Theist and atheist metaphysics

[ateista]

I gave you a specific causal chain and asked you to address it. I do not have to establish anything, you do.

Oh, well.

You gave me an analogy. In this analogy you did not interpret the materialistic stance very well. So I will explain.

The current form of the Universe started at the Big Bang. Our knowledge today goes back as far as a miniscule fraction of a second after the Big Bang. What happened in the singularity, we simply don’t know. What are the properties of the singularity we also don’t know. None of the models in physics extend that far. Maybe we shall once get to that point, maybe we shall not.

According to our current understanding of time, it cannot be defined inside the singularity. Maybe that will change, maybe it will not.

Science stops at the singularity.

Hypothesis forming of philosophers and theologians does not. In order to “carve out” a place for God, they assume that “time” is defined in an absolute fashion, contrary to our current understanding. They also assume that matter / energy can be created, also contrary to our current understanding.

Neither of these assumptions is supported by any evidence.

Therefore materialists simply say: “bring forth any evidence that your assumption is more than empty philosophising”. The believers cannot comply. They merely say that “maybe” our current understaning is insufficient - which it may well be.

Also they posit a so-called “final” explanation that “goddidit” - and that is the point when they lose any credibility. Even if that would be the case, it would never qualify as an explanation.

And boys and girls, that’s the way to cookie crumbles.

 

[Contarini]

I am sure you are aware that there is no way to prove a universal negative.

Precisely. Which to most of us indicates that we should be cautious about asserting a universal negative. Apparently to you it means that you can go around throwing universal negatives about irresponsibly, precisely because there is no way to prove such statements!

Let me grant you your assumption and contemplate that the Universe was “created”.

You continue to show no understanding whatever of what traditional theistic metaphysics means by the word “created.”

First problem:

the principle of conservation of matter / energy (which is quite well established, even though being a law of nature is always subject to be revised - if sufficiently good reason would emerge) expressly states that matter / energy cannot be “created” or “destroyed”. Therefore your suggestion is as unscientific as it can be.

Of course. I am not talking science. I am talking metaphysics, in accord with the ostensible subject of this thread. You claimed you wanted to talk metaphysics, but then keep talking science instead. It would be really helpful if you would make up your mind!

The law of conservation of matter/energy holds only *within *the physical universe. By definition it can have nothing to say about the origins of that universe in a metaphysical sense.

Second problem:

According to our understanding “time” is only defined within the Universe. (This is also a scientific assessment, possibly subject to revision, but again, it seems to hold up pretty well.) So to suggest that there was something “before” time is again a totally unscientific proposition, or to be more precise, it is precisely as nonsensical as positing a place which is to the north from the North Pole.

Indeed. This was pointed out by St. Augustine 1600 years ago. Once again, you set up a silly straw man because you don’t understand the position you claim to be refuting. The claim of traditional theistic metaphysics is not that God sat around and twiddled His thumbs for some infinite period of time before creating the universe, but that the contingent and changing universe we perceive is ontologically dependent on a timeless principle of absolute Being. According to Aquinas, philosophy can’t prove whether the universe had a temporal beginning (i.e., a point before which, temporally, there was nothing at all) or not. Other traditional Christian thinkers tried to prove philosophically that there must have been a point before which the universe did not exist (and hence before which there was no “before” at all). I tend to think that Aquinas was right and this is not really a metaphysical question (though it is one of interest both to science and to theology).

You say “God created the Universe”. Let me translate it for you into everyday terms:

Again, you betray the ostensible purpose of the thread. Metaphysics deals with matters that cannot be well expressed in “everyday terms.”

I have stated above what I take creation to mean, philosophically speaking: that the source for the universe we perceive is a timeless principle of absolute Being.

It is not true that an explanation is only valid if one understands all the terms about the entity postulated by the explanation. The explanation is of course imperfect and incomplete in those circumstances, but not useless.

There are at least three possible explanations for why we find a universe “lying about”:

1. The universe did not always exist but just happened for no reason at all (this is the poorest of the three explanations, surely).
2. The universe has no beginning and no end, and it needs no explanation beyond itself. (This is a claim that no explanation is necessary, which is not exactly an explanation but is certainly a valid claim to make. We then have to decide whether the properties of the universe are such that this “explanation” makes sense. And this is a hard debate to have because much depends on our predispositions–what sort of reality is likely to seem convincing to us? To you the existence of a physical universe appears to need no explanation beyond itself. To me it does. These two intuitions rest on such different assumptions that it’s hard to find enough common ground to have an argument, as this thread has shown. But we can at least try to point out some of the consequences of the opponent’s point of view and some of the advantages we find in our own. To do that it’s helpful to try to understand the opponent’s point of view–something you haven’t put a lot of energy into so far.)
3. The temporal comes from the timeless, the finite from the infinite, the composite from the simple, the changing from the unchanging. This “explains” in the sense that it posits a source for what we observe which itself needs no source (contrary to the clueless arguments often made by atheists). It does not explain in a scientific sense. But again, we aren’t talking science, we’re talking metaphysics. I get the impression that you really don’t have much use for metaphysics. That is a prejudice shared by many in the past century, but an odd one for someone who starts a thread purporting to be about metaphysics.

And yes, I’m being annoying. I’m trying to goad you into thinking about actual metaphysical questions. Because I don’t think you have begun doing that yet.

Yours truly,

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

I am sure this is way ahead of my intelligence level but I have to try. This makes no sense to me, here is why. For a person to not believe in God IMO is a person who would be prone to the devil. (atheist) thats the way I see it. Now some may call me ignorant. But here is how I see it, You have two kinds of people in this world Gods people and the Devils. The only difference alot of people dont know whos side they are on yet. They want to be on Gods but for some reason or another cant or wont. Then the ones who on on the devils and either wont admit it or will. To deny God would be impossible, here is why. How could a book be written thousands of years ago (the bible) and still be true today. This is a book about God. How is is possible for everything in our life today unite with that book. Especially if God doesnt exist. No athiest can explain that one away. They can play science into it, any theory they want. But pure and simple THE BIBLE says it all. Of course you will hear all atheist’s dont worship the devil or even believe in him. But how many do? So to really give this matter alot of thought, A atheist is another example of how there really is a God. Because if you think about it, It is God himself who again as everything else in this world warned us. Now is there is not a God how could he have warned us about them. How could an atheist explain that one away? Amazing what a simple minded person can come up with huh.

 

[ateista]

You continue to show no understanding whatever of what traditional theistic metaphysics means by the word “created.”

Come on. To “create” is bring forth from nothing. What else could it be? If you have another definition, tell me.

Of course. I am not talking science. I am talking metaphysics, in accord with the ostensible subject of this thread. You claimed you wanted to talk metaphysics, but then keep talking science instead. It would be really helpful if you would make up your mind!

They cannot be separated. Metaphysics is supposed to talk about reality: “what exists”. If metaphysics is decoupled from reality then it becomes empty speculation.

If I were to assert that the materialistic metaphysics states that the Universe is made of cotton candy, and that “reality” is supposed to be accepted on “faith”, you could reasonably call that metaphysics total nonsense and BS.

The law of conservation of matter/energy holds only *within *the physical universe. By definition it can have nothing to say about the origins of that universe in a metaphysical sense.

So, it is your turn to show that there is anything “outside” the physical universe, that “something” can interact with the physical universe.

The claim of traditional theistic metaphysics is not that God sat around and twiddled His thumbs for some infinite period of time before creating the universe, but that the contingent and changing universe we perceive is ontologically dependent on a timeless principle of absolute Being.

Fine. Now tell me what does the word “existence” mean when applied to a “timeless” being. Any existence we are familiar with is extended in space-time, whether it is strictly physical or immaterial (conceptual). The very word “existence” implies these. Now you wish to use this word in a totally different way. That is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.

According to Aquinas, philosophy can’t prove whether the universe had a temporal beginning (i.e., a point before which, temporally, there was nothing at all) or not.

Philosophy cannot “prove” anything. Physical sciences can substantiate a theory about reality by making predictions and verifying them. The abstract sciences can prove the validity of a theorem by showing that they are a corollary of some mutually accepted axioms. Philosophy cannot do either. Strictly speaking it is not even a science, it is a meta-science. Mostly it is a fun mental exercise.

Again, you betray the ostensible purpose of the thread. Metaphysics deals with matters that cannot be well expressed in “everyday terms.”

Yes, they can. Of course most professional philosophers tend to use long, convoluted sentences and esoteric, made-up words to hide the fact that they have nothing special to talk about. And then they try your tactics (asserting that I am unable even to comprehend them) when I point out that the “emperor has no clothes”.

There can be nothing more abstract than pure mathematics. Still I can explain even the most complex mathematical concepts in simple everyday words. I did that for a few decades when I was a math professor at the University of Economics.

I have stated above what I take creation to mean, philosophically speaking: that the source for the universe we perceive is a timeless principle of absolute Being.

Ok. Does that “mean” anything? Explain what “timeless” existence means. How can “timeless” existence “act”?

It is not true that an explanation is only valid if one understands all the terms about the entity postulated by the explanation. The explanation is of course imperfect and incomplete in those circumstances, but not useless.

But the situation here is much worse than missing a few nuances. The whole “explanation” is nonsensical. The word “explanation” has a meaning: “it is the reduction of something that is currently ‘hazy’ onto something that is already understood”. Giving the why’s and wherefore’s so the picture is now clearer than it used to be. And that is precisely what is missing from the “explanation” you presented: “an unknowable being, using unknowable means made it somehow happen”. The picture is not clearer, it is now totally obscured behind an unpenetrable screen.

1. The universe did not always exist but just happened for no reason at all (this is the poorest of the three explanations, surely).

That does not qualify as “explanation”.

1. The universe has no beginning and no end, and it needs no explanation beyond itself. (This is a claim that no explanation is necessary, which is not exactly an explanation but is certainly a valid claim to make. We then have to decide whether the properties of the universe are such that this “explanation” makes sense. And this is a hard debate to have because much depends on our predispositions–what sort of reality is likely to seem convincing to us? To you the existence of a physical universe appears to need no explanation beyond itself.

This I agree with. Though it is not an explanation at all (as you correctly pointed out). One must stop somewhere and have a starting point for all explanations. Otherwise we would be in a infinite descent.

Let me correct one of your propositions: “This is a claim that no explanation is necessary” - it should read “This is a claim that no explanation is necessary and no explanation is possible”.

To me it does. These two intuitions rest on such different assumptions that it’s hard to find enough common ground to have an argument, as this thread has shown. But we can at least try to point out some of the consequences of the opponent’s point of view and some of the advantages we find in our own.

Yes. And that would have been the point of this whole exercise.

1. The temporal comes from the timeless, the finite from the infinite, the composite from the simple, the changing from the unchanging.

OK. Now comes the question: “how”?

This “explains” in the sense that it posits a source for what we observe which itself needs no source (contrary to the clueless arguments often made by atheists). It does not explain in a scientific sense.

It does not explain anything at all. It posits more unknowns and insinuates that it is an explanation.

But again, we aren’t talking science, we’re talking metaphysics. I get the impression that you really don’t have much use for metaphysics.

If science contradicts metaphysics, then I sure don’t.

 

[OTavern]

But my amazement makes me looking for natural causes, and when my knowledge is not enough, then I will admit it, and then keep on looking for more. The “explanation” of “goddidit” is never applicable.

Surprisingly, I agree with you on this. The claim that “God did it” does not go anywhere to explain “how” it was done. Even though it might be true that God did it, the “material” cause which is the subject of inquiry, whether scientific or otherwise, requires an appeal to a material sequence for explanation.

Where we disagree is on the nature of the “formal” cause and the possibility of a “final” cause. You seems to think the material cause/explanation is all that is required to explain anything. I remain convinced that all three are necessary to explain anything thoroughly.

On the formal cause: Would you deny there is any such intelligible “structure” to the universe? If you do deny a “formal” structure to the universe, I would find that peculiar given that you seem to imply in all your posts that it is ultimately an intelligible place. But if no formal cause exists, why even believe it can be intelligible? On the other hand, if you think there is some kind of “plan” or “blueprint” built into the universe, explain the origin. Why is the universe intelligible?

It seems to me that the intelligibility built into it is precisely a very good reason for believing in a “Mind” or “Intelligence” behind it. That would be an obvious conclusion. To deny that, you need to supply an alternate reason for the intelligibility of the universe. Can you do that besides simply claiming, “It is intelligible but that is simply a fact about the universe!” That seems feeble.

On the final cause: If there is no “ultimate plan” for the universe it seems to me that all ethical demands are weakened. And I am not talking fear of hell or that flavour of a demand. I am talking “purpose”. It seems a much greater reason and motivation to be moral, to carry on in times of adversity or act when courage demands action, if human life bears an absolute value from “the good” that is built into the fabric of the universe. That “everything” is here “for a reason” and the support of “all that is” stands behind the moral agent when action is demanded seems a much more cogent perspective than “brute” matter which has no preference as to outcome and on its own is completely silent on the subject of value.

Matter offers no condemnation of evil and no reason for acting towards a “final end” of “the good.” For matter, all outcomes have equal validity. Whatever form matter takes is not a matter of preference. Whether you are a mashed lump in car accident, flattened by a wayward boulder or tortured by an inhumane sadist are morally indistinguishable for matter. If you wish to retain matter as the ultimate fabric of the universe there is your moral legacy.

If you take an intentional and purposeful “final cause” away from the universe, it seems to me that what you have left, cold matter, has no condemnation of, for example, someone like Hitler who wishes to inflict abominable evil on others in the name of building a powerful empire. Matter seems to inordinately tolerate as “mercy killing” all manner of abominations because human “mind” and “spirit” are mere “illusions” and “phantoms” of chemistry which quickly and mercifully dissipate upon death. Evil is not in the lexicon of matter.

That a person suffering at the hand of a monster like Hitler is simply a wisp of chemistry in the brain seems, if materialists are correct, to deflate any abhorrence we may have about such acts.

However, if human beings are infinite beings, endowed with eternal life by the “Power” and Spirit behind the entire universe, that fact bears with it a strengthened moral will and conviction against evil.

The logical and moral repercussions of a solely “materialistic” universe are simply not acceptable to me. I will hold on to the belief that there is much more behind the universe than that. In my life, this conviction has not been mere wishful thinking because everything around me points to the fact, plain and simple, that God does indeed exist. There is a point and purpose to our existence far beyond the meagre ones we can create on our own. To me there is no doubt about that. Just the suggestion that, “Matter is all there is,” with all its repercussions, is enough to drive that conviction deeper into my being in times of doubt.

Atheism is simply odious to my being.

 

[ateista]

Where we disagree is on the nature of the “formal” cause and the possibility of a “final” cause. You seems to think the material cause/explanation is all that is required to explain anything. I remain convinced that all three are necessary to explain anything thoroughly.

As far as practicality goes, knowing the material causes allows us to understand and (in certain cases) duplicate the “good stuff” in nature, and avoid the “bad stuff”. In science the question of “final” explanation never comes up.

Besides the “really final” explanation will always be “because it is so”. For the materialist it stops at the STEM, for the idealists it will be one step beyond and will stop at God. For the materialist the question “why are the properties of STEM what they are?” is just as nonsensical as for the idealist the question “why are God’s properties what they are?”. The answer “because it is so”, and of course it is not an explanation - because explanation must stop somewhere. (One word of caution: do not call this “faith”. It would be a serious misnomer. It is an axiom.)

On the formal cause: Would you deny there is any such intelligible “structure” to the universe? If you do deny a “formal” structure to the universe, I would find that peculiar given that you seem to imply in all your posts that it is ultimately an intelligible place. But if no formal cause exists, why even believe it can be intelligible? On the other hand, if you think there is some kind of “plan” or “blueprint” built into the universe, explain the origin. Why is the universe intelligible?

I wish I could be certain what do you mean by the word “intelligible”? If you use it as a synonym for “order”, then I will agree. If you use it as a synonym for “design” I will disagree. Indeed the universe exhibits order. The properties of STEM are uniform. The opposite would be total chaos. The question of “why” again does not arise for me. The first law of logic says “everything is itself”. A hydrogen atom is different from a carbon atom.

It seems to me that the intelligibility built into it is precisely a very good reason for believing in a “Mind” or “Intelligence” behind it.

I will use my favorite example: you walk on the beach and see three straight pieces of driftwood, which happen to form a triangle. They might be there because a kid found them and arranged them in that specific format, or they might be there because of the random waves of the ocean and the random forces of the wind. Both are possible explanations. Is there any need to assume that it “must have been” an intelligence behind it?

The pieces of driftwood definitely exhibit “order”, but they do not exhibit “design”.

That would be an obvious conclusion. To deny that, you need to supply an alternate reason for the intelligibility of the universe. Can you do that besides simply claiming, “It is intelligible but that is simply a fact about the universe!” That seems feeble.

Is it feeble in my example?

If you say that for such a “simple” scenario it is acceptable, but not for the more “complicated” stuff, then you argue an arbitrary line of complexity where everything on “this” side is “natural” (meaning: it simply IS) and everything on the “other” side is “artificial” (meaning: it must be MADE by some intelligence).

There is a still on-going “war” between reason and religion. In the prehistoric times everything was a “mystery”. All the events in nature were “explained” by some gods. As the human knowledge grew, the need for these gods started to diminish. Of course these gods are the gods of the gaps.

Today people do not believe that there must be a “supernatural” explanation for everything. Even the Vatican conceded that evolution was a “method” employed by God. The need for supernatural explanation is now “reserved” for a few problems: the “nature of mind” and the “final” question. Science took over the rest. Of these the nature of the mind is still unsolved, but we are making headway. When the first AI will pass the Turing-test, the “need” for the concept of the “soul” will finally be over.

Of course I predict that the Vatican will put up a “valiant” fight and try to deny it as long as they can. This prediction is based upon the unwillingness of the Vatican to accept the “heresy” of evolution. When the evidence became overwhelming, they conceded. But it was a “bloody” fight.

The “final” question does not belong to sicence.

The rest of your post deals with ethical considerations. They don’t “really” belong here, but I will answer them in another post later.

 

[Contarini]

Come on. To “create” is bring forth from nothing. What else could it be? If you have another definition, tell me.

That is a correct definition if you do not necessarily understand it in a temporal sense. This article by William E. Carroll puts it very well:

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To cause completely something to exist is not to produce a change in something, is not to work on or with some existing material. If, in producing something new, an agent were to use something already existing, the agent would not be the complete cause of the new thing. But such complete causing is precisely what creation is. To build a house or paint a picture involves working with existing materials and either action is radically different from creation. To create is to cause existence, and all things are totally dependent upon a Creator for the very fact that they are. The Creator does not take nothing and make something out of nothing. Rather, any thing left entirely to itself, wholly separated from the cause of its existence, would be absolutely nothing. Creation is not some distant event; it is the complete causing of the existence of everything that is.

This “complete causing” does not necessarily imply that the universe had a temporal beginning. Christians believe this as a matter of revelation. But metaphysically it’s not an important question (at least in the opinion of Aquinas which I’m following here).

They cannot be separated. Metaphysics is supposed to talk about reality: “what exists”. If metaphysics is decoupled from reality then it becomes empty speculation.

And the problem here is your assumption that science is the only reliable access we have to reality. This is not an assumption that most of us on this thread share. It is not an assumption compatible with traditional theistic metaphysics, in my opinion. So if you actually want to have a dialogue between theistic and atheistic metaphysics, instead of just shouting at us and telling us what idiots we are (which appears to be your favorite form of entertainment, and to which you are welcome if you really enjoy it so much), you will need either to bracket this assumption or make a convincing case for it.

If I were to assert that the materialistic metaphysics states that the Universe is made of cotton candy, and that “reality” is supposed to be accepted on “faith”, you could reasonably call that metaphysics total nonsense and BS.

But I would be aware that such an action would benefit no one and nothing except my own exasperated feelings. Instead, I hope I would do one of two things: either ignore you (most likely) and leave you and your little band of weirdos alone, or (if I had some reason to address your views) tackle the difficult and unpromising task of figuring out just how someone could come to believe so bizarre and unfounded a thing. (I face some such task when I run into Mormons, who are not at the cotton-candy level but do have an implied metaphysics that I find difficult to understand or appreciate.) It is this task for which you seem so unprepared. Yet you have come of your own free will onto a board dominated by traditional theists.

So, it is your turn to show that there is anything “outside” the physical universe, that “something” can interact with the physical universe.

Words like “outside” and “before” are only metaphors when used of God, and they mean “not subject to the limitations of.” Why not being subject to the limitations of the physical universe should hinder God’s ability to interact with that universe is beyond me.

Fine. Now tell me what does the word “existence” mean when applied to a “timeless” being.

It means that that being is. Perhaps you should turn to former President Clinton for further explanation

Any existence we are familiar with is extended in space-time, whether it is strictly physical or immaterial (conceptual). The very word “existence” implies these. Now you wish to use this word in a totally different way. That is called the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I don’t know how you can speak of an immaterial concept (and I don’t grant that all immaterial entities must be concepts) being extended in space-time. Perhaps this is my ignorance. Certainly “existence” has been predicated of an immaterial deity for a very long time. I am not simply inventing this usage. You may of course have some good reason why this usage is a bad one. But alleging “theft” is ridiculous. You and your gang of modern materialists do not “own” philosophical terms. If anything, you are the ones doing the “stealing.” But this entire line of argument degrades the conversation (not surprising, since it appears that your “fallacy” was invented by Ayn Rand).

Philosophy cannot “prove” anything.

I disagree. Although I agree that it’s harder to prove things philosophically than ancient and medieval philosophers believed.

Physical sciences can substantiate a theory about reality by making predictions and verifying them. The abstract sciences can prove the validity of a theorem by showing that they are a corollary of some mutually accepted axioms. Philosophy cannot do either. Strictly speaking it is not even a science, it is a meta-science. Mostly it is a fun mental exercise.

That explains the generally frivolous and irresponsible tone of your contributions to this thread

And then they try your tactics (asserting that I am unable even to comprehend them) when I point out that the “emperor has no clothes”.

I don’t think you are unable to comprehend me. I think you aren’t trying, because you have come on to this board with the firm belief that traditional theism (and any other form of metaphysics not strictly subordinated to the empirical sciences) is just a load of nonsense anyway. Your entire argument has been “petitio principii” from beginning to end (with a lot of other fallacies thrown in for good measure).

An example of your “incomprehension”: you made the reasonable argument that there is no time “before the universe.” You made this argument, bizarrely, as an objection to traditional theism, when in fact St. Augustine made exactly this point 1600 years ago and it is a staple assertion of traditional theists. No mystification here. No naked emperors (at least on our side). Just your ignorance about a plain matter of intellectual history. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say that you don’t understand traditional theism.

 

[Contarini]

Ok. Does that “mean” anything? Explain what “timeless” existence means. How can “timeless” existence “act”?

Since this timeless being is not (by its very nature) something we can directly observe in our present state, but something we infer from the existence of “STEM,” we obviously can’t give a description of how it “acts” in the way that we can describe how a computer or a bulldozer or an animal acts. In Thomistic terminology, “action” means bringing some other thing from potency into actuality (i.e., making a possible thing real). In this case, we observe an actual but contingent universe. We deduce that this universe, since it is changing, limited, and complex, derives from some unobservable reality that lacks these limitations.

Again, our observation of that reality is only indirect, so the kind of direct description you are calling for is simply impossible. You claim that this makes our philosophy nonsensical. So be it. If you want to work within the assumption that only what is directly observable and measurable can be real, that is your choice. It does not seem like a reasonable self-limitation to me.

The whole “explanation” is nonsensical. The word “explanation” has a meaning: “it is the reduction of something that is currently ‘hazy’ onto something that is already understood”.

As with most of your definitions, I think this is too limited. I don’t think it fits much scientific explanation, for that matter. Don’t scientists frequently post as-yet-unobservable and as-yet-imperfectly-understood entities to explain observed phenomena (dark matter, for instance)? The difference is that scientists are then able to devise ways of testing their hypotheses that hopefully lead to greater understanding and perhaps eventually to direct observation. By definition this Absolute Reality is outside the purview of science. Again, that is presumably why this thread is titled “metaphysics” and not “science.”

The picture is not clearer, it is now totally obscured behind an unpenetrable screen.

Just what is “obscured”? What about my picture of the universe (i.e., the picture resulting from my metaphysics–I’m sure there are things you personally understand much better than I personally do) is more obscure than yours?

If you think that metaphysical explanations are meaningless, then that’s fine. I am not qualified or interested enough to get into a debate over whether metaphysics is a meaningful subject. That is why I hailed your thread with such delight. At last! I thought. An atheist who actually wants to talk metaphysics. Alas. . . .

 

[Contarini]

A metaphysical explanation is by definition a speculative extrapolation. It is informed by the physical sciences, but not limited to them. Nor does its explanatory power consist in making things clearer scientifically. It answers “meta-scientific” questions. In this case: why is there something rather than nothing? Answer: because the changeable and contingent reality we perceive derives from an immaterial source lacking these limitations. This has explanatory power in, for instance, serving as a source for ethics as well as for physical existence. (The theory is that this immaterial source of being is the origin of our aesthetic and ethical impulses as well as of our physical existence.) As O’Tavern has pointed out, your metaphysics can’t do that. You have no explanation for ethics that does not explain ethics away (i.e., undercut our belief in the absolute authority of certain ethical intuitions). It is a more complete and unified picture of the universe than the one you are stuck with, in which (for instance) your ethical intuitions function in independence from your rational belief in their source (i.e., you presumably believe that you have a reluctance to kill other humans because such a reluctance conferred an evolutionary advantage on your ancestors–yet since the ruthless cruelty also present in human beings derived from exactly the same source, you have no reason to prefer one over the other except that in your present circumstances one is more likely to confer an evolutionary advantage on you; yet in fact I’m willing to bet that you would consider it wrong to murder someone even if you concluded that such an act would help your chances of passing along your genetic material). You may not care. You may be perfectly happy living with the tension between an evolutionary explanation of all your intuitions and an obedience to those intuitions even when it wouldn’t make evolutionary sense. (If I am making false assumptions about your beliefs, please correct me. I hope that my assumption that you’d refrain from murder even if such restraint made no evolutionary sense is not one of my false assumptions!)

I apologize for this ethical digression. But since you keep pushing me to say what theism explains, this is the best way I know to do it.

If science contradicts metaphysics, then I sure don’t.

They don’t contradict. But metaphysics addresses questions that science does not.

By the way, when I challenged your “plain language” paraphrase, I was resisting the idea that our discussion must be carried out in plain language as defined by you. I agree that hiding behind jargon is inadmissible, and I welcome this argument as a way of clarifying my own thinking. But your paraphrases of theistic metaphysics are often clearly inaccurate, and I don’t want to let *you *hide behind the bogus claim that you are just trying to put things in “plain language.”

Finally, I encourage you to read the article by William E. Carroll that I cited above. Prof. Carroll is far more learned in these matters than I, and in my opinion he clears up many of the misconceptions that you appear to hold concerning the claims of traditional theistic metaphysics and the interaction of those claims with contemporary scientific issues.

Edwin

 

[ateista]

On the final cause: If there is no “ultimate plan” for the universe it seems to me that all ethical demands are weakened. And I am not talking fear of hell or that flavour of a demand. I am talking “purpose”. It seems a much greater reason and motivation to be moral, to carry on in times of adversity or act when courage demands action, if human life bears an absolute value from “the good” that is built into the fabric of the universe. That “everything” is here “for a reason” and the support of “all that is” stands behind the moral agent when action is demanded seems a much more cogent perspective than “brute” matter which has no preference as to outcome and on its own is completely silent on the subject of value.

Matter offers no condemnation of evil and no reason for acting towards a “final end” of “the good.” For matter, all outcomes have equal validity. Whatever form matter takes is not a matter of preference. Whether you are a mashed lump in car accident, flattened by a wayward boulder or tortured by an inhumane sadist are morally indistinguishable for matter.

Up until this point I agree with you. There was cute saying I read once:

The man shouts out to the Universe: “Sir, I exist!”. The Universe replies: “Yes, but that fact does not incur in me a sense of obligation.”.

To think that we actually count for something in the Universe which is over 4 * 10^30 cubic light-years in volume, where we live on an insignificant speck of dust is simply preposterous.

Of course when Christianity came into existence, the world-view was quite different. We were thought to live in the “middle” of the Universe, with the planets revolving around us, and the stars were thought to be little lamps on the sky. Christianity still “clings” to the ramifications of that world-view - quite unreasonably.

If you wish to retain matter as the ultimate fabric of the universe there is your moral legacy.

Here is your mistake. You forget about the existence of emerging attributes.

Indeed in a Universe entirely devoid of life, the question of “good” and “bad” never arises.

In a Universe where there in life, but only vegetable-type (without a neural system), the concept of “good” and “bad” makes sense, but only in a utilitarian way. The same applies in a Universe where the highest form of living creatures are with neural systems, but without the ability of conceptualization. Something is “good” if it promotes life and “bad” if it inhibits life. These “good” and “bad” are NOT moral categories.

Only if there are beings, who are able to conceptualize is the question of “morality” meaningful. That concept cannot be “reduced” to the building blocks.

Of course that is not a surprise, after all the properties of “water” cannot be reduced to the properties of one oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms. The properties of molecules are emergent attributes. Just like there is no need to assume some supernatural explanation for the properties of water molecules, there is no need to drag a supernatural “cause” for the emerging attribute of morality.

If you take an intentional and purposeful “final cause” away from the universe, it seems to me that what you have left, cold matter, has no condemnation of, for example, someone like Hitler who wishes to inflict abominable evil on others in the name of building a powerful empire. Matter seems to inordinately tolerate as “mercy killing” all manner of abominations because human “mind” and “spirit” are mere “illusions” and “phantoms” of chemistry which quickly and mercifully dissipate upon death. Evil is not in the lexicon of matter.

Sure thing. As far as the Universe is concerned, that is the correct picture.

That a person suffering at the hand of a monster like Hitler is simply a wisp of chemistry in the brain seems, if materialists are correct, to deflate any abhorrence we may have about such acts.

Again, false. The Universe does not care, but we do. Now, the funny stuff is, that according to the theists, God should care. But there is no sign of it.

The logical and moral repercussions of a solely “materialistic” universe are simply not acceptable to me.

Because you don’t understand them.

I will hold on to the belief that there is much more behind the universe than that. In my life, this conviction has not been mere wishful thinking because everything around me points to the fact, plain and simple, that God does indeed exist. There is a point and purpose to our existence far beyond the meagre ones we can create on our own. To me there is no doubt about that. Just the suggestion that, “Matter is all there is,” with all its repercussions, is enough to drive that conviction deeper into my being in times of doubt.

Hmmm. Did you look with both eyes? When you see the beauty of the sunset, do you forget about the children born with autism and Down-syndrome? The old ones, who have Alzheimer disease? The suffering of people not just at each other’s hands, but also to the blind forces of “nature”? I find it funny that believers are so apt to praise God for something that turned out right, and blame “Mother Nature” when the proverbial substance hits fan!

Atheism is simply odious to my being.

That is fine. Theism is abhorrent to me with its hypocrisy.

 

[Contarini]

To think that we actually count for something in the Universe which is over 4 * 10^30 cubic light-years in volume, where we live on an insignificant speck of dust is simply preposterous.

Of course when Christianity came into existence, the world-view was quite different. We were thought to live in the “middle” of the Universe, with the planets revolving around us, and the stars were thought to be little lamps on the sky. Christianity still “clings” to the ramifications of that world-view - quite unreasonably.

Truly weird. The idea that the Ptolemaic world view (according to which, by the way, 'by reason of its size and its distance from the sphere of fixed stars the earth bears to this sphere the relation of a point") promoted some great sense of the importance of the human race is unfounded on any evidence that I know of. It appears to be a secularist myth. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in The Discarded Image, the world “below the moon” was considered to be incomparably inferior to the heavenly spheres. I am not aware of evidence that premodern people drew from their cosmology the results that you imagine them to have done. Please feel free to produce evidence supporting your assertion.

Here is your mistake. You forget about the existence of emerging attributes.

This concept is, from the standpoint of the questions O’Tavern and I are asking, no more an explanation than my language about a timeless source of being is an explanation from the standpoint of the questions you are asking. Just as you see my “explanation” as meaningless in terms of your concerns, so I don’t see how the phrase “emerging attribute” addresses the issues we are raising. Yet again, we are simply asking different sorts of questions, it seems to me. I have no problem with the concept of an “emerging attribute,” but it explains the mechanism by which we come to have moral intuitions. It does nothing to explain why concepts of morality should have authority over us. In Aristotelian terms, it deals only with proximate efficient causation. I’m more interested in formal and final causation–concepts whose meaning you may deny outright.

Lots of impulses, concepts, intuitions, whatever you want to call them, emerge as humans evolve. Why do the particular set of impulses and concepts called “moral” deserve the unique regard most of us give them? Again, I’m not asking about the mechanism by which we come to have them. I’m happy for the sake of argument to grant that your account of this is correct. It certainly seems reasonable to me. I’m interested rather in questions like this: are those of us who try to be moral simply slaves of a particular set of “emerging attributes,” while those who act primarily on the basis of self-interest or sadism or whatever are the slaves of another set, with our judgment of their priorities as “bad” being simply the set of preferences we happen to be stuck with? This may not be how you see it. It’s my very imperfect extrapolation from what you’ve said so far. I won’t try to argue against it, because I suspect that it’s crude and unfair, and I welcome correction and nuance.

Just like there is no need to assume some supernatural explanation for the properties of water molecules, there is no need to drag a supernatural “cause” for the emerging attribute of morality.

There you go again with your favorite word “supernatural.” If by “supernatural cause” you mean “source that is not itself subject to the limitations of STEM” then yes, I think we do need a “supernatural cause” if we are not to make morality simply one byproduct of evolution, not intrinsically superior to any other byproduct. But when I’ve had this argument in the past, I have sometimes run up against the assumption that theists think morality boils down to a set of rules established by a being with the power to reward or punish us. And that is not what I am talking about (to avoid misunderstanding).

I apologize for hijacking your conversation with O’Tavern, but it addressed some of the issues I had raised in my own last post, and I didn’t want to make you repeat yourself!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This prediction is based upon the unwillingness of the Vatican to accept the “heresy” of evolution. When the evidence became overwhelming, they conceded. But it was a “bloody” fight.

Perhaps then you could produce some of this “blood.” In the form, for instance, of a papal encyclical or similar document condemning evolution?

I am fairly confident that your description of the Vatican’s reaction to the concept of evolution is utterly wide of the mark. But you’re welcome to prove me wrong!

Edwin

 

[ateista]

And the problem here is your assumption that science is the only reliable access we have to reality. This is not an assumption that most of us on this thread share. It is not an assumption compatible with traditional theistic metaphysics, in my opinion.

You are welcome to show an alternate method and give reasons why that alternate method is reliable. Go ahead, make my day. I am eagerly waiting for your demonstration.

So if you actually want to have a dialogue between theistic and atheistic metaphysics, instead of just shouting at us and telling us what idiots we are (which appears to be your favorite form of entertainment, and to which you are welcome if you really enjoy it so much), you will need either to bracket this assumption or make a convincing case for it.

I strongly resent that. Nowhere have I shouted nor spoken disrespectfully. Most emphatically I did not call anyone an idiot. I express my disagreement, because I don’t find many of your assertions sensical (like timeless existence), but I that is not “shouting” or “calling others idiots”.

It means that that being is.

That is not an explanation, it is merely a synonym for “existence” - “something is”. Physical existence is to exist within space and time. Conceptual existence is not an ontological object. The “existence” you postulate for God is fundamentally different from these. And when I asked you to clarify, just what does the word “existence” mean when applied to God, your flippant answer is that “God is”.

Perhaps you should turn to former President Clinton for further explanation

Cute, but no cigar.

I don’t know how you can speak of an immaterial concept (and I don’t grant that all immaterial entities must be concepts) being extended in space-time. Perhaps this is my ignorance. Certainly “existence” has been predicated of an immaterial deity for a very long time. I am not simply inventing this usage.

Just because something has been around for a very long time that does not lend credence to the concept. Witches, demons, fairies, leprechauns, dragons have been hypothesized to “exist” for a long time. Do you believe in those entites, too?

 

[OTavern]

I will use my favorite example: you walk on the beach and see three straight pieces of driftwood, which happen to form a triangle. They might be there because a kid found them and arranged them in that specific format, or they might be there because of the random waves of the ocean and the random forces of the wind. Both are possible explanations. Is there any need to assume that it “must have been” an intelligence behind it?

The pieces of driftwood definitely exhibit “order”, but they do not exhibit “design”.

Is it feeble in my example?

Yes, it is quite feeble. Three sticks lined up on a beach could have been arbitrarily placed there. [Edited]

What if three hundred sticks spelled out, “I have been shipwrecked on this island and am running out of food!” Would you still argue they could have been placed there by the waves? That would be a ridiculous claim because there is an infinitesimal possibility that the waves could have done it. To even suggest that as an explanation would be reason to wonder about the intelligence of the one proposing it.

Yet, when we look at human life on this little island called Earth and how it got here, there are hundred of little sticks that seem to line up in just the precise alignment to spell “INTELLIGENCE.” All the little coincidences starting from the formation of the carbon atom, a highly unlikely event in itself and the ordered physical properties of matter that have “arranged” all the little “sticks” on the earth – and these are only a few examples off the top of my head:

• the gravitational pull between the moon and earth to regulate its climate to be ideal for life
• the water and rock cycles that work together to create soil
• a variety of landforms and elevations that allow water circulation to all parts of the Earth (more or less)
• the atmospheric movement of air in just the right quantities that create humidity conditions to allow plant and animal life to flourish
• the standard blueprint of growth in nature applied in a huge variety of seed or egg scenarios allowing creatures to develop through consistent “life cycles” that even allow for reliable regeneration.
• the manner in which water through freezing, thawing, evaporation and condensation is dispersed around the earth in a way which meets the needs of flourishing populations of plants, animals and human beings
• the existence of the atmosphere to buffer solar energy to allow optimal temperature and climatic conditions for life
• the ordered appearance of species towards greater physical complexity to eventually be an ideal housing for “intelligence”
• the evolution of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut in increasingly complex species to allow “intelligence” to make reliable use of sensory data
  –the ultimately intelligible/ordered universe which allows “intelligence” to make sense of the physical world
  -the seemingly intentional development of the incredibly complex neural systems of animals towards the end of housing human consciousness
• the “system” of water flow on the Earth, i.e., lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) blueprinted and encapsulated into a mechanism to allow circulation of blood and nutrients throughout the bodies of animals and plants.

It is possible to argue that these and HUNDREDS more conditions which foster life, through some extraordinary coincidence, obtained here on Earth, just as it is possible to see hundreds of ordered sticks on a beach spelling out an intentional message, a dozen words long, as the result of some astounding fluke of the action of waves, but we would have to doubt your rational powers in both cases.

You may claim that all the conditions on the Earth that have “come together” to allow life to develop on the Earth, and from that life, human consciousness, may have been mere happenstance, but a least don’t show utter foolishness in denying that all these preconditions to life and ensuing development of species towards human beings COULD NOT have been the result of “planning” by some Intelligent force behind the order we find in the universe. That this situation on the Earth is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for believing in a God of some kind behind the planning is simply irrational on your part.

You may deny this to be enough of a reason to believe, but I would say your denial is tantamount to denying that a long, carefully worded message made out of sticks on the beach – more than 3 of them, mind you – could have been placed there by an intelligent being.

If you say that for such a “simple” scenario it is acceptable, but not for the more “complicated” stuff, then you argue an arbitrary line of complexity where everything on “this” side is “natural” (meaning: it simply IS) and everything on the “other” side is “artificial” (meaning: it must be MADE by some intelligence).

See above. A simple scenario of 3 sticks is definitely not the same as a complex series of attendant conditions that have taken place in the evolution of life on Earth, along with all the “tricky” little evasions of extinction that life has stepped around in its 3.5 billion year journey to its present state. How in heck did life figure out it had to replicate? Why would it even need to if there is no reason or purpose behind its existence?

Use your own example to determine when the situation could not possibly be “unintentional.” Three sticks into a triangle may be arbitrary, how about 12 that spell HELF? What about a dozen words in a carefully contrived statement? At what POINT do we stop being arbitrary? You seem to imply that ANY point would merely be arbitrary. Sorry, I can’t buy that.

Obviously, the exact point may be difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint (but not impossible with careful analysis) but surely we can recognize when there is a huge discrepancy between cases; when the situation could not have been mere happenstance, when it has some kind of purpose or intent behind it, no matter how puzzling.

I suspect this is one of your “blind spots:” that for whatever reason, you would rather (arbitrarily, I might add) conflate all instances of apparent purpose in nature (broadly speaking), no matter how compelling, into the category of “three sticks on a beach.” AND I might add for the simple reason that you have, as a motive, a rigid unwillingness to accept the possibility that there could be some extraordinary Intelligence involved as the formal cause behind the universe.

 

[OTavern]

Oh, I am awed as well, when I look at the complexity and beauty of the Universe. I am awed at the different colors and textures of vegetation, at the beauty of a butterfly, at the complexity of the Mandelbrot-set, at the work of the termites to maintain constant temperature and humidity for the queen (no one knows how that happens and it is a fascinating problem!), and zillions of other things.

There is hope for you yet! Peculiar, though that you have faith that a rational explanation for the behaviour of termites will be forthcoming. Why should there be? On the other hand, there always seems to be an intelligible reason behind the actions of nature. Kind of makes you think that rationality is built into it somehow and that it “somehow” got passed on into human intelligence.

Now don’t go seeing too much in all that! Just a few sticks on the beach, that’s all!

Of course I am not awed by Alzheimer disease, at the Down-syndrome, and zillions of other things.

You keep bringing these up, forgetting that human beings have had a few thousand of years of tampering with chemicals and genetic recombination (inbreeding, for example) that many of these conditions – dare I say all – could have been of human origin or triggered by human activity. I am not clear that God should take the hit for these, as you claim.

 

[OTavern]

This should have read:

…at least don’t show utter foolishness in denying that all these preconditions to life and ensuing development of species towards human beings COULD have been the result of “planning” by some Intelligent force behind the order we find in the universe.

 

[ateista]

[Edited]

What if three hundred sticks spelled out, “I have been shipwrecked on this island and am running out of food!” Would you still argue they could have been placed there by the waves? That would be a ridiculous claim because there is an infinitesimal possibility that the waves could have done it.

It would be very unlikely. So what? There is no “message” anywhere in the Universe, conveniently spelled out in contemporary English. What you perceive as “intelligence” is simply order.

Obviously you have absolutely no idea about probabilities and what they mean. I have explained this too many times already, but the same objection keeps coming up. I am tired of it.

Yet, when we look at human life on this little island called Earth and how it got here, there are hundred of little sticks that seem to line up in just the precise alignment to spell “INTELLIGENCE.” All the little coincidences starting from the formation of the carbon atom, a highly unlikely event in itself and the ordered physical properties of matter that have “arranged” all the little “sticks” on the earth – and these are only a few examples off the top of my head:

• the gravitational pull between the moon and earth to regulate its climate to be ideal for life
• the water and rock cycles that work together to create soil
• a variety of landforms and elevations that allow water circulation to all parts of the Earth (more or less)
• the atmospheric movement of air in just the right quantities that create humidity conditions to allow plant and animal life to flourish
• the standard blueprint of growth in nature applied in a huge variety of seed or egg scenarios allowing creatures to develop through consistent “life cycles” that even allow for reliable regeneration.
• the manner in which water through freezing, thawing, evaporation and condensation is dispersed around the earth in a way which meets the needs of flourishing populations of plants, animals and human beings
• the existence of the atmosphere to buffer solar energy to allow optimal temperature and climatic conditions for life
• the ordered appearance of species towards greater physical complexity to eventually be an ideal housing for “intelligence”
• the evolution of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut in increasingly complex species to allow “intelligence” to make reliable use of sensory data
  –the ultimately intelligible/ordered universe which allows “intelligence” to make sense of the physical world
  -the seemingly intentional development of the incredibly complex neural systems of animals towards the end of housing human consciousness
• the “system” of water flow on the Earth, i.e., lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) blueprinted and encapsulated into a mechanism to allow circulation of blood and nutrients throughout the bodies of animals and plants.

A typical case of putting the cart in front of the horse. Life adapted itself to these circumstances. The circumstances have not been arranged to foster life.

It is possible to argue that these and HUNDREDS more conditions which foster life, through some extraordinary coincidence, obtained here on Earth, just as it is possible to see hundreds of ordered sticks on a beach spelling out an intentional message, a dozen words long, as the result of some astounding fluke of the action of waves, but we would have to doubt your rational powers in both cases.

I am only wondering about the audacity of speaking about subjects you don’t even try to comprehend (theory of probabilities, Kolmogov space, mathematical distributions, a-priori vs. a-posteriori probabilities, information theory, etc.) which can take years to master and expect to make an impression on someone who invested all those years and has been lecturing those subjects for decades.

You may claim that all the conditions on the Earth that have “come together” to allow life to develop on the Earth, and from that life, human consciousness, may have been mere happenstance, but a least don’t show utter foolishness in denying that all these preconditions to life and ensuing development of species towards human beings COULD NOT have been the result of “planning” by some Intelligent force behind the order we find in the universe.

Read the “Blind Watchmaker”.

You may deny this to be enough of a reason to believe, but I would say your denial is tantamount to denying that a long, carefully worded message made out of sticks on the beach – more than 3 of them, mind you – could have been placed there by an intelligent being.

There is no message.

I suspect this is one of your “blind spots:” that for whatever reason, you would rather (arbitrarily, I might add) conflate all instances of apparent purpose in nature (broadly speaking), no matter how compelling, into the category of “three sticks on a beach.” AND I might add for the simple reason that you have, as a motive, a rigid unwillingness to accept the possibility that there could be some extraordinary Intelligence involved as the formal cause behind the universe.

You don’t understand. I don’t say that there cannot be. All I am saying there is no sign of it.

What you perceive as “design” is simply order. I did not expect to see the “Intelligence Design” pop up on this board. Live and learn, I guess.

 

[OTavern]

[Edited]

I actually found this cartoon on a site on the 'Net at thethaifamily.com/son/jokes/helf.jpg

[Edited]

I am only wondering about the audacity of speaking about subjects you don’t even try to comprehend (theory of probabilities, Kolmogov space, mathematical distributions, a-priori vs. a-posteriori probabilities, information theory, etc.) which can take years to master and expect to make an impression on someone who invested all those years and has been lecturing those subjects for decades.

Check and Mate! I lose!

Let us no longer speak of purpose or intent since you clearly have access to the full extent of human knowledge on the subject. I bow and am silenced by your obviously greater mastery of the topic.

Reminder to self: order and intellect are merely interchangeable terms. Intelligence is simply order and nothing more.

 

[ateista]

Reminder to self: order and intellect are merely interchangeable terms. Intelligence is simply order and nothing more.

No one said that.