A question for atheists and agnostics

[MaxP]

No, it´s a nonsense question.

So, you would classify "Why is there something?"
As a nonsense question?

 

[Wyzaard]

Well, I conclude there is a God because existence as we know it is dependent.

Based on... what?

I could, theoretically, be satisfied with the idea God created us with no purpose(although given what we can infer about God if He does exist, I don't think He would),

Based on... what?

And I suppose we can only know we have reached our purpose by following what we believe we are ordered to be.

How is this sensible exactly?

 

[MaxP]

Based on... what?

Dependant existence. Name something that doesn't depend on something else to exist. There is nothing we can see that does.

Based on... what?

I like how you have jumped in at the very death of this thread and want me to restate what I have already stated about what we can infer about God. Based on reason. Its only about a page back.

How is this sensible exactly?

Our purpose is what we are ordered to be.

 

[Wyzaard]

Dependant existence. Name something that doesn't depend on something else to exist. There is nothing we can see that does.

What do you mean by this exactly?

I like how you have jumped in at the very death of this thread and want me to restate what I have already stated about what we can infer about God. Based on reason. Its only about a page back.

Interesting... you seem to think that this god's existence can basically be wished into being by definitions that run counter to anything contingent beings may apprehend or comprehend. Where's the necessity here?

Our purpose is what we are ordered to be.

How so? I can easily think of our purpose being what we are NOT ordered to be, rebellion and/or abberation lending to our ultimate meaning in life. Why should I choose your ideal rather than mine?

 

[Cosmic Mission]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

There is no explanation for his existence. His existence is always assumed and never explained. Despite centuries of effort, no one has ever resolved this, and it is doubtful that it ever will.

 

[Skaloop]

So, you would classify "Why is there something?"
As a nonsense question?

Not nonsense in terms of philosophical discussion, but nonsense in terms of anything with a concrete answer. Of course, more important is what you mean by "something." Usually, the question is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and the answer is assumed to be God. But God is something, so the response would then be "Why is there God instead of nothing?"

They're essentially the same question. But the first is used as proof that God exists, while the second is dismissed as meaningless. But they both lack any answer of real value, since the answer could be anything.

 

[PhilosophicalBluster]

What has led you to determine God does not exist, or cannot be known?

I converted to Deism from Christianity because of probability. It seems to me that there is a much higher chance based on my knowledge of the world that G-d is not active than that he makes miracles and sent his son to earth for whatever reason. I also don't believe many practices in the Bible.

 

[quatona]

So, you would classify "Why is there something?"
As a nonsense question?

Yes.

 

[MaxP]

What do you mean by this exactly?

I think its pretty clear. Everything that can be or not be is caused by another thing, and dependent on its existence.

Interesting... you seem to think that this god's existence can basically be wished into being by definitions that run counter to anything contingent beings may apprehend or comprehend. Where's the necessity here?

I'll just put a big question mark hear and ask if you even bothered to read the first couple pages of this thread.

How so? I can easily think of our purpose being what we are NOT ordered to be, rebellion and/or abberation lending to our ultimate meaning in life. Why should I choose your ideal rather than mine?

I will ask you, how so?

 

[MaxP]

Yes.

Then I guess you'll never be philosopher, at least a metaphysical philosopher.

 

[MaxP]

Not nonsense in terms of philosophical discussion, but nonsense in terms of anything with a concrete answer. Of course, more important is what you mean by "something." Usually, the question is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and the answer is assumed to be God. But God is something, so the response would then be "Why is there God instead of nothing?"

And the response would be because God is an everlasting being and the basis for existence.

They're essentially the same question. But the first is used as proof that God exists, while the second is dismissed as meaningless. But they both lack any answer of real value, since the answer could be anything.

The answer can be logically determined to be a first cause, an uncaused cause, a causeless cause, whatever you want to call. Things can then be inferred from the virtue of this entity being the first cause.

As far as "concreteness," no, there never will be an absolutely provable answer, but this is a philosophical/logical question, not a scientific one that demands absolute proof.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Not nonsense in terms of philosophical discussion, but nonsense in terms of anything with a concrete answer. Of course, more important is what you mean by "something." Usually, the question is "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and the answer is assumed to be God. But God is something, so the response would then be "Why is there God instead of nothing?"

And the response would be because the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an everlasting being and the basis for existence. His noodle appendages touch us all(in a good way).

They're essentially the same question. But the first is used as proof that God exists, while the second is dismissed as meaningless. But they both lack any answer of real value, since the answer could be anything.

The answer can be logically determined to be a first cause, an uncaused cause, a causeless cause, whatever you want to call. Things can then be inferred from the virtue of this entity being the first cause. This cause is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. A complex being used to explain the complexity of the universe. I know I know, paradox that doesn't actually answer the question. But this is the mystery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[MaxP]

^Hardy har har.
God is not complex, but infinitely simple. He is not made up of any two things, or any one thing(perhaps), but is simple.
A simple Cause used to describe the origin of the universe. I know, a logical conclusion that is hard to grasp. But this is the mystery of logic.

 

[Bombila]

Certainly I haven't resolved the question of 'why is there something rather than nothing', but I've not found any good reason to suppose that any of the gods so far described by humans to attempt to answer that questions are very satisfying as an answer. Absurdity gets piled on absurdity, once you postulate gods - you just end up with the same question.

 

[MaxP]

Certainly I haven't resolved the question of 'why is there something rather than nothing', but I've not found any good reason to suppose that any of the gods so far described by humans to attempt to answer that questions are very satisfying as an answer. Absurdity gets piled on absurdity, once you postulate gods - you just end up with the same question.

Have you read Aquinas?
He makes good arguments as to why the Christian God is not "absurdity on absurdity."

His greatest work, the Summa, is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/


I'll read one of yours if you read one of mine.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Have you read Aquinas?
He makes good arguments as to why the Christian God is not "absurdity on absurdity."

His greatest work, the Summa, is here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/


I'll read one of yours if you read one of mine.

Philosophy is all great fun to read or think upon but it has no place in determining anything that has to do with actual science.

 

[SiderealExalt]

^Hardy har har.
God is not complex, but infinitely simple. He is not made up of any two things, or any one thing(perhaps), but is simple.
A simple Cause used to describe the origin of the universe. I know, a logical conclusion that is hard to grasp. But this is the mystery of logic.

By the definition of the word. No it would be labeled as complex. You can certain call it simple but well...I'll take a dictionary over word games. That aside. Trying reading some Hawkings since you seem to love all this cause stuff. And note Skaloop you are still correct because you definitively demonstrated why the question is nonsensical. It can be answered in any way possible on subjective motivation. Which is no answer at all. It's pointless navel gazing at it's finest.

 

[MaxP]

By the definition of the word. No it would be labeled as complex. You can certain call it simple but well...I'll take a dictionary over word games. That aside. Trying reading some Hawkings since you seem to love all this cause stuff. And note Skaloop you are still correct because you definitively demonstrated why the question is nonsensical. It can be answered in any way possible on subjective motivation. Which is no answer at all. It's pointless navel gazing at it's finest.

Then the likes of Paremenides, Aristotle, and many good-ol' Greeks and other philosophers spent a lot of time navel-gazing. Aristotle wrote a book about navel-gazing.
BTW, whos "Skaloop"?
Another btw, present your subjectively motivated arguments and I'll attempt to demonstarte why the question cannot be answered any way on likes.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Then the likes of Paremenides, Aristotle, and many good-ol' Greeks and other philosophers spent a lot of time navel-gazing. Aristotle wrote a book about navel-gazing.

That's funny. I thought we were talking about a very specific question. Trotting out the names of men not related to the subject at hand isn't helping your case.

 

[Bombila]

Max, I did read that some time ago, and did not find it convincing. Aquinas in the end (AFAICS) simply ascribes the word/concept 'God' to 'First Cause', and shores up his argument with the nature of life on this planet - I rather wish he'd lived post-Darwin; it would be interesting to see what he might have said then, logical man that he was.

I am an old-fashioned agnostic, and what Huxley said (and he did invent the term) is pretty close to what I think, so I'll only offer you a tiny bit of reading in return. ;-D

My bolding below -B

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."

"The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction." [" Agnosticism," 1889]

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. "["Christianity and Agnosticism," 1889]