Godlessness and choice

[quatona]

It seems to me to be self-evident

No way to argue against "my view seems to me to be self-evident". This is the absolute winner, no matter what your position is.
So the rest of us can all go home now.

 

[anonymous person]

No way to argue against "my view seems to me to be self-evident". This is the absolute winner, no matter what your position is.
So the rest of us can all go home now.

Sure you can argue against it. All you would need to do would be to present an argument that shows that we have reasons for thinking something can create itself, or that something can come into being from nothing, without any cause whatsoever material or efficient.

This would be how you would argue against what I have said. Do you disagree with me when I say that something cannot come from nothing, or that something cannot create itself? If you disagree, then surely you have reasons why you do?

 

[quatona]

Sure you can argue against it.

Yeah sure. The appropriate way of "arguing" against "it´s self-evident" would be to be just as bold and claim that the opposite is "self-evident".

 

[anonymous person]

Yeah sure. The appropriate way of "arguing" against "it´s self-evident" would be to be just as bold and claim that the opposite is "self-evident".

Is that what you think? That it is self evident that something can come from nothing or that something can create itself?

 

[Ed1wolf]

So, no free will = no logic.

Sounds legit

Thanks glad you agree!

 

[Ed1wolf]

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...

I am being devils advocate in case you didn't notice. But the fact is that because the Christian God does exist and your mind is not based on brain chemistry but rather based on your soul/spirit then you CAN logically reason and engage in science.

 

[bhsmte]

I am being devils advocate in case you didn't notice. But the fact is that because the Christian God does exist and your mind is not based on brain chemistry but rather based on your soul/spirit then you CAN logically reason and engage in science.

Opinion.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

We know and it is a scientific fact that the product of chemical reactions are determined the ratio of the reagents in the reaction. IOW the laws of physics NOT the laws of logic. Thereby making it impossible for you to reason if the mind is purely physical.

 

[quatona]

We know and it is a scientific fact that the product of chemical reactions are determined the ratio of the reagents in the reaction. IOW the laws of physics NOT the laws of logic. Thereby making it impossible for you to reason if the mind is purely physical.

Your conclusion doesn´t follow from the premises. It doesn´t matter what our ability to use logic is produced by. You seem to be disappointed that logic isn´t produced by itself - which would lead to actual logical problems.

 

[quatona]

Is that what you think? That it is self evident that something can come from nothing or that something can create itself?

I was merely talking about the lack of argumentative power of "this is self-evident to me". Since this piece of "reasoning" holds your entire argument together, I´m not impressed.
Anyway, in the realm of exceptionality (i.e. where universes come into being in the absence of matter, time and space, and where you can postulate that spirit can produce matter, IOW where none of our principles derived from our observation in the physical world can be assumed to apply anymore) there´s nothing "self-evident".
Your ongoing attempts to make your exceptional answer "self-evident" by pointing out the exceptionality of the competing answers rings hollow. It´s a well known script and fallacy.

 

[toLiJC]

Most of the godless people I meet today (including agnostics and atheists in that) consider science and choice as the pillars of reality. Science defines how we look at the world and assess the validity of truth claims and choice is the basis for morality and law. I accept that there are other kinds of godless people out there. In the past we had Marxists who had an historical ideological understanding of the evolution of society based on economics. Also Nietzsche had an atheistic world view based on the will to power. Freud argued that our psychology and particularly views on sex determined our understandings of reality. But these previous forms of atheism have mainly been refuted, discredited and overthrown and today the majority of godless people phrase their godlessness in terms of the principles of scientific authority and choice.

The view of science held is that of an old universe, spontaneous emergence of life and macro evolution. It is a bleak and brutal vision of nature in which mass extinctions and biological processes have led to oblivion for many species while allowing others to thrive and survive. Reality is painful and choices determined by biological circumstance.

The view of choice held implies that each person has the freedom to choose their own way and that the basis of morality is to respect these choices. Reasonably they may argue that murder violates another persons freedom, intolerance violates his freedom etc. They may also argue that if I am gay I should be allowed to marry another gay person, if I want to die then I should be able to have euthanasia, if I do not want this baby then I should be able to kill it before it is born.

I have 3 main issues with this godless understanding of choice.

1) It seems to contradict the scientific appraisal of reality as being somehow determined by environment, evolution and circumstance.

2) It is rather selective in what it chooses e.g. the mother choice of her own personal convenience over that of the life of her child.

3) It has no ultimate authoritative foundation that does not change.

In essence can the idea of choice be justified if this high view of science is maintained. Why are the choices accepted by godless people so selective in terms of what is acceptable and what not. With what authority that survives any kind of serious scrutiny can these choices be justified

the irreligious and non-occult people are called "fatherless" in Scripture, and it is written that the spiritual ones have to take good care of them

James 1:27 (AKJV) "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."

Blessings

 

[HitchSlap]

We know and it is a scientific fact that the product of chemical reactions are determined the ratio of the reagents in the reaction. IOW the laws of physics NOT the laws of logic. Thereby making it impossible for you to reason if the mind is purely physical.

Double

 

[HitchSlap]

We know and it is a scientific fact that the product of chemical reactions are determined the ratio of the reagents in the reaction. IOW the laws of physics NOT the laws of logic. Thereby making it impossible for you to reason if the mind is purely physical.

Mind is that fuzzy word we use to describe what the brain does. But please, feel free to demonstrate a brain is anything but. You've made some claims, so get to it.

 

[anonymous person]

I was merely talking about the lack of argumentative power of "this is self-evident to me". Since this piece of "reasoning" holds your entire argument together, I´m not impressed.

Something that is self-evident doesn't need an argument to support it, that is what the term "self-evident" or "properly basic" implies, thus, your claim that my appeal lacks argumentative power is one I can agree with. I make no attempt to provide an argument for the claim that the notions of self creation or creation without any causal conditions whatsoever is logically incoherent. You either agree or you don't.

Nor do I expect you to be impressed by what I have said. I am not here to impress you, just to show you that naturalism is false.

Anyway, in the realm of exceptionality (i.e. where universes come into being in the absence of matter, time and space, and where you can postulate that spirit can produce matter, IOW where none of our principles derived from our observation in the physical world can be assumed to apply anymore) there´s nothing "self-evident".

The coming into being of the universe is quite an exceptional event. As such, no material and spatio-temporal explanation will suffice. This doesn't mean that the universe can just come into being from nothing without any cause whatsoever or that it can create itself. It simply implies something supernatural caused it. You've given no reason at all to think that the universe can just pop into being without a cause or that it can create itself.

Your ongoing attempts to make your exceptional answer "self-evident" by pointing out the exceptionality of the competing answers rings hollow. It´s a well known script and fallacy.

The competing hypotheses are not exceptional, they are logically impossible and therefore necessarily false.

 

[quatona]

Nor do I expect you to be impressed by what I have said. I am not here to impress you, just to show you that naturalism is false.

You sure that´s all?(because sometimes it sounds almost like you were arguing in favour of a God, sometimes even in favour of biblegod.
And yes, a realm in which universes, physics, space, time, matter, nature came into being cannot be explained by way of ontological naturalism. Exactly my point.
The actually funny part is that it is YOU who argues from principles that describe this very nature/matter/...
I´m not taking any issue with you pointing out how competing ideas are counterintuitive. i´m taking issue with the fact that you simply ignore the fact that yours is, just the same.

E.g. the idea that something can be created in the absence of time is just as "self-evidently" wrong as the idea that something created itself.

The coming into being of the universe is quite an exceptional event. As such, no material and spatio-temporal explanation will suffice. This doesn't mean that the universe can just come into being from nothing without any cause whatsoever or that it can create itself. It simply implies something supernatural caused it. You've given no reason at all to think that the universe can just pop into being without a cause or that it can create itself.

Neither have you given any reason at all to assume that there´s some sort of supernatural causality (that obviously only shares the same term with what we talk about when saying causality.)

The competing hypotheses are not exceptional, they are logically impossible and therefore necessarily false.

So is causality in the absence of time (unless you redefine causality to suit your needs).

 

[anonymous person]

I´m not taking any issue with you pointing out how competing ideas are counterintuitive. i´m taking issue with the fact that you simply ignore the fact that yours is, just the same.

The ideas are not counterintuitive that I am arguing against. They are logically impossible. There is a difference.

I can full well admit that it is counterintuitive that an immaterial, spaceless, and timelessly existing (sans creation) being created the universe. This does nothing to show that such a being does not exist, or that such a notion is logically incoherent. In fact, when speaking of cosmic origins, we should expect for the cause to be one which we cannot fully wrap our minds around. A cause that does not fit the traditional mold for causes we normally deal with in this natural realm. That such a notion may be counterintuitive seems to me to lend all the more credibility to the notion that this is what was responsible for bringing all of material reality into existence.

So I am not troubled at all that anyone would find my view counterintuitive. At least on my view, you have an efficient cause of the universe. Smith's best is to offer a view which is devoid of even this basic feature!

E.g. the idea that something can be created in the absence of time is just as "self-evidently" wrong as the idea that something created itself.

I am not arguing that the universe was created in the absence of time or "before" time, but that creation comes into being at the first moment of time, instantaneously if you will. There is nothing at all logically incoherent about this notion of the cause of the universe existing timelessly sans creation, and in time subsequent to it, in fact, a good argument can be made that this is exactly the case.

Neither have you given any reason at all to assume that there´s some sort of supernatural causality (that obviously only shares the same term with what we talk about when saying causality.)

I've discussed this several times already. The reason is that by virtue of the competing hypotheses being logically impossible, a supernatural cause is inescapable. That is the reason.

So is causality in the absence of time (unless you redefine causality to suit your needs).

The view that timeless causation is logically impossible would be a view that would need some type of argument and or evidence supporting it. If in a timeless state of affairs, supernatural beings like angels or other celestial entities come into being, they still require a cause for doing so. That the state of affairs is timeless in which they come to be in no way eliminates the need for a cause of them coming into being, because the causal principle is a metaphysical prinicple, extending to any state of affairs, whether they be timeless or temporal.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

Even if atheistic materialism is not true, i.e. no matter what they think,
then most people on earth don't have free will either,
until, if ever, the day they are Redeemed (the few, vs the many on the wide road to destruction)...

 

[quatona]

The ideas are not counterintuitive that I am arguing against. They are logically impossible. There is a difference.

They aren´t logically impossible. They are counterintuitive, and on top thrive on a stretch of the term "cause" - just like your idea does.

I've discussed this several times already. The reason is that by virtue of the competing hypotheses being logically impossible, a supernatural cause is inescapable. That is the reason.

In this fancy supernatural realm where "cause" gets as fancy a concept beyond human understanding, self-causation isn´t any more illogical than some other fancy claim of a causation.

the causal principle is a metaphysical prinicple,

And calling it "metaphysical" renders it accurate? I have never found this principle as you word it other than on religious sources. So it appears to be part of theological beliefs rather than an established principle.
The principle observed and demonstrable is: "Physical events need physical causes (and the cause predates the event)."
Or else "my car has been breathed into existence in the absence of time" would be in the run for a valid explanation.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am being devils advocate in case you didn't notice. But the fact is that because the Christian God does exist and your mind is not based on brain chemistry but rather based on your soul/spirit then you CAN logically reason and engage in science.

Except I'd argue that the christian god evidently does not exist, and evidence shows that the mind is solely based on brain chemistry.

If you want to talk about self evident, I can't think of many stronger examples than that.

 

[anonymous person]

They aren´t logically impossible. They are counterintuitive, and on top thrive on a stretch of the term "cause" - just like your idea does.

The notion of something creating itself is logically impossible because it would have to exist before it existed. This is absurd and I submit that on this basis alone, one should not entertain it as a viable explanation. Further argument strikes me as unnecessary.

The notion of something coming from nothing without any sort of causal conditions whatsoever is also absurd. Again I submit this without argument.

In this fancy supernatural realm where "cause" gets as fancy a concept beyond human understanding, self-causation isn´t any more illogical than some other fancy claim of a causation.

I'm having a hard time understanding this, maybe you can explain?

And calling it "metaphysical" renders it accurate? I have never found this principle as you word it other than on religious sources.

Calling it metaphysical means that it would apply to any kind of existence, not just the physical.

Definition of metaphysics

1. 1a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.....metaphysics … analyzes the generic traits manifested by existences of any kind — J. H. Randall

So it appears to be part of theological beliefs rather than an established principle.

As mentioned in the definition provided, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. One need not be a theologian to appeal to it, though some do.

The principle observed and demonstrable is: "Physical events need physical causes (and the cause predates the event)."

Generally speaking, this is the case. However, if the physical realm itself is an effect, it cannot have a physical cause, nor can it be predated by anything since time itself begins and is the effect of some efficient cause.

Or else "my car has been breathed into existence in the absence of time" would be in the run for a valid explanation.

A car and the universe are not analogous, so no, we would not consider that a prefersble explanation for it would be that it was brought into being by a supernatural agent. We would just explain it as being the effect of some human being who designed it and then fashioned it with natural materials according to that design.