Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote: Years ago I was reading a lot of Zen and anything related to it, and I was not attending church at all, so I probably fit your description pretty well. I was struck by the similarity to the Christian message, and actually started attending church again. I had decided that the exact denomination was not so important, as long as there was no basic conflict, so I started attending what I was familiar with. So now, in select company, I would describe myself as a Zen Lutheran.

I'm happy for you. Really. I occasionally go to my wife's church (Catholic), but I have an aversion to joining any group on a regular basis. Apart from eclectic panentheist, I haven't clue how to describe me.

On a side note, I wonder how atheists here would react to the doctrine of divine simplicity? I wonder because from what I've seen in this thread, they can't even grasp the logic of necessary existence: i.e., if something exists, something exists that cannot not exist.

Reflex wrote:On a side note, I wonder how atheists here would react to the doctrine of divine simplicity? I wonder because from what I've seen in this thread, they can't even grasp the logic of necessary existence: i.e., if something exists, something exists that cannot not exist.

I don't claim to speak for all the atheists here, anymore than you represent our resident prophet Reverend Bob Evenson, among others. But it is true that I cannot grasp the logic of necessary existence, for the simple reason that it isn't sound. There happens to be a universe, there may even be a god, but there is no argument that you can provide that either is logically necessary. You might be making the same error as Parmenides; logically, the sentence 'There is something' cannot be said without it being true. It doesn't follow that the something is necessary.

uwot wrote:I don't claim to speak for all the atheists here, anymore than you represent our resident prophet Reverend Bob Evenson, among others. But it is true that I cannot grasp the logic of necessary existence, for the simple reason that it isn't sound.

When Lawrence Krauss was pressed to explain why there is something rather than nothing in a Closer to Truth interview, he blurted out in frustration, "It's causes all the way down." It made him look stupid and it's my guess that he'd rather forget the whole incident. His answer was no different than "It's turtles all the way down" in response to what's holding up the turtle holding up the elephants that hold up the world. Even his book, A Universe from Nothing, presumes a preexisting something. So, in fact, you have a long way to go before you can say with any degree of confidence that the logic isn't sound.

What I can't grasp is why it's so difficult to grasp.

Reflex wrote:When Lawrence Krauss was pressed to explain why there is something rather than nothing in a Closer to Truth interview, he blurted out in frustration, "It's causes all the way down." It made him look stupid and it's my guess that he'd rather forget the whole incident. His answer was no different than "It's turtles all the way down" in response to what's holding up the turtle holding up the elephants that hold up the world. Even his book, A Universe from Nothing, presumes a preexisting something. So, in fact, you have a long way to go before you can say with any degree of confidence that the logic isn't sound.

Much as I don't claim to speak for all the atheists who contribute to this forum, I don't claim to speak for Lawrence Krauss. As I said, brilliant scientist he may be, but he is not a philosopher, nor a logician. It doesn't follow from the fact that a phycisist can't maintain a logical argument that I, or anyone else, can't.

Reflex wrote:What I can't grasp is why it's so difficult to grasp.

I imagine that is because you are not a logician either. Logic is about the structure of arguments. In itself, it has nothing to say about ontology. The fact that there is a universe is logically contingent, it is not necessary and nothing follows from that as a single premise.
What is your argument?
I suspect you don't have one, and if you do, I am quite certain I can prove it unsound without breaking sweat.

uwot wrote:

Reflex wrote: Much as I don't claim to speak for all the atheists who contribute to this forum, I don't claim to speak for Lawrence Krauss. As I said, brilliant scientist he may be, but he is not a philosopher, nor a logician. It doesn't follow from the fact that a phycisist can't maintain a logical argument that I, or anyone else, can't.

that much is abundantly clear.

I imagine that is because you are not a logician either. Logic is about the structure of arguments. In itself, it has nothing to say about ontology. The fact that there is a universe is logically contingent, it is not necessary and nothing follows from that as a single premise.
What is your argument?
I suspect you don't have one, and if you do, I am quite certain I can prove it unsound without breaking sweat.

If you could prove it unsound you would have said something that would have made Krauss look less like a fool, so forgive me if I take that claim with a grain of salt.

Having said that if something exists something exists that cannot not exist, I am sure it will sound exceedingly odd to hear me also say that non-contingent being as solitary Absolute is an absolute impossibility, that contingent and non-contingent being are interdependent, a paradox without beginning.

Reflex wrote:Even his book, A Universe from Nothing, presumes a preexisting something. So, in fact, you have a long way to go before you can say with any degree of confidence that the logic isn't sound.

What I can't grasp is why it's so difficult to grasp.

I think the problem most atheists have is the fact that the preexisting something is concluded to be God. Not assumed. Concluded. How did that conclusion come about? This universe came into existence some 13.8 billion years ago. That much we know. What it came into existence from is UNKNOWN. Now when that unknown is immediately translated to mean God, we take issue. There is no logical reason to come to that conclusion. The only logical conclusion is that it is UNKNOWN. Nothing more and nothing less.

Here is an alternate theory. This universe of space time was formed 13.8 billion years ago. Prior(used very wrongly since there is no prior as there was no time) to that EXISTENCE was in another state. So a change of state of EXISTENCE resulted in this universe 13.8 billion years ago. How did EXISTENCE change its state? We don't know. It is UNKNOWN. Could the change of state of EXISTENCE have been self causal? Could be. Could not be. We don't know. But EXISTENCE could be self causal just as easily as God is made out to be self causal and therefore not conclusively necessary.

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:Even his book, A Universe from Nothing, presumes a preexisting something. So, in fact, you have a long way to go before you can say with any degree of confidence that the logic isn't sound.

What I can't grasp is why it's so difficult to grasp.

I think the problem most atheists have is the fact that the preexisting something is concluded to be God. Not assumed. Concluded. How did that conclusion come about? This universe came into existence some 13.8 billion years ago. That much we know. What it came into existence from is UNKNOWN. Now when that unknown is immediately translated to mean God, we take issue. There is no logical reason to come to that conclusion. The only logical conclusion is that it is UNKNOWN. Nothing more and nothing less.

What must be in order for what is to be as it is?

Reflex wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

Reflex wrote:Even his book, A Universe from Nothing, presumes a preexisting something. So, in fact, you have a long way to go before you can say with any degree of confidence that the logic isn't sound.

What I can't grasp is why it's so difficult to grasp.

I think the problem most atheists have is the fact that the preexisting something is concluded to be God. Not assumed. Concluded. How did that conclusion come about? This universe came into existence some 13.8 billion years ago. That much we know. What it came into existence from is UNKNOWN. Now when that unknown is immediately translated to mean God, we take issue. There is no logical reason to come to that conclusion. The only logical conclusion is that it is UNKNOWN. Nothing more and nothing less.

What must be in order for what is to be as it is?

I already told you I am bad at profound. You will have to be more lucid than that. Put it in simple words like you would to a 12 year old with an IQ of about 80. But if you are asking what I think you are asking, then the only logical answer is, WE DON'T KNOW. Nothing more and nothing less.

Reflex wrote:Self-conscious disbelieving in Santa posits an argument as to why there is disbelief; ...

That's what I keep asking you, what is it about Santa, or fairies, et al that you disbelieve in? Try it this way, you appear to be a panentheist, so what is it about the theist 'God' that you disbelive?

it's not the same kind of disbelief that a rock has ...

Rocks have no beliefs at all?

or the kind of disbelief atheists claim so as to avoid the difficulty that comes with having to explain their disbelief.

What difficulty? No theist has yet been able to show me that the 'God' that they describe and ascribe to exists.

Clearly, I have no respect for that kind of atheism and no reason to.

Personally I have no time for those who think they can have any say about Kant's Noumenon.

A while back you said you have been an atheist, was this an ex-theist atheist or an atheist atheist?

Reflex wrote:If you could prove it unsound you would have said something that would have made Krauss look less like a fool, so forgive me if I take that claim with a grain of salt.

The issue here is not anything Lawrence Krauss may have said. Just as I don't represent him, he doesn't represent anyone on this forum. At issue is whatever argument you think you have.

Reflex wrote:Having said that if something exists something exists that cannot not exist...

Well, if that's it, it doesn't follow. There is no logical link between something existing, in the sense you are presenting, and a different thing necessarily existing because of it.

Reflex wrote:...I am sure it will sound exceedingly odd to hear me also say that non-contingent being as solitary Absolute is an absolute impossibility, that contingent and non-contingent being are interdependent, a paradox without beginning.

It's not technically a paradox; it isn't self-contradictory. It is an assumption on your part, for which you have not provided an argument.
What you believe is entirely your business; you may even believe it is logically sound, but nothing that you have so far offered stands up to logical scrutiny. You seem to have missed this bit:

uwot wrote:Logic is about the structure of arguments. In itself, it has nothing to say about ontology.

Just for clarity, Reflex, Krauss' hypothesis is essentially that the conditions prior to the big bang where similar to the quantum vacuum that we know exists now. That may be so, but it is metaphysical speculation and not logically necessary. In fact it does not follow that because something exists now, something has always existed. It would be very strange if the universe popped out of absolutely nothing, but however implausible that may be, it isn't logically impossible. The problem currently faced by physics is that until about 300 000 years after the big bang, there were no free photons; no light in other words, so there is nothing to see. Part of the excitement about the recent discovery of gravity waves is that it may be possible to detect events earlier than that, possibly back to the big bang itself.

sthitapragya wrote: I already told you I am bad at profound. You will have to be more lucid than that. Put it in simple words like you would to a 12 year old with an IQ of about 80. But if you are asking what I think you are asking, then the only logical answer is, WE DON'T KNOW. Nothing more and nothing less.

Then everything that follows is arbitrary and quite meaningless. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think it odd that someone posting in a philosophy forum would be so quick to use 'we don't know' without taking into consideration the logical consequences. ....Oh, wait. ....Nevermind. ...There are no logical consequences to hanging everything -- science, philosophy, truth, goodness and beauty-- on thin air because logic is arbitrary and consequences meaningless.

The truth of the matter is that you DO know what must be in order for what is to be as it is, or at least have an unconscious belief regarding it. Otherwise, you would not be able to formulate the first (assumed) rational thought. That's what I find so interesting about atheists: they talk about reason and logic all the time but have no basis for doing so. I might as well strike up a conversation with a duck.

As Socrates so famously put it many hundreds of years ago: "The unexamined life is not worth living." So, I'll ask again: what do YOU think must be in order for what is to be as it is? If you refuse to answer or stick with "we don't know," then I can only assume your words are nothing more than noises a rock would make if it could talk.

uwot wrote:Just for clarity, Reflex, Krauss' hypothesis is essentially that the conditions prior to the big bang where similar to the quantum vacuum that we know exists now. That may be so, but it is metaphysical speculation and not logically necessary. In fact it does not follow that because something exists now, something has always existed. It would be very strange if the universe popped out of absolutely nothing, but however implausible that may be, it isn't logically impossible. The problem currently faced by physics is that until about 300 000 years after the big bang, there were no free photons; no light in other words, so there is nothing to see. Part of the excitement about the recent discovery of gravity waves is that it may be possible to detect events earlier than that, possibly back to the big bang itself.

Actually it IS logically impossible for something to pop out from nothing: possibility and potentially aren't nothing. If it is, explain how. The onus is on you.

uwot wrote: Logic is about the structure of arguments. In itself, it has nothing to say about ontology.

Is your logical structure grounded in "we don't know," too? Sad. I thought more highly of you than that. I expect that from sthitapragya, but not you?

Arising_uk wrote:

Reflex wrote:Self-conscious disbelieving in Santa posits an argument as to why there is disbelief; ...

That's what I keep asking you, what is it about Santa, or fairies, et al that you disbelieve in? Try it this way, you appear to be a panentheist, so what is it about the theist 'God' that you disbelive?

it's not the same kind of disbelief that a rock has ...

Rocks have no beliefs at all?

or the kind of disbelief atheists claim so as to avoid the difficulty that comes with having to explain their disbelief.

What difficulty? No theist has yet been able to show me that the 'God' that they describe and ascribe to exists.

Clearly, I have no respect for that kind of atheism and no reason to.

Personally I have no time for those who think they can have any say about Kant's Noumenon.

A while back you said you have been an atheist, was this an ex-theist atheist or an atheist atheist?

Pathetic. After all that's been said, I'm still being asked why I don't believe in superman.