You include the idea of probability in there, but probability has to be based on something, doesn't it? If there is nothing, then there is zero probability for anything.
But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.
__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
2 + 2 = 5
But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.
Oh, I get what you're saying. Interesting. Like logic and the laws of reality are as much a function of the universe as time?
I think this whole thread has done a better job breaking down the insufficiency of the Kalam argument than many "professional" philosophers and theologians I've observed.
The arguments that "from nothing, nothing comes" and "every beginning has a cause" are unfounded inductive assertions. They are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, they must always be true. Not only is this understanding of the assertions incorrect, but the double standard of using this type of induction (as if it were deductive), and then asserting an all powerful, infinitely intellegent being that has no substance, no material, no energy, and no physical brain could actually exist, when no disembodied mind alone has every been shown to exist.
As it applies to the OP, I think it also points out the inherent limitation of metaphysical arguments. At the end of the day, logic, reason, math, and such have no application in metaphysics, because there are no rules in metaphysics. Any metaphysical assertion is as good as the next - including a universe from absolute nothingness. So, if it floats your boat, that's fine with me.
__________________ Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
The arguments that "from nothing, nothing comes" and "every beginning has a cause" are unfounded inductive assertions.
But that's like saying science itself is an unfounded inductive assertion (which could be true), because those two assertions are much more scientific statements than they are metaphysical statements.
They are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, they must always be true.
No, they are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, any supposed exception is outside the realm of human observation (aside from mystics and prophets perhaps), therefore outside the realm of science (at least temporarily).
Not only is this understanding of the assertions incorrect, but the double standard of using this type of induction (as if it were deductive), and then asserting an all powerful, infinitely intellegent being that has no substance, no material, no energy, and no physical brain could actually exist, when no disembodied mind alone has every been shown to exist.
So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.
...there are no rules in metaphysics. Any metaphysical assertion is as good as the next...
So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.
Hmmmm... that's a little bit like claiming that both believing in gnomes and NOT believing in gnomes are examples of superstition, as both of these positions need to take an unscientific leap in determining whether these metaphysical beings exist or not.
Can you see why that is not a very valid argument?
I grant you this: any metaphysical claim is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry by default, especially if you invoke powers that supposedly break the established "laws" of nature.
I cannot conclusively prove to you that there is no invisible, extradimensional being living in your garage.
It is debatable, though, whether it is reasonable to assume that it's there to begin with.
Oh, and by the way: the term "religion" usually suggests at least some kind of institutionalization and ritualization. As such, there are indeed some atheist groups that are "religious" in nature without actually embracing any overtly supernatural beliefs. Communism, for example, has been described as a secular religion (or at the very least substitute-religion), including eschatological expectations of a "better world to come". So, I think you are right to describe some specific atheist groups as religious in nature - but they aren't so for the reason you stated.
__________________ The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do. -- Samuel P. Huntington
Fundamentalism in a Nutshell:
"[Obama] focused on health care for everybody and living wages, mostly. No comment about abortion or sodomite "marriage" or anything else that actually matters." --MatthewEV, Rapture Ready
Hmmmm... that's a little bit like claiming that both believing in gnomes and NOT believing in gnomes are examples of superstition, as both of these positions need to take an unscientific leap in determining whether these metaphysical beings exist or not.
But that is only if you obey the laws of logic. If it was true nothingness, like the NOTHING I was trying to explain earlier, there would be no laws like logic to disallow any possibility.
But laws (including laws of logic) only disallow things because they allow other things. Think about what a "law" is: every law, whether real or imagined, is an "if/then" statement - "If there is an action, then there is an equal and opposite reaction". "If you steal money, then you'll spend time in jail." "If something can go wrong, then it will go wrong." (Murphy's Law). But if there's no "if thing" to effect a "then result", then there can be no result.
But that's like saying science itself is an unfounded inductive assertion (which could be true), because those two assertions are much more scientific statements than they are metaphysical statements.
I should have been more specific with this example, for virtual particles on the quantum level seem to directly contradict both of these assertions. But your point is well taken.
What I meant to say is that these assertions are a variety of straw man arguments that don't really represent the arguments made by cosmologists on the "origins" of the universe. Virtual particles come from nothing. They are caused by nothing. It may be counterintuitive, but so much of scientific observations are.
No, they are based on the argument that because we've never seen any exceptions to this in the universe, any supposed exception is outside the realm of human observation (aside from mystics and prophets perhaps), therefore outside the realm of science (at least temporarily).
Agreed. But the origins of the universe, even whether the universe has an origin at all, are currently unknown. We can only reliably go back to an instant just after the initial expansion of the singularity. Temporally before that, the rules we would normally apply to nature break down. It's mostly all speculation beyond that. Cosmologists recognize this, however.
So no disembodied mind has every been shown to exist. Neither has "something from nothing" nor a "causeless beginning". So theists and atheists are on equal footing. I thinks this is why some theists refer to atheism as a religion; and I know atheists bristle at that, but strictly speaking I sorta think it's correct. If theism is an unscientific "leap"; a speculation; then so is atheism.
Although I am not an atheist, I still disagree with this last point. You are an atheist towards all the thousands of gods any other atheist doesn't believe in, except the athiest just doesn't believe in one more god than you, right? In other words, is it as much a "leap" to not believe in Jupiter, or Zues, or Mithra, or Vishnu, or The Great Bear, or, or or? If we're putting every metaphysical assertion on equal footing, then lets really do it. I'm all for that.
But I tend not to believe in anything that hasn't be sufficiently demonstrated for me to believe in. In other words, It's not l leap to not believe in leprechuans at the end of a rainbow that just happen to disappear right before you get there. I don't believe in garden gnomes, talking snakes, or mermaids - all because I haven't been given sufficient reason to think such do exist. In fact, you might call me an "athiest" with regard to these beings, but none of them entails any "leap" to have this position.
I am content to say "I don't know" if I don't. It would be dishonest of me to assert I knew something that I do not, or cannot, know. I include all metaphysical assertions in this category. We don't know how the universe came into being, or whether it always existed, but we do know it objectively exists, and that is still infinitely more than any supernatural claim. That is not to say there is no god or supernatural reality, just that on the continuum of objective reason to think so, theuy're lightyears apart. Thus the saying, the opposite of faith is certainty.
In that case, I propose an arm-wrestling match.
Yea, I'd probably lose that one!
__________________ Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Last edited by tcampen; 20th February 2009 at 07:58 PM.
Linear Mode
