Why live at all?

[Davian]

Then you are a supernaturalist?

No.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No.

Precisely.



Enjoy the forums!

 

[Davian]

Precisely.



Enjoy the forums!

lol. A theist that says I shouldn't think that gods exist.

Did I not follow your script?

 

[quatona]

You are either a metaphysical naturalist or you are a metaphysical supernaturalist.

No. And it would be irrelevant for the discussion at hand, anyway.

I assumed the atheists here would fall into the former rather than the latter.[/quote]
So much for arguments based on assumptions.
Atheists just don´t believe in god(s).

Could you now get back to substantiating your empty assertions about atheists (or retract them), please?

 

[quatona]

Did I not follow your script?

I´m wondering where they are taught this strategy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Davian, Davian, Davian......

How long shall I bear with thee...

I said the one who maintains his life is meaningful whilst denying God is engaging in self-delusion....

Not.....

That the one who denies God's existence due to lack of evidence is self-delusional.

Why does someone need a god to find meaning in their own life? I'd say a god is completely irrelevant in that regard.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No. And it would be irrelevant for the discussion at hand, anyway.


So much for arguments based on assumptions.
Atheists just don´t believe in god(s).

Could you now get back to substantiating your empty assertions about atheists (or retract them), please?

If you are a metaphysical naturalist, you believe that the cosmos is all there is and all there ever will be a la Carl Sagan. i.e. a closed system.

If you believe that all that exists can be explained via natural processes acting on matter then you are a metaphysical naturalist.

I know you may not admit to this if you are. You may be one of the ones who shrinks from bearing any type of burden when it comes to defending your views.

That is your prerogative.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Why does someone need a god to find meaning in their own life? I'd say a god is completely irrelevant in that regard.

Do you believe in God?

 

[Davian]

Do you believe in God?

What do you mean by "God"?

 

[Davian]

I´m wondering where they are taught this strategy.

Strawmen only come in certain sizes. It would seem that this is his way of selecting which one to burn.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Do you believe in God?

Which God are you referring to? I have not yet been presented with a concept of God that's met it's burden of proof. So, I don't currently believe a God exists, but am open to the idea if it can be demonstrated.

Do you have any evidence to suggest a god actually exists?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Which God are you referring to? I have not yet been presented with a concept of God that's met it's burden of proof. So, I don't currently believe a God exists, but am open to the idea if it can be demonstrated.

Do you have any evidence to suggest a god actually exists?

It is not my intent to speak about evidence for God. I just wanted to know if you believe God existed.

On to the next question:

Are you a metaphysical naturalist?

 

[Dave Ellis]

It is not my intent to speak about evidence for God. I just wanted to know if you believe God existed.

On to the next question:

Are you a metaphysical naturalist?

If by that you mean I believe the natural world is all that exists, then yes.

 

[quatona]

If you are a metaphysical naturalist, you believe that the cosmos is all there is and all there ever will be a la Carl Sagan. i.e. a closed system.

If you believe that all that exists can be explained via natural processes acting on matter then you are a metaphysical naturalist.

Ah, that´s what you meant by "closed system". Of course, if you believe in anything beyond natural processes acting on matter you likewise believe that you are in closed system - consisting of the physical/natural and whatever else you happen to believe in.

I know you may not admit to this if you are. You may be one of the ones who shrinks from bearing any type of burden when it comes to defending your views.

That is your prerogative.

Oh man, when these insinuations and appeals to emotions start I already know you have no point.

I have no burden to defend views that I don´t hold, and you are not in the position to tell me what views I hold and should defend.

You, Sir, were the one to make broad generalizing statements about atheists.
If you have come to the insight that you were barking up the wrong tree (and actually meant to talk about "metaphysical naturalists"), just admit it.
If, however, you meant to talk about atheists, please substantiate your claims.

Now, I´m not a metaphysical naturalist - but even if I were I wouldn´t see any problem with being in a closed system. Maybe you could start trying to explain eventually what your personal problem with it is.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If by that you mean I believe the natural world is all that exists, then yes.

Excellent. Indeed most atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

That is just a fancy way of saying that the cosmos is all there was all there is and all there ever will be.

Carl Sagan made this idea more well known when he coined the phrase not exactly as I have it here but close.

On such a view, the cosmos is all that there is. There is nothing supernatural or transcendent that exists outside of the universe.

Follow me so far?

 

[quatona]

I´m pretty sure this will turn out to come down to "Without God there´s no God", in various ways of semantically making it appear to be more than the tautology it actually is.

 

[Davian]

Excellent. Indeed most atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

That is just a fancy way of saying that the cosmos is all there was all there is and all there ever will be.

Carl Sagan made this idea more well known when he coined the phrase not exactly as I have it here but close.

On such a view, the cosmos is all that there is. There is nothing supernatural or transcendent that exists outside of the universe.

Follow me so far?

I don't. One might believe that the cosmos is all there was all there is and all there ever will be, but that has is knowledge that may not be accessible.

And to say that there is nothing supernatural or transcendent that exists one would need to have a functional, preferably testable definition of those words. Can you provide that?

And where is "outside" of the universe?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Excellent. Indeed most atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

That is just a fancy way of saying that the cosmos is all there was all there is and all there ever will be.

Carl Sagan made this idea more well known when he coined the phrase not exactly as I have it here but close.

On such a view, the cosmos is all that there is. There is nothing supernatural or transcendent that exists outside of the universe.

Follow me so far?

I'd say there's no evidence to show that anything supernatural or transcendant exists outside the universe.

 

[Davian]

If you are a metaphysical naturalist, you believe that the cosmos is all there is and all there ever will be a la Carl Sagan. i.e. a closed system.

If you believe that all that exists can be explained via natural processes acting on matter then you are a metaphysical naturalist.

I know you may not admit to this if you are. You may be one of the ones who shrinks from bearing any type of burden when it comes to defending your views.

That is your prerogative.

Looks like an attempt at a false dichotomy. If I "shrink" from defending my views, yours must be right.

Why should I have to defend my views in the process of you substantiating yours? Can you not simply substantiate your views?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Whether or not you think the ontological argument is silly is irrelevant to whether or not necessary existence is a great making property.

Define what you mean by "great". As I said, sounds suspiciously like ontological argument silliness.

Of course you do not see it that way. *Stepping into the metaphysical naturalism shoes I have sitting here on the carpet, I shall now speak*:

Your physiology is slightly different than mine. The computations and biological processes taking place in your brain cause you to see things slightly different than I do. But your thoughts, like mine, are simply by-products of evolutionary processes. We both think life meaningful, it just so happened that nature's processes have led me to believe meaning is derived from God while nature's processes have led you to believe meaning is derived from whatever you think it is. The truth is that we exist, like a snowflake if you will. While we appear to be designed and marvelously crafted by some great mind, in actuality, we, like the snowflake, just so happened to come to exist as a result of natural processes acting on matter over time, and like the snowflake melts and evaporates into the air, so we too shall die and cease to be very soon.





With my "red slippers still on*:

Yes I think that. You do not. However, the same biological processes that have made my thoughts what they are, are the same biological process that make your thoughts what they are. The only difference is in the way these processes interact with one another in your grey matter, thus producing slightly different thoughts.




Indeed. But, "with my naturalism slippers still on":

I am actually not a tool at all. Neither are you. We are like a piece of iron ore, or a grain of sand, or a roach. We exist as a by-product of natural processes. In order for me to actually be a tool, I would have had to be made by a person who had a specific purpose in mind when making me. But since my existence is owed to natural processes acting on matter, there was no person to make me for a specific purpose. So even though the processes and computations taking place in your grey matter cause you to think my views make me a tool, in reality, I am not. I am just like you and both of us are like a tree, or a daffodil.

Your "naturalist slippers" seem to be made of straw.

Precisely, now you've got it!!!

*Slippers still on of course*

The arrangement of the matter is what makes you different than say, a slug. But this arrangement is the result of natural processes acting on matter. And this arrangement is of such a nature as to produce in you these things called "thoughts". Taking it one step further, theses thoughts also differ according to their arrangement. Some thoughts are arranged "meaning" wise, and some thoughts are arranged "love" wise, or "happy" wise or any other concept. So when you say something like: "My life is meaningful", your saying this is the result of a thought you have. And this thought you have is the result of a peculiar combination of processes and interactions in your grey matter that are produced purely by natural means. So the thought, "life is meaningful" is not actually based on anything other than said processes. You having the thought in question is akin to me farting, or burping. It is simply a manifestation of natural processes interacting with matter.

Not seeing the point you're driving at here...

That if thoughts are a natural part of the world they mustn't be real?

The same processes that lead nihilists to hold the views they do are the same processes that lead you to have the views you do. It is the arrangement and synchronization of these processes that differ.

Well, no, they aren't the same processes at all. If nihilists had gone through the same processes that lead me to my own views then they wouldn't be nihilists at all.

I am taking my slippers off now.

Straw must be uncomfortable.

What you have just said is in reality, fundamentally no different than you farting or blinking your eye. It is a manifestation or a "reflex" caused by the particular arrangement of molecules and atoms in combination with natural processes acting on said matter. In fact, if all of our thoughts and perceptions are simply the manifestations of certain particular combinations of natural processes acting on matter, how would we ever know if these thoughts and perceptions actually presented us with a true view of reality????

Except of course that it isn't a reflex. A reflex, by definition, occurs without the requirement of thought. You're drawing a false equivalence.

On the one hand, you say you agree with me - that the particular arrangement of stuff makes all the difference in the world - but on the other, you draw equivalences between all kinds of arrangements, even comparing arrangements that produce farting stuff to arrangements that produce thinking stuff. That tells me that you don't agree that the arrangement makes all the difference.