A question for atheists and agnostics

[Tinker Grey]

So our existence has simply always existed?

We are simply a consequence of the natural laws of the universe. Your question is of this sort, "what is it like to not exist?" How should one answer your question (or my analogous one)?

We are. Whatever the cause. One incredulity is not reason for proposing a thought merely to deal with the discomfort of know knowing.

 

[Braunwyn]

What, me calling It what I want offends you?

It's not a matter of it being offensive. I find the personal, all too human, monothesitic deity to be boringly human. It's silly.

 

[pantless rationalist]

That is to say, either your mind is governed entirely by the deterministic/probabilistic chemical reactions in your brain, or it isn't and we actually do have free will.

I know it's a bit off topic to point this out, but this is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the chemical reactions affect, but do not necessitate, actions or decisions. For instance, alcohol doesn't make[/] you dance on a barstool, but imbibing alcohol may have influenced your decision. To me, anyway, the third option seems to be the most likely.

 

[MaxP]

We are simply a consequence of the natural laws of the universe. Your question is of this sort, "what is it like to not exist?" How should one answer your question (or my analogous one)?

We are. Whatever the cause. One incredulity is not reason for proposing a thought merely to deal with the discomfort of know knowing.

It is not contrary to develop theories as to why and ascribe to the one we deem most likely.

 

[Everlasting33]

We are simply a consequence of the natural laws of the universe. Your question is of this sort, "what is it like to not exist?" How should one answer your question (or my analogous one)?

We are. Whatever the cause. One incredulity is not reason for proposing a thought merely to deal with the discomfort of know knowing.

How exactly does a series of consequences create with design and complexity?

 

[Nathan45]

While this would make your argument more consistent, it begs the question for the existence of the supernatural

definitions:

natural: That which is governed by temporal cause and effect.
Supernatural: that which is not governed by temporal cause and effect.
God: The First Cause.

Follows from the semantics:

Everything that exists naturally has a cause. ( follows from definition of natural)

The Cause of that natural thing that exists is either something natural or supernatural. (because everything can be categorized as either natural or supernatural, according to my definitions)

If any cause is natural, the cause itself, being natural, must have it's own cause. (per the definition of natural)

The cause of that cause, if natural, must have it's own cause.
The cause of that cause, if natural, must have it's own cause, etc.

It goes into infinite regress, which means either:

1) At some point, something supernatural, that is something that has no cause, exists at the start of the chain. Call it the first cause.

2) It is possible to have an infinite length chain of causes causing other things, with no first cause. This means that everytime you learn the answer to "Why" you'll simply get an answer that raises at least one other question, and there are an infinite number of causes.

So either there was a supernatural first cause, or the universe was caused by an infinite number of causes in a chain.

anyways....

 

[pantless rationalist]

To cause the natural.

"Begs the question", when not used colloquially, means that the conclusion is presupposed in the premises. As soon as you say that "everything natural needs a cause", you exclude any naturalistic explanation. This would be akin to me arguing that "Everything must occur naturally, therefore god does not exist". It isn't a good argument.

 

[quatona]

Maybe impossible to know for sure;

See.
´

but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?

So what?

 

[Nathan45]

I know it's a bit off topic to point this out, but this is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the chemical reactions affect, but do not necessitate, actions or decisions. For instance, alcohol doesn't make[/] you dance on a barstool, but imbibing alcohol may have influenced your decision. To me, anyway, the third option seems to be the most likely.

I meant to include this under the "free will" hypothesis.

Obviously no one asserts that you have complete control over ALL of your emotions or bodily functions, just some of them. Nor do you really control your emotions or sensations or urges, you simply control whether to act on them.

And there is definately some chemistry involved... The question is whether there's anything other than probabilistic or deterministic chemistry involved in your decisions, if there is then you believe in free will.

 

[Aianna]

"God," is merely a name; to continue past that would get into determining Its nature.

Yes, "God" being merely a name is exactly one of the problem I have with the proposition to which I was referring. If it was merely a natural process then it's not what I'm referring to when I say "I don't believe in any gods." If you're simply saying that there's a required supernatural first cause for the first natural cause, then you're just adding an extra entity that in no way improves the explanation; you're replacing one unknown with another.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Sound means the argument is true and valid.
What do you find not true or valid about the ways reached?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA hereafter) contains this premise: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Modern quantum theories permit uncaused events - and even require them in some iterations - which at the very least places an empirical onus on that premise where the argument's proponents would have us treat it as a matter of definition.

 

[Nathan45]

"Begs the question", when not used colloquially, means that the conclusion is presupposed in the premises. As soon as you say that "everything natural needs a cause", you exclude any naturalistic explanation.

how does defining natural as "is caused by something" pre-suppose the existance of something unnatural, other than that it follows from the premise?

 

[Nathan45]

Modern quantum theories permit uncaused events - and even require them in some iterations - which at the very least places an empirical onus on that premise where the argument's proponents would have us treat it as a matter of definition.

Needless to say I can never wrap my head around quantum physics. lol.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?

There is surely a more important matter to God than whether or not we believe he exists, yes?

 

[pantless rationalist]

Well, in order for matter and energy to exist time must exist to order the reaction, space must exist to allow the reactions to happen, and the matter and energy must be "pushed" in some way to react with each other.

And, assuming we are both right in our suppositions, how is this less improbable than an anthropomorphic god?

 

[Nathan45]

Maybe impossible to know for sure; but if God wanted us to be able to say with absolute certainty that He exists, wouldn't that eliminate any choice we have in the matter?

Oh great, take the unprovability of your religion and spin it into a positive.

Anyways the first rule of epistemology is that you can't know hardly anything with "absolute" certainty. What we'd like is a bit of evidence for your religion.

 

[MaxP]

And, assuming we are both right in our suppositions, how is this less improbable than an anthropomorphic god?

Well, my point stands that there still have to be something to move matter and energy, even if they were to everlasting.

 

[MaxP]

Oh great, take the unprovability of your religion and spin it into a positive.

Anyways the first rule of epistemology is that you can't know hardly anything with "absolute" certainty. What we'd like is a bit of evidence for your religion.

So what can we know with "absolute certainty"?


And well, I presented an argument for the existence of God from logic. Would you like to go into the nature of God?

 

[MaxP]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA hereafter) contains this premise: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Modern quantum theories permit uncaused events - and even require them in some iterations - which at the very least places an empirical onus on that premise where the argument's proponents would have us treat it as a matter of definition.

I am not at all familiar with quantum physics, so enlighten me.

 

[Nathan45]

So what can we know with "absolute certainty"?

That myself exists. I'm not sure what else.

And well, I presented an argument for the existence of God from logic. Would you like to go into the nature of God?

Yes, please move on to "Lesson two"