The Absurdity of Atheism

[aclausen]

How would Hawking know that God had so little freedom in setting the properties of the Big Bang?

Just like an atheist to be telling God what he can and cannot do!

We’re talking about the Anthropic Principle here, and that was what Hawking was referring to. If the Anthropic Principle is some grand evidence of the necessity of a Creator, it is also a strong argument that that Creator is constrained in the physical properties of the Universe he is creating. If the Creator is not constrained, then the Anthropic Principle is meaningless.

 

[Solmyr]

You are assuming physical reality exists even though we infer its existence from our perceptions. Our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity for which the most adequate and rational explanation is the Supreme Mind.

Animals don’t do any “inferring”. They use their nerve endings to experience the reality directly. The proof is their observed behavior. No such “proof” for the “supreme mind”. “Nihil est in intellectu…” ya’ know.

What do you think where do those “perceptions” come from? Just a dream within a dream?

 

[Lucretius]

We’re talking about the Anthropic Principle here, and that was what Hawking was referring to. If the Anthropic Principle is some grand evidence of the necessity of a Creator, it is also a strong argument that that Creator is constrained in the physical properties of the Universe he is creating. If the Creator is not constrained, then the Anthropic Principle is meaningless.

I agree. Very clear

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[aclausen]

Animals don’t do any “inferring”. They use their nerve endings to experience the reality directly. The proof is their observed behavior. No such “proof” for the “supreme mind”. “Nihil est in intellectu…” ya’ know.

What do you think where do those “perceptions” come from? Just a dream within a dream?

That depends greatly on the animal. But even the brains of simpler animals process sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. What an animal “sees”, “smells”, “hears”, “tastes” or “feels” is not simply what the never endings are reporting. The only significant exception may be pain signals like “HOT!” which, at least in all chordates, hit the spinal cord and brain stem, where low level functions trigger immediate instructions to the muscles in question.

So far as I understand it, even simpler animals like nematodes, where the term “brain” isn’t always used, actually do some sensory processing.

 

[Solmyr]

That depends greatly on the animal. But even the brains of simpler animals process sensory (name removed by moderator)ut.

Of course. But tony talks about conscious inference, of abstracting the existence of the external world from analyzing the sensory reality. His favorite expression is “we would not be able to CHOOSE what we believe…” indicating a conscious choice, where there is nothing like that present.

 

[Solmyr]

You don’t understand series at all.

Well, considering that for a few decades I used to be a college math professor lecturing many branches of higher mathematics among others, calculus … I will discard your comment as null and void.

 

[Lucretius]

Well, considering that for a few decades I used to be a college math professor lecturing many branches of higher mathematics among others, calculus … I will discard your comment as null and void.

Then you should know a limit doesn’t reach or add up to a finite number, but approaches it.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Aloysium]

That depends greatly on the animal. But even the brains of simpler animals process sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. What an animal “sees”, “smells”, “hears”, “tastes” or “feels” is not simply what the never endings are reporting. The only significant exception may be pain signals like “HOT!” which, at least in all chordates, hit the spinal cord and brain stem, where low level functions trigger immediate instructions to the muscles in question.

So far as I understand it, even simpler animals like nematodes, where the term “brain” isn’t always used, actually do some sensory processing.

They are life forms, vastly different and a new form of creation as compared to the simple matter that composes them and to which they decompose upon death. Even a simple bacterium relates to its world.The soul that defines their being differs from ours in that ours is eternal and is free to make moral choices it can discern. We have the potential for love and do not simply react emotionally.

 

[inocente]

But they aren’t entirely. For example, a life itself is qualitative, and can’t be reduced to its quantities (for example, a body doesn’t lose weight after death).

More generally though, we experience quantities through qualities, so to claim that only quantities are objective, we have to explain how the senses can be wrong about qualities being objective, yet not for quantities.

I’m not so sure. For instance. quality of life, or what’s known as well-being, is something which is measured scientifically, for instance to compare countries. Some criteria can be quantified objectively, such as average health, while others are subjective, such as asking children to rate from 1 to 5 their feeling of social inclusion or feeling of being bullied.

It’s not a good thing because my life isn’t advancing

Case in point, how would you quantify that? I mean, other than in years, is a life supposed to advance? Does that mean a life has a right to advance, and if so, who or what confers that right? What does advancing mean, what does it involve?

(I’m not asking you to post anything personal, just saying that I think all claims about quality can be quantified. But if you’re having a bad time and want to talk, PM me - no amateur psychoanalysis, I’m one of the many who has been through clinical depression, been there got the tee-shirt .)

 

[tonyrey]

Of course. But tony talks about conscious inference, of abstracting the existence of the external world from analyzing the sensory reality. His favorite expression is “we would not be able to CHOOSE what we believe…” indicating a conscious choice, where there is nothing like that present.

If we can’t choose what to believe many of our beliefs are worthless… Would you trust a computer to have insight into your most important personal problems?

 

[Lucretius]

I’m not so sure. For instance. quality of life, or what’s known as well-being, is something which is measured scientifically, for instance to compare countries. Some criteria can be quantified objectively, such as average health, while others are subjective, such as asking children to rate from 1 to 5 their feeling of social inclusion or feeling of being bullied.

I’m critiquing the idea that anything objective has to be quantifiable. I used the example of the difference between a living body and a dead corpse as an example.

When I speak of quality, I mostly mean things like proper quantities (taste, color, etc.) and what I would call the poetic or personal dimension of nature.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

The Prime mover follows directly from the nature of motion. The reason modern people tend to misunderstand this is because modern physics never both to define motion, and take it for granted. Descartes, for example, dismisses the need to do so, and Newton’s first law assumes a definition of motion a priori.

However, once you realize that motion per se is a reduction of potential to actuality, then the Unmoved Mover argument makes perfect sense.

My Oxford Dictionary of Physics defines motion as “a change in position of a body or system with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference”. One of the technical problems with the unmoved mover argument is that Aristotle thought that the Earth is absolutely stationary at the center of the cosmos, and so motion had to be explained. Wrong, there is no absolute frame of reference. (Similarly for other kinds of change).

Another issue is that he thought motion had to be sustained continually or things would come to a stop. So the unmoved mover doesn’t just initiate motion, as in deism, but continually sustains it. But according to fans of the argument, that means the unmoved mover has to continually change the direction of every particle of every planet to sustain them in orbit. To us modern people, that sounds mighty strange.

But I think the main problem is that the argument is about an abstraction which has little or no relationship with why Christians believe in Christ - hopefully no one sings hymns to unmoved mover arguments or intelligent designer arguments, we preach Christ crucified (1 Cor 1) and we’re not ashamed of that gospel (Romans 1).

 

[inocente]

I’m critiquing the idea that anything objective has to be quantifiable. I used the example of the difference between a living body and a dead corpse as an example.

When I speak of quality, I mostly mean things like proper quantities (taste, color, etc.) and what I would call the poetic or personal dimension of nature.

The difference between a living body and a corpse is surely that in one the biological systems work and in the other they don’t.

Color is accurately quantified by color spaces such as RGB, HSB, CIE XYZ, and so on. Taste, I’m guessing, is more difficult.

 

[Lucretius]

The difference between a living body and a corpse is surely that in one the biological systems work and in the other they don’t.

They could, but modern biology is not always a “hard science” like physics and chemistry. The difference between life and a corpse is qualitative, otherwise we could measure, say, the weight of the soul.

Color is accurately quantified by color spaces such as RGB, HSB, CIE XYZ, and so on. Taste, I’m guessing, is more difficult.

The raw experience of color isn’t quantifiable. Color has both qualitative and quantitative aspects.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

My Oxford Dictionary of Physics defines motion as “a change in position of a body or system with respect to time, as measured by a particular observer in a particular frame of reference”. One of the technical problems with the unmoved mover argument is that Aristotle thought that the Earth is absolutely stationary at the center of the cosmos, and so motion had to be explained. Wrong, there is no absolute frame of reference. (Similarly for other kinds of change).

Aristotle’s cosmology has no effect on the argument, because Aristotle is working with the basic facts of change: that things change, and they are changed by another. No need to appeal to the heavens here

Another issue is that he thought motion had to be sustained continually or things would come to a stop. So the unmoved mover doesn’t just initiate motion, as in deism, but continually sustains it. But according to fans of the argument, that means the unmoved mover has to continually change the direction of every particle of every planet to sustain them in orbit. To us modern people, that sounds mighty strange.

You had everything correct, except for the bold. God sustains everything, but he gives creatures the power to act for themselves by themselves. That’s why we can say that the Saints choose righteousness, yet all is due to God’s grace.

But I think the main problem is that the argument is about an abstraction which has little or no relationship with why Christians believe in Christ - hopefully no one sings hymns to unmoved mover arguments or intelligent designer arguments, we preach Christ crucified (1 Cor 1) and we’re not ashamed of that gospel (Romans 1).

Abstractions are not bad. They can distract us from the whole, as you correctly point out, but they can also help us better understand the whole. In this case, the Unmoved Mover helps us understand God better, like the fact that God never changes, as the Scriptures tell us. Think of the argument as a stepping stone to better understanding God and His Grace

Here’s a good article on how the metaphysical arguments for Theism are themselves assumed in Scripture, as a foundation to grow ones understanding of God on: thomism.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/scriptures-heaven-and-the-god-of-the-philosophers/

Natural theology is the basis in which we can build revelation on

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

You seem to think that an atheist must be against fine tuning. This is also a *non-sequitur *fallacy.

Francis Crick, who I believe was another atheist, was so amazed at the appearance of fine tuning behind the DNA that he speculated on life being seeded by extra-terrestrials on this planet. In other words, Intelligent Design.

Would you please supply quotes from Weinberg and Hawking that show they repudiated fine tuning. You keep arguing that any quotes taken out of context can be misleading. I am willing to be mislead if you will just produce the quotes.

You can’t or won’t. Which is it?

If you’re correct about Crick, I wonder how he thought those godlike aliens came into existence. Perhaps he decided they were in turn seeded by even more godlike aliens and so on. I think most atheists wouldn’t buy into such circular arguments, and if you’re selling intelligent design as a sci-fi plot then I think it’s already been done.

Googling “Hawking fine tuning” yields among other quotes:

*“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary”.

“One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics”.*

It’s very easy for anyone to find these quotes, but taking quotes out of context isn’t a philosophical argument. To see their arguments against fine-tuning in context, I already linked Weinberg’s talk, and you can easily find similar sentiments from Hawking.

But even then, science isn’t the personal opinions of individual scientists, and the plain fact is that fine-tuning is classic god-of-the-gaps, and it’s theologians who argue against god-of-the-gaps.

 

[aclausen]

There is a strong reason why science is agnostic, and it has to do with any claim having explanatory power and utility. The problem with claiming "God created phenomena ****x

isn’t about whether it’s true or not, but rather about the utility of the explanation. What does saying “God created the Universe” do? What predictions can be derived from it? What possible observations would be incompatible with saying “God created the Universe”?

The problem with inserting a supernatural explanation, particularly one involving an omnipotent being is that the claim explains all possible explanations, and thus explains nothing. You can’t build a theory on it, because you can’t say “If God created the universe, we would expect to find x, y and z, but if God wasn’t involved, we’d see a. b and c instead”, because a, b and c are just as likely as x, y and z.

I also tend to wonder why certain religious people put so much effort into hunting down quotations by scientists that they imagine somehow prove the existence of God. In some cases, some scientists have certainly stated things like that, but in many cases it amounts to quote mining. The constant “Einstein believed in God” claims were so frequent even when he was alive that he was forced to clarify that he rejected the idea of a personal god.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming physical reality exists even though we infer

They don’t experience reality **directly **any more than we do. They associate shapes and colours with certain experiences but they have no insight into reality.

The proof is their observed behavior. No such “proof” for the “supreme mind”. “Nihil est in intellectu…” ya’ know.

Why aren’t they are responsible for their behaviour? And why are we?

What do you think where do those “perceptions” come from? Just a dream within a dream?

A physical universe which is unaware that we exist? That is the essential difference between mind and matter whether you like it or not!

 

[tonyrey]

inocente;13794707:

There is a strong reason why science is agnostic, and it has to do with any claim having explanatory power and utility. The problem with claiming "God created phenomena ****

x

isn’t about whether it’s true or not, but rather about the utility of the explanation. What does saying “God created the Universe” do? What predictions can be derived from it? What possible observations would be incompatible with saying “God created the Universe”?

The problem with inserting a supernatural explanation, particularly one involving an omnipotent being is that the claim explains all possible explanations, and thus explains nothing. You can’t build a theory on it, because you can’t say “If God created the universe, we would expect to find x, y and z, but if God wasn’t involved, we’d see a. b and c instead”, because a, b and c are just as likely as x, y and z.

I also tend to wonder why certain religious people put so much effort into hunting down quotations by scientists that they imagine somehow prove the existence of God. In some cases, some scientists have certainly stated things like that, but in many cases it amounts to quote mining. The constant “Einstein believed in God” claims were so frequent even when he was alive that he was forced to clarify that he rejected the idea of a personal god.
If we are to go by the utility of an explanation a mindless source of reality leads precisely nowhere. Only lunatics live as if life is valueless, purposeless and meaningless - and you can’t invent reasons for living if they don’t exist. Otherwise you’re living in a fantasy world…

The predictions are that the universe will continue to be intelligible and that we shall be able to understand it sufficiently to be able to live rationally, facts many people take for granted…

 

[tonyrey]

If you’re correct about Crick, I wonder how he thought those godlike aliens came into existence. Perhaps he decided they were in turn seeded by even more godlike aliens and so on. I think most atheists wouldn’t buy into such circular arguments, and if you’re selling intelligent design as a sci-fi plot then I think it’s already been done.

Googling “Hawking fine tuning” yields among other quotes:

*“What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary”.

“One does not have to appeal to God to set the initial conditions for the creation of the universe, but if one does He would have to act through the laws of physics”.*

It’s very easy for anyone to find these quotes, but taking quotes out of context isn’t a philosophical argument. To see their arguments against fine-tuning in context, I already linked Weinberg’s talk, and you can easily find similar sentiments from Hawking.

But even then, science isn’t the personal opinions of individual scientists, and the plain fact is that fine-tuning is classic god-of-the-gaps, and it’s theologians who argue against god-of-the-gaps.

Science wouldn’t exist without the opinions of individual scientists because its theories are always provisional. Science presupposes the existence of rational minds which are superior to the entire physical universe which doesn’t even know it exists! So much for the primacy of matter… The laws of physics don’t exist by chance or physical necessity.