Godlessness and choice

[anonymous person]

So it's turtles all the way down?

No.

A turtle is a material being existing in time and space and therefore could not have brought all matter all energy and spactime itself into existence.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

A turtle is a material being existing in time and space and therefore could not have brought all matter all energy and spactime itself into existence.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

 

[anonymous person]

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

Right.

Since we know positing an infinite regress of causes is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe and that the principle of parsimony enjoins us to only posit that which is necessary to sufficiently explain something, we are left with a necessarily existing efficient cause of the universe.

 

[anonymous person]

You didn't answer my question. Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?

Because if there's any non-deity scenarios beyond what you're describing, you'll have to list all of them and the reasons why they can't be possible in order to postulate that the only other possible remaining answer would be a deity related scenario.

You would, of course, also have to show that a deity is possible...

So, good luck with that.

It seems to me to be self-evident as the laws of logic, or the metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes that those are the only two recourses you have if you wish to deny divine creation. So I would say the evidence is of the same sort as the evidence we have for the laws of logic or the metaphysical principle I alluded to. It is self-evident when you understand the terms and their meaning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Right.

Since we know positing an infinite regress of causes is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe and that the principle of parsimony enjoins us to only posit that which is necessary to sufficiently explain something, we are left with a necessarily existing efficient cause of the universe.

Because you've eliminated the solution of all other possible scenarios?

 

[anonymous person]

Because you've eliminated the solution of all other possible scenarios?

I have eliminated those hypotheses which are necessarily false by virtue of them being logically incoherent.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[ToddNotTodd]

It seems to me to be self-evident as the laws of logic, or the metaphysical principle that from nothing, nothing comes that either something exists as the result of something else which brought it into existence or that something exists necessarily in that the explanation for its existence is in its very nature.

If you do not agree with that, or if that is not self-evident to you, there is little I or anyone else can do to help you understand this.

You still didn't answer my question:

Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?

Hint: You're leaving out a scenario that doesn't include a cause.

Also, the whole "if that is not self-evident to you, there is little I or anyone else can do to help you understand this" line is, of course disingenuous. I think everyone can see that. Someone employing actual Philosophy never uses this tactic, they state why something is, instead of just asserting something as "self evident".

Don't be sloppy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have eliminated those hypotheses which are necessarily false by virtue of them being logically incoherent.

List all of them, so we know that your assertion that a deity had to be involved is more than simply incredulity.

 

[HitchSlap]

Right.

Since we know positing an infinite regress of causes is not necessary to explain the creation of the universe and that the principle of parsimony enjoins us to only posit that which is necessary to sufficiently explain something, we are left with a necessarily existing efficient cause of the universe.

Said no one, ever.

 

[anonymous person]

You still didn't answer my question:

Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?

Hint: You're leaving out a scenario that doesn't include a cause.

I alluded to this earlier when I said that the universe either created itself or the universe comes into being from nothing without a cause. I alluded to this earlier. Both scenarios are logically incoherent and therefore untenable.

Also, the whole "if that is not self-evident to you, there is little I or anyone else can do to help you understand this" line is, of course disingenuous. I think everyone can see that. Someone employing actual Philosophy never uses this tactic, they state why something is, instead of just asserting something as "self evident".

Don't be sloppy.

Whether or not I am disingenuous is really irrelevant to our discussion as to whether or not there is evidence for the supernatural.

What you are asking is akin to asking me if I have any evidence that would show that the laws of logic are binding. Laws of logic, and other self-evident truths are immediately comprehended and seen and understood to be true when one properly understands what they are claiming. They don't depend on other beliefs or views for their validity. They are thus properly basic.

If your recourse to my arguments and evidence is to attack these basic, fundamental, self-evident truths, then I would say, personally, that my evidence and arguments are better than I thought!

 

[anonymous person]

Said no one, ever.

William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Hence we have Ockham's Razor.

Richard Swinburne:

....the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth.

— Swinburne 1997

 

[anonymous person]

List all of them, so we know that your assertion that a deity had to be involved is more than simply incredulity.

1. The universe created itself
2. The universe came from nothing, by nothing, for nothing without any cause whatsoever

These two scenarios, as I have stated before, are logically incoherent.

If you had another in mind, feel free to share it now.

 

[HitchSlap]

William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar, scholastic philosopher, and theologian. His principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Hence we have Ockham's Razor.

Richard Swinburne:

....the simplest hypothesis proposed as an explanation of phenomena is more likely to be the true one than is any other available hypothesis, that its predictions are more likely to be true than those of any other available hypothesis, and that it is an ultimate a priori epistemic principle that simplicity is evidence for truth.

— Swinburne 1997

Ha.

So appealing to a bigger mystery to solve a mystery - sounds legit.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Sometimes I wonder how you guys come up with all these alleged laws - other than simply very much wanting a God to exist.
Now, if you feel the existence of e.g. a rock needs to be "justified" by a "greater thing", then be it.
The first question here, however, would be: What "greater thing" is the thing in question contingent on instead of jumping to conclusions. (And, btw., a unspecifically valuing term like "greater" isn´t really that usable for such an argument).



Yeah, determinism and freewillism are incompatible, by definition.
You don´t need to invoke deities for pointing that out, and there´s no need to blame such a contradiction on the lack of belief in a deity - especially since the existence of a deity wouldn´t render determinism and freewillism compatible.




Then let´s hope you will find some of these "most" guys here, so that you can discuss it with them.

Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.

 

[HitchSlap]

Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.

So, no free will = no logic.

Sounds legit

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I alluded to this earlier when I said that the universe either created itself or the universe comes into being from nothing without a cause. I alluded to this earlier. Both scenarios are logically incoherent and therefore untenable.

False dichotomy. You're missing at least two common scenarios that scientists have postulated. And even if you address those, the only way you can make your "non-black non-raven" type argument to work is if you can address all possible scenarios. If you can't, and I don't see how you can since scientists never say "here are the only possible scenarios for the universe's existence", then all you're doing is providing an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

Whether or not I am disingenuous is really irrelevant to our discussion as to whether or not there is evidence for the supernatural.

No, but it shows me and anyone else reading that you're not above trickery to try and sway an argument your way. I personally find that intellectually dishonest.

What you are asking is akin to asking me if I have any evidence that would show that the laws of logic are binding.

Noooo, that's not even remotely what I'm doing.

If your recourse to my arguments and evidence is to attack these basic, fundamental, self-evident truths, then I would say, personally, that my evidence and arguments are better than I thought!

Actually, what I'm doing is waiting for you to prove that your argument isn't fallacious. Which you haven't done yet.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.

Odd, here I am, lacking free will (at least of the type you're talking about), and yet able to argue and engage in science.

It seems like I myself am evidence that you're wrong about this...

 

[anonymous person]

False dichotomy. You're missing at least two common scenarios that scientists have postulated. And even if you address those, the only way you can make your "non-black non-raven" type argument to work is if you can address all possible scenarios. If you can't, and I don't see how you can since scientists never say "here are the only possible scenarios for the universe's existence", then all you're doing is providing an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

What are these two other scenarios?

 

[quatona]

Mindlight is definitely right about one thing, if atheistic materialism is true then you don't have free will and cannot even engage in argument or science, because all your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, and not on the weighing of evidence or logical reasoning.

The fact the way you think is determined by the ratio of chemicals in your brain is in no way a reason to assume that they can´t be logical. It just doesn´t follow.
Whether an argument is logical and how it´s generated are two entirely different issues. I don´t spot logic or lack of logic by comparing your statements to the rules of logic. For that it doesn´t matter at all whether your argument being logical or illogical is determined (and by what) or randomly generated.