A question for athiests

[Asimov]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality?

The laws of nature.

What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

The laws of physics came about as a result of the Big Bang...what determined them, I have no idea, that is a good question. I would state that causality probably played a large part in the formation of the laws of physics.

Other than that, I couldn't speculate.

 

[quatona]

Alright, well, how should have I worded the question?

It´s not the wording, Sojourner, it´s the thinking.
You asked this question as if it had been established that there must be a particular something that "governs reality".

 

[Sojourner<><]

The laws of nature.



The laws of physics came about as a result of the Big Bang...what determined them, I have no idea, that is a good question. I would state that causality probably played a large part in the formation of the laws of physics.

Other than that, I couldn't speculate.

At least you didn't dodge the question. Thinking about the nature of the laws of physics is really mind bending. I likes.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It´s not the wording, Sojourner, it´s the thinking.
You asked this question as if it had been established that there must be a particular something that "governs reality".

Aye. How is that incorrect thinking?

 

[cantata]

Aye. How is that incorrect thinking?

Because you're begging the question. Assuming that something "governs reality" (you still haven't explained satisfactorily what that means) is as a result of a theistic worldview. Lots of atheists would see no need for anything governing it at all.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Because you're begging the question. Assuming that something "governs reality" (you still haven't explained satisfactorily what that means) is as a result of a theistic worldview. Lots of atheists would see no need for anything governing it at all.

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the belief that there is an underlying cause behind everything that is is solely the product of theism?

 

[Asimov]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the belief that there is an underlying cause behind everything that is is solely the product of theism?

No, that's just what they probably think you're implying.

 

[cantata]

No, that's just what they probably think you're implying.

The very opposite. The OP avoided implying any such thing. But the fact is that the OP also failed to step out of a theistic paradigm and imagine a broader viewpoint. The question "what governs reality, if not God?" is very hard to answer, because I can't think of anything other than God that could possibly govern reality. Fortunately, that doesn't mean I have to accept that God exists, because I don't think it's necessary to postulate the existence of anything governing reality at all.

 

[quatona]

Aye. How is that incorrect thinking?

It´s the "when did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question.

 

[quatona]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that the belief that there is an underlying cause behind everything that is is solely the product of theism?

This belief is not even present in theism.

 

[Sojourner<><]

This belief is not even present in theism.

On the contrary it is very present, though widely misunderstood, and way off from the topic of this thread.

 

[quatona]

On the contrary it is very present, though widely misunderstood, and way off from the topic of this thread.

(We are talking about "the belief that there is an underlying cause behind everything", as per your post#30.)
Last time I checked Christianity and most other theistic beliefs were centered around the idea that there is a god to behind there is no underlying cause.
But I may well have misunderstood it.

I think this is right on topic of this thread, btw.

 

[cantata]

(We are talking about "the belief that there is an underlying cause behind everything", as per your post#30.)
Last time I checked Christianity and most other theistic beliefs were centered around the idea that there is a god to behind there is no underlying cause.
But I may well have misunderstood it.

I think this is right on topic of this thread, btw.

Yes.. God *is* the underlying cause for the theist. A typical theistic response to someone's claim, "I don't believe in God", is "Well what's the cause of everything, then?" The question assumes that there must be a cause, but the assumption that there is a cause behind everything is as a result of a theistic viewpoint. Hence the original post was begging the question. I hope we don't have to go round this loop again, it's really not that difficult.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Yes.. God *is* the underlying cause for the theist. A typical theistic response to someone's claim, "I don't believe in God", is "Well what's the cause of everything, then?" The question assumes that there must be a cause, but the assumption that there is a cause behind everything is as a result of a theistic viewpoint. Hence the original post was begging the question. I hope we don't have to go round this loop again, it's really not that difficult.

May be it's just me but it seems very obvious that the idea that all things are subject to causality is generally accepted as sound logic. I'm not trying to 'smuggle' some argument in below your radar... I'm appealing to common sense. IMO, to disagree with me here is to take a less traveled path that contradicts widely accepted scientific and philosophical thought.

However, if you really think that there is no primary cause for everything, I can accept that as your idea of why things are the way they are, and I would really like to hear you elaborate on the topic.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I wonder if it has occurred to you that your question implies an infinite regress of explanations? If some one entity is thought to determine the rules for other entities, then what is it that determines the "rules" of that master entity? And the master of that master entity? And so on, and so on?

If you end up concluding that a special exception stops that chain of explanations, you might as well stop the chain before you begin.


eudaimonia,

Mark

In a sense, yes it has occurred to me. I find the limit in my capacity for thought to be quite natural, but to think that there is a real limit to thought itself is just depressing as hell.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

Are any of you familiar with the ideas of the Greeks on this topic around the time of Socrates?

 

[Apollonian]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

Perhaps this is a better question:

What are the fundamental assumptions upon which you form the basis of all knowledge (scientific or otherwise)? This may be absolute or heuristic, but what do you believe to be true "in and of itself" (ding an sich)?

In other words, how do you know what is "evidence" for something and what is "misconception of observation"?

For instance, do you believe the following (much debated) statements to be true:

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
(Note the difference between knowing something to be true and believing something to be true).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
(Please read carefully, as the article isn't what you might think)

"Correlation is not Causation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"Causality is the cause of everything" (note the recursion: is causality absolute or does it have an identifiable limit, namely do quantum mechanical phenomena have an unknown cause or are they acausal?)

 

[HouseApe]

Here is how I deal with the question:

Many really, really intelligent folks who spend their lives studying the question of the "cause" of the current universe seem to agree that there existed a singularity that inflated to be the current universe.

Something likely caused that inflation to happen. Scientists will come up with a number of theories over the years, some better than others. One day they might even settle out on one. Whatever they come up with is probably a heck of a lot better than what I would come up with, so I'll assume they're probably pretty close, but I'll never assume their theories as absolute fact.

And that is the way I like it.

 

[Asimov]

The very opposite. The OP avoided implying any such thing. But the fact is that the OP also failed to step out of a theistic paradigm and imagine a broader viewpoint.

I didn't think it did.

The question "what governs reality, if not God?" is very hard to answer, because I can't think of anything other than God that could possibly govern reality. Fortunately, that doesn't mean I have to accept that God exists, because I don't think it's necessary to postulate the existence of anything governing reality at all.

Natural processes govern the universe, if there is anything beyond reality, then it would be certain other non-cognitive processes that govern.

It appears as if you're equating "governing" to a conscious being with intent.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I didn't think it did.




Natural processes govern the universe, if there is anything beyond reality, then it would be certain other non-cognitive processes that govern.

It appears as if you're equating "governing" to a conscious being with intent.

I for one do not believe that there is anything but reality. The question is very simple and clear. If semantics is the problem, I can express the question differently, but the question remains the same.