Theist and atheist metaphysics

[Kim_in_Montana]

Well, I’m glad to finally get to your point!
Seems like you took the hard way to get there! LOL!

First of all, about whether God is good, I believe it could be argued that the vast majority of existence is good. Even in impoverished countries, you don’t see mass suicides. People continue to have babies, etc. Therefore, they must think their existence is good!
So, we could surmise that God must be good, also allowing evil to preserve the goodness of free will. After all, evil is only defined as an absence of goodness, so, the good must be the ultimate power. The human race has developped to the point it has by learning to survive and conquer adversity. So, good has come out of the evil.

As to your point about God’s communication being so vague and therefore meaningless, I’d say it all depends whether you care enough to listen. I believe there is plenty of evidence that much of God’s message to us is written directly on the human heart. If we heed that message, God is pleased.
He also communicates with us in many other ways. The more access we have to these messages, the more responsibility we have to heed them.

Kim

 

[Contarini]

You said you don’t care to examine this scenario with its logical consequences. Fine. That is your prerogative. You said, all you want is to declare why this conversation is not “legitimate”. Fine, you did that. Obviously others disagree with you, because they are willing to engage in a conversation, based upon these premises. Will you allow us to continue? Your futher posts in this thread will be ignored, unless you care to contribute in a meaningful manner.

I will be very happy to be ignored. But I’m not going to ignore *you, *because it annoys me greatly when someone starts a thread with an interesting title and then completely ignores the ostensible subject of the title.

You haven’t shown any ability to tell a metaphysical argument from an anthill. You have not yet described with any coherence anything that can reasonably be called “theistic metaphysics.” One would think that if the title of your thread was sincere, you would be interested in addressing the arguments that I have made to that effect. That you are not raises serious questions as to your good faith.

Edwin

 

[ateista]

Well, I’m glad to finally get to your point!
Seems like you took the hard way to get there! LOL!

Miscommunication can happen. As long as we can fix it, it is no big deal.

First of all, about whether God is good, I believe it could be argued that the vast majority of existence is good. Even in impoverished countries, you don’t see mass suicides. People continue to have babies, etc. Therefore, they must think their existence is good!

It is not so simple. Yes, I agree that the vast majority of existence is good. Still suicides do happen, so some people actually choose nonexistence.

However, the question was something different, namely, that can it be substantiated that any existence is preferable to nonexistence? And I don’t think it can.

So, we could surmise that God must be good, also allowing evil to preserve the goodness of free will.

That is incorrect. The actual existence of “evil” is not necessary, only the potential of it.

After all, evil is only defined as an absence of goodness, so, the good must be the ultimate power.

That is incorrect as well. Evil is not the absence of “good”. There is the neutral indifference.

As to your point about God’s communication being so vague and therefore meaningless, I’d say it all depends whether you care enough to listen.

That is a subjective opinion.

The point is that a “vague” communication is the functional equivalent of no communication, because it can be reasonably doubted. And if the creator does not expicitly and unmistakably declare his existence, then he does not “impose” himself on his creation and cannot expect anything from his creation. Effectively he stays neutral or indifferent toward his creation (and indifference is not evil).

 

[HelenaMT]

I don’t think he would even ponder to make a “continuation” to this existence (eternal or otherwise). If that is what he wanted, he could have made that “continued existence” in the first place - instead of this one. It is not reasonable to posit any continuation.

I guess it’s not really reasonable or unreasonable. There’s no reason to* assume* a creator would *necessarily *get rid of anything. There could be some value to our consciousnesses staying intact. If you’re already accepting the premise(for the sake of argument) that there is something beyond STEM, that there is a mind, then who knows?

Neverthless, I have to make a few remarks here. Yes, most theists assume that there was or is some communication between God and us. Mostly they agree, however, that the communication is not clear-cut, it is ambiguous, it leaves the door open for other interpretations. They view this aspect in a positive light - it “paves the way” for faith.

However, what is the difference between a total lack of communication and an ambiguous one? If there is no communication at all, we are “allowed” to think that our world just “is”, that we are the masters of our lives.

Yes, I think it is logical to assume that the creator would allow us to feel that way if we don’t accept the methods he chooses for communication.

If there would be an unambiguous communication, then we are “notified” that we are created, our fate is at the discretion of the creator. And that would bring up serious problems. Some people would welcome this, since it would bring some assurance, maybe allow them to cope with life’s misfortunes, believing that there will be a compensation “later”. Others would resent it, and see it as an “insult” to their dignity, robbing them the feeling that they are the masters of their life, relegating them to the role of “children” or “slaves”. (Observe the quotes, please!).

An ambiguous communication achieves the same thing without the certainty. It is just as bad as the clear one, but also adds a level uncertainty. Most people (not all) prefer to have the news as is, and abhor the uncertainty.

Many people may prefer to have the news “as is” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would work out either to our benefit or to the creator’s. Without uncertainty, where is the consuming drive to seek knowledge that helps make our mortal existence meaningful? Maybe it’s logical to posit that a creator might have a different end result in mind than the one we have and leave it at that.

If the creator does not communicate his existence in an absolutely clear-cut manner, he “allows” both beliefs. If some people believe in his existence (and can argue for it), while others do not believe his existence (and also can argue for it), then the creator must consider both stances equally acceptable.

He might find them equally understandable, but would probably still have a preference, being a sentient mind.

The believers do not earn “brownie points” and the non-believers do not get the “scorn” of the creator. He leaves both of them equally alone. There will be no continuation (pleasant or not). There will be no reward nor punishment. This conclusion is based upon the lack of clear communication. As I said before an ambiguous communication is just as bad (if not worse) than the clear one. ]

The lack of clear communication doesn’t seem to necessarily mean anything by itself. Maybe he doesn’t differentiate between believers and unbelievers on the basis of belief alone, since he understands the limits to what we can or can’t accept with our specific minds.

A creator might differentiate between believers or non-believers based on what results from either. Belief in him with actions he doesn’t like might get a worse reaction than unbelief and actions he approves of. But again, who knows?

My final conclusion is: even if there is a God (in the Christian understanding) all the alleged signs of communication are misunderstandings or wishful thinking. As such he does not differentiate between the faithful and the infidels. He does not owe us anything and we don’t owe him anything. He may as well not exist.

For those who do believe that there are signs of communication and not misunderstandings and wishful thinking, the question of what we owe or don’t actually has a point.

For those who do not accept the methods of communication he offers, yes, he may as well not exist, for the purposes of your pure survival as an individual. A creator does not necessarily have to have your belief.

 

[Biggie]

Your initial matrix thesis is not that different from Nietzsche’s Nihilism or from Descartes’ “cogito ergo sum”. Do we exist simply because we think we exist? That such concepts arise points to the disturbing realization that human reason does not trust itself, is in fact broken and in search of its own meaning. Are we where we think we are, or in a matrix, or do we just think we’re in a matrix? Chesterton relates such beliefs to the situation of the paranoid schizophrenic - his delusion is defensible within his own arguments, but stepping away from them one understands they are simply not enough to explain the world. How much more rational the Christian vision that we are each made unique, eternal, creative, free, a god in our own right like God in all things - but that we can never be first.

If one accepted momentarily the notion of a team of creators without regard for the question why a team would be necessary to do what a single creator could do, then one would not have yet arrived at God. The God of whom we speak is a prime being, uncreated and existing first before all else. I would not try to defend some other “theist” construct any more than I would call Greek Mythology “theism”.

To say God is first is to say that we are second in the sense that we are objectively unnecessary to God. He had to pull himself back to give us space. And it is an eternal sacrifice since we each are made once forever. Understanding our uselessness to God leads to the conclusion that creation is an act of love.

Much of the misunderstanding of God and his activity arises from a misunderstanding of love, a confusion I pick up in your writing. Love requires the freedom of the beloved to reject the lover. Other relationships are possible (puppet/puppet master; slave/slaveholder; object/owner) but they are not love. We are made free because we are made to love and be loved. We have the ability to refuse to love, and to bring about all permutations of the consequences of refusal.

But clearly the Judeao Christian tradition relates that God has never made it a secret we need a loving relationship with him in order to be fulfilled and find happiness, not because God needs the attention but because he gave the creature he made his own nature, the same nature that motivated him needlessly to deny himself in creation. What I think throws us most is that this great God, (I AM), is humble and loving, coming to us not in power in the lightning but in the gentle breeze after the storm. This is a God we have never been able to accept because we would wield his power much differently were it ours.

 

[ateista]

Many people may prefer to have the news “as is” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it would work out either to our benefit or to the creator’s. Without uncertainty, where is the consuming drive to seek knowledge that helps make our mortal existence meaningful?

There is always a lot of “stuff” to discover, so uncertainty will always be there. Now what do you mean be “meaningful”? Existence is as meaningful as we make it.

Maybe it’s logical to posit that a creator might have a different end result in mind than the one we have and leave it at that.

Very logical.

He might find them equally understandable, but would probably still have a preference, being a sentient mind.

Of course that is possible. But I did not say “understandable”, I said “acceptable”. With that I meant that he will not base judgment based upon the creatures believing in his existence.

The lack of clear communication doesn’t seem to necessarily mean anything by itself. Maybe he doesn’t differentiate between believers and unbelievers on the basis of belief alone, since he understands the limits to what we can or can’t accept with our specific minds.

Yes, that is precisely my point. If this creator is logical and reasonable, that is the conclusion.

A creator might differentiate between believers or non-believers based on what results from either. Belief in him with actions he doesn’t like might get a worse reaction than unbelief and actions he approves of. But again, who knows?

Undoubtedly.

For those who do believe that there are signs of communication and not misunderstandings and wishful thinking, the question of what we owe or don’t actually has a point.

How could dubious signs be more than misunderstandings and wishful thinking?

For those who do not accept the methods of communication he offers, yes, he may as well not exist, for the purposes of your pure survival as an individual. A creator does not necessarily have to have your belief.

Exactly.

 

[nuntym]

To the OP: before you even speculate on how you think Catholics think we perceive reality, may I suggest you read G.K. Chesterton’s book, St. Thomas Aquinas? Especially from chapter 4, “The Approach to Thomism” onwards. The book is available online as

("http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/aquinas.html"), [textfile](http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/aquinas.txt), or even [zipped](http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/aquinas.zip).

Thanks.

:thumbsup:

 

[OTavern]

The crux of this “matrix” kind of analogy lies in an observation that C.S. Lewis made in his Miracles book (Ch 14 The Grand Miracle.) He noted the huge discrepancy between the “… movement of atoms in an astronomer’s cortex and his understanding that there must still be an unobserved planet beyond Uranus…”

Here is the fundamental core of why we can even begin to speculate about matrices: there is no – at least available to human minds – logical connection between the physical world and our consciousness. Why should certain movements of chemicals in the brain trigger certain thoughts or emotions, if they in fact actually do? There is not causal or logical relationship.

That opens the field of speculation to all manner of opinion.

Nuntym’s point, if I read him/her correctly is that Thomist and Catholic philosophy tends to trust the connection between the molecular level and the human mind, that the human mind was constructed by God as a trustworthy interpreter of material reality. Generally, I would agree but the effects of sin also need to be considered here.

My other point though is that since no absolute correlation between matter and mind has been demonstrated, some believe “anything goes.” Ateista is here capitalizing on that haziness in human understanding to “explore” possibilities.

However, one thing seems quite certain, if there is no logical relationship between matter and mind, that matter does not 'link" directly and causally towards mind, there seems no great leap of mental gymnastics to speculate that mind may have a reverse influence and may affect matter. That the “Mind” of God may, in fact, generate matter as a complex form of “God thought.” In that case, we are “in God” and discovering the “ground” of our being is to discover God.

 

[ateista]

The crux of this “matrix” kind of analogy lies in an observation that C.S. Lewis made in his Miracles book (Ch 14 The Grand Miracle.) He noted the huge discrepancy between the “… movement of atoms in an astronomer’s cortex and his understanding that there must still be an unobserved planet beyond Uranus…”

Why so?

Let’s consider a simple scenario. Suppose I would be German who does not speak English and you are English, who does not speak German. You lift three fingers, and you say: “three”. I lift my three fingers and I say “drei”.

Two completely different linguistical utterances, and two different electro-chemical movements of the atoms. How come that they “mean” the same? There is no problem here at all: “we agree that they mean the same”. So simple, isn’t it? It is the mutual agreement that creates the meaning.

Suppose we develop a “private” language and agree that from now on we shall designate “three” fingers with a new linguistic construct, say “zergoz”. For us it would be meaningful, but for no one else.

Lingusitical constructs are based on mutual agreement. A few letters or sounds put next to each other (which designate a certain brain-state) do not have an intrinsic meaning at all.

Here is the fundamental core of why we can even begin to speculate about matrices: there is no – at least available to human minds – logical connection between the physical world and our consciousness.

What do you mean by “logical” in this context? When a newborn starts to discover the world, the sight of an object will trigger a certain brain-state. It is not necessary that the brain-state would be same in different newborns, most probably they are vastly different. How will these different brain-states “translate” into a common meaning? You guessed it: by mutual agreement.

Why should certain movements of chemicals in the brain trigger certain thoughts or emotions, if they in fact actually do?

The thoughts and emotions are the movement of the chemicals.

There is not causal or logical relationship.

Sure there is: the connection mutually agreed upon.

Nuntym’s point, if I read him/her correctly is that Thomist and Catholic philosophy tends to trust the connection between the molecular level and the human mind, that the human mind was constructed by God as a trustworthy interpreter of material reality.

And the materialists will argue that the trustworthiness is evidenced every time you see, hear, taste, smell or touch something, and the prediction based upon your senses will be verified by your continued existence.

If you would see a deep crevasse, and imagine that it is just a figment of your imagination, unconnected to reality, then one step forward would refute your imagination. Why does anyone feel like positing God here? It is not necessary.

It is all trial and error, hypothesis forming (not necessarily in a conscious format) and verification. If the predicition: “this plant is edible” is refuted by eating it, this particular misconception was “weeded out”.

As a matter of fact, the existence of the “erroneous” judgment is a powerful argument against the “divine” causation of “trustworthiness”.

Generally, I would agree but the effects of sin also need to be considered here.

Let’s don’t and say we did. “Sin” is a theological concept, and has no place in a philosophical discussion.

My other point though is that since no absolute correlation between matter and mind has been demonstrated, some believe “anything goes.” Ateista is here capitalizing on that haziness in human understanding to “explore” possibilities.

I have no idea what you mean here.

However, one thing seems quite certain, if there is no logical relationship between matter and mind, that matter does not 'link" directly and causally towards mind, there seems no great leap of mental gymnastics to speculate that mind may have a reverse influence and may affect matter.

Mind is the electro-chemical action of the brain. The thoughts are converted to arbitrary linguistical constructs. The meaning of these consctucts is mutually agreed upon. Nothing else is needed.

To reverse this process is contrived - to say the least, and incomprehensible. Ideas, concepts are “inert”, they do not interact with each other, much less the physical reality.

 

[Sarpedon]

What can we say about our own “creator”, if there is one? Only that the being (or beings) who created our world are immensly knowledgable and powerful compared to us. Nothing more. We can also ponder what should our attitude be toward those beings (if they exist)? What should their behavior be toward us?

Catholics don’t just worship the creator of “our world”. We worship the creator of all worlds. If there is some extremely powerful alien who “created” us but was created himself, we would just bypass him to reach the Uncreated Creator.

The conclusion is simple: whether any particular world is “standalone” or “created” it is an irrelevant question to ponder. In each world the beings should behave as if their world was the “final” one.

I see no support for this assumption.

If our world is not standalone, and held in existence by the standalone world, which is also an Individual who has a purpose for us, I would make sense to to listen to that standalone world. If we aren’t sure whether our world is standalone or created, I see no reason to assume one or the other. Can you give a reason why we should act as though we are in the standalone world?

We could not enter into the Matrix, because it is a totally different type of existence. We could create a simulation of ourselves inside the Matrix, but it would just be a “copy”, while the original would still stay outside.

We are also not God, who controls all contingent existence.

Yes, I have one kid. I love him very much, but his existence was unplanned. I never wanted to have children.

But the parents owe the children a decent upbringing, while the children do not owe the parents anything.

Do you accept on principal that people can have children for entirely selfless reasons, purely for the sake of the child? Do you accept that people can make a selfless choice to bring those uncreated beings into existence?

If you accept the last sentece, then you have admitted that love is possible between a creator and an uncreated thing. After all, love is a choice, and as long as the creator can make that choice, the love can exist.

 

[ateista]

Catholics don’t just worship the creator of “our world”. We worship the creator of all worlds. If there is some extremely powerful alien who “created” us but was created himself, we would just bypass him to reach the Uncreated Creator.

The “uncreated creator” is just another hypothesis. The theist says: “The Universe was created by God. God simply exists”. The atheist uses Occam’s razor and says: “The Universe simply exists”.

If our world is not standalone, and held in existence by the standalone world, which is also an Individual who has a purpose for us, I would make sense to to listen to that standalone world. If we aren’t sure whether our world is standalone or created, I see no reason to assume one or the other. Can you give a reason why we should act as though we are in the standalone world?

Sure, because there is no support for the opposite.

We are also not God, who controls all contingent existence.

Just another conjecture, which is based upon the distinction of “necessary” and “contingent” existence. I deny the validity of this distinction.

Do you accept on principal that people can have children for entirely selfless reasons, purely for the sake of the child? Do you accept that people can make a selfless choice to bring those uncreated beings into existence?

I do not. You cannot do anything for someone who does not exist.

As a matter of fact, it is nonsense to say that a hitherto “nonexistent child” was created. On what grounds would one say that “this nonexistent child” was now “created” as opposed to “that nonexistent child” was created? What is the basis for the distinction? Two nonexistent children cannot be told apart. They have no attributes.

If you accept the last sentece, then you have admitted that love is possible between a creator and an uncreated thing. After all, love is a choice, and as long as the creator can make that choice, the love can exist.

I answered “no” to the previous questions and I deny that “love is a choice”. Love is a feeling, an emotion, which must be manifested in actions to be more than a meaningless utterance. If some parents keep repeating that they “love” their children, but do not express that “love” in actions, they will be called shameless hypocrites.

 

[Sarpedon]

The “uncreated creator” is just another hypothesis. The theist says: “The Universe was created by God. God simply exists”. The atheist uses Occam’s razor and says: “The Universe simply exists”.

The difference is that the universe is a world of causes. If the universe needs to be caused by something else, it is nonsensical to say that the universe itself can be that “something else”. Of course, whether the universe is caused is a whole nother debate.

Sure, because there is no support for the opposite.

This is a debatable statement!

Just another conjecture, which is based upon the distinction of “necessary” and “contingent” existence. I deny the validity of this distinction.

Why? (I don’t want to derail your thread, so ignore if you want).

I do not. You cannot do anything for someone who does not exist.

When love is viewed as a choice, all that is necessary for its existence is one person to make the choice. You do not need the subject of the choice in order to make the choice real.

As a matter of fact, it is nonsense to say that a hitherto “nonexistent child” was created. On what grounds would one say that “this nonexistent child” was now “created” as opposed to “that nonexistent child” was created? What is the basis for the distinction? Two nonexistent children cannot be told apart. They have no attributes.

True, but once they are created they have attributes and can be told apart. Their creation is the beginning of their existence. Parents can make the choice to love their uncreated children, even if they don’t know the attributes of their children or anything at all about them. The can choose to love whatever becomes their children through their creative act.

I answered “no” to the previous questions and I deny that “love is a choice”. Love is a feeling, an emotion, which must be manifested in actions to be more than a meaningless utterance. If some parents keep repeating that they “love” their children, but do not express that “love” in actions, they will be called shameless hypocrites.

First off, I do mantain that part of love is emotion, especially when the word is used in its more common and non-philosophical sense.

Love is ultimately selflessness. In order for selflessness to be real, it must be expressed in actions. If I say that I am selfless, but do not act in accord with my statement, I am not truly selfless.

Your position seems very close to mine. It seems we both maintain that love is not “legitimate” unless it is expressed through actions, which entail choice.

 

[ateista]

The difference is that the universe is a world of causes. If the universe needs to be caused by something else, it is nonsensical to say that the universe itself can be that “something else”. Of course, whether the universe is caused is a whole nother debate.

Yes, it is true that the Universe contains many causal chains. But from that it does not follow that the Universe itself is part of a causal chain.

Causal chains are only defined for individual events, but not for collections of events. It makes perfect sense to establish causal chains for us as individuals - the procreative acts of our parents. From that it does not follow that such a causal chain can even be defined for the whole humanity.

Why? (I don’t want to derail your thread, so ignore if you want).

Because it is an artificial distinction which does not add anything to our understanding.

When love is viewed as a choice, all that is necessary for its existence is one person to make the choice. You do not need the subject of the choice in order to make the choice real.

That is very weird, to say the least. An act of “love” without any “object” is sheer nonsense. How is the love of a “child-to-be” is different from the love of a “book-to-be-written”? In both cases one can love the “idea”. But the idea is not the same as the instantiated reality.

True, but once they are created they have attributes and can be told apart. Their creation is the beginning of their existence. Parents can make the choice to love their uncreated children, even if they don’t know the attributes of their children or anything at all about them. The can choose to love whatever becomes their children through their creative act.

And in what way is that meaningful? Can one “love” the dinner which is not cooked yet? No, you can love the idea of it, you can imagine it, you can expect it, etc. But until the dinner is made, you can only love the “idea” of that dinner. If that love is manifested in actual cooking the dinner, then and only then can you start loving your creation.

First off, I do mantain that part of love is emotion, especially when the word is used in its more common and non-philosophical sense.

Love is ultimately selflessness. In order for selflessness to be real, it must be expressed in actions. If I say that I am selfless, but do not act in accord with my statement, I am not truly selfless.

Your position seems very close to mine. It seems we both maintain that love is not “legitimate” unless it is expressed through actions, which entail choice.

Yes, I agree 100%.

And what you say here makes me wonder why did you say that the object of love does not have to exist in order to love to be meaningful. Your words: “experessed in actions” would be meaningless if the object that action is directed toward - does not exist. Sounds like “shadow-boxing” to me - going through the motions of boxing - without an opponent.

 

[OTavern]

How come that they “mean” the same? There is no problem here at all: “we agree that they mean the same”. So simple, isn’t it? It is the mutual agreement that creates the meaning. Emphasis mine

Sorry I can’t buy that. Agreement has little to do with creating meaning. Agreement may set the terms of discussion, but I must walk into the discussion with “meaning” before I can “meaningfully” agree or disagree with what you are claiming. It is each party’s prior grasp of meaning that either creates agreement or disagreement, not the other way around. Your take on the meaning of meaning seems fack to bront.

Example: two interlocutors each have their own understanding of a brand new, never been considered idea. One is logical, explanatory and self-consistent, but the other is pure nonsense and self-contradictory. Does that mean, to you, that neither has any grasp on meaning until one of them can get someone else to “agree” with them? Something odd about that.

To be meaningful to me [in the subjective sense], an idea may require my “assent” and perhaps by agreement. To be meaningful to a group in conversation, an idea may require some agreement to terms. However, both of these depend upon the fact that the idea itself bears “meaning” [in the objective sense] independent of and prior to the assent or agreement of those considering it.

Meaning is not “bestowed” upon reality by the human mind, it is discovered by the mind and exists independent of it. If you don’t see this, then we have a fundamental issue about the nature of truth, the real object of meaning.

 

[OTavern]

Causal chains are only defined for individual events, but not for collections of events. It makes perfect sense to establish causal chains for us as individuals - the procreative acts of our parents. From that it does not follow that such a causal chain can even be defined for the whole humanity.

There are different kinds of “causes.” Some are serial and chronological, others may be co-existent, but nonetheless explanatory. Regardless of how you wish to play with the word “cause,” it makes sense to ask “Why does this exist?” whether you are talking about an individual or the universe itself.

To explain why a human being exists we could resort to a number of different nuances of the word “cause” and all of them could be true. To apply the word “cause” to the universe may mean it is necessary to invoke a host of other nuances, but it is still meaningful, though perhaps not subjectively appealing to rigid atheists who are terrified of the possibility of numinous reality.

 

[HelenaMT]

Yes, it is true that the Universe contains many causal chains. But from that it does not follow that the Universe itself is part of a causal chain.

Causal chains are only defined for individual events, but not for collections of events.

What about the Big Bang? Wasn’t that one event? Or is that not the accepted theory right now? I don’t know if superstring theory changes that or not.

 

[ateista]

Sorry I can’t buy that. Agreement has little to do with creating meaning.

On the other hand, it has everything to do with it. I may tell you a perfectly sensible proposition, but if I do it using a language you are not familiar with, it will be only unintelligible gibberish.

When I tell you a proposition, it has a “meaning” to me (in the sense that it will coincide with a brain-state). It may not have the same meaning to you - and in such a case we speak of miscommunication. “Meaning” gets realized in a communication channel, where the sender’s intended information coincides with the receiver’s perceived information.

Example: two interlocutors each have their own understanding of a brand new, never been considered idea. One is logical, explanatory and self-consistent, but the other is pure nonsense and self-contradictory. Does that mean, to you, that neither has any grasp on meaning until one of them can get someone else to “agree” with them? Something odd about that.

That is not what I was talking about.

To be meaningful to me [in the subjective sense], an idea may require my “assent” and perhaps by agreement. To be meaningful to a group in conversation, an idea may require some agreement to terms. However, both of these depend upon the fact that the idea itself bears “meaning” [in the objective sense] independent of and prior to the assent or agreement of those considering it.

You mean the idea is sensible, it pertains to something the conversing parties “understand” to some extent.

Meaning is not “bestowed” upon reality by the human mind, it is discovered by the mind and exists independent of it. If you don’t see this, then we have a fundamental issue about the nature of truth, the real object of meaning.

That may well be. Abstractions either pertain to reality, in which case they can be said “meaningful”, however that is not the useage I was referring to. Other abstractions (ideas, concepts) can be fully imaginary, in which case the “meaning” is only subject to mutual agreement.

You may tell me that God is omniscient, and you have a certain set of characteristics in mind. I can hear you, but in my mind the concept of “omniscience” is total bogus, a meaningless concept.

 

[ateista]

There are different kinds of “causes.” Some are serial and chronological, others may be co-existent, but nonetheless explanatory. Regardless of how you wish to play with the word “cause,” it makes sense to ask “Why does this exist?” whether you are talking about an individual or the universe itself.

No, because to ask the “why” and “from where” and “at what time” all presuppose something “outside” the Universe. Unless you can bring up some reason to accept that idea, it will be a nonsensical question.

Let me repeat this. The theist’s proposition is:
“The Universe was created by God. God simply exists.”
Let’s put parentheses around the “supernatural” part:
“The Universe (was created by God. God) simply exists.”
The atheist uses Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary assumption:
“The Universe simply exists”.

Since you have no problem to accept that there is uncaused existence (in the case of God), why are you surprised if the atheist accepts the uncaused existence of the Universe?

 

[ateista]

What about the Big Bang? Wasn’t that one event? Or is that not the accepted theory right now? I don’t know if superstring theory changes that or not.

I don’t know. But the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe, it is the beginning of the current form of the Universe.

 

[OTavern]

Let me repeat this. The theist’s proposition is:
“The Universe was created by God. God simply exists.”
Let’s put parentheses around the “supernatural” part:
“The Universe (was created by God. God) simply exists.”
The atheist uses Occam’s razor to remove the unnecessary assumption:
“The Universe simply exists”.

Since you have no problem to accept that there is uncaused existence (in the case of God), why are you surprised if the atheist accepts the uncaused existence of the Universe?

Yes, but the theist has good reason to go beyond “The universe ‘simply’ exists.” There is no part of the universe that must necessarily exist. That means every part of the universe can at some time “not exist.” Therefore the universe itself can and, at one time, actually did “not exist.” In fact, Big Bang cosmology says precisely that. Therefore, the universe does not “simply exist” and neither can it explain its own existence regardless of what you are willing to accept. Occam does not apply here, except in the peculiar little manner you command it to in your imagination.