How to be an atheist

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,336
Reaction score
4,861
Points
108
Location
London UK
The thread title is taken from a paper by the theologian Denys Turner.

 
Naturalist said:
Oh no, the old "Why is there anything at all?"

No one knows.

Next question.
Click to expand...
Or:
Oh no, the old "Why is there anything at all?"

I don't like the question

Therefore it's inadmissible
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:

Intellectual cop-out – That's what I meant by intellectually dishonest.

If anything advances the human cause it's the discussion of ideas – anything that shuts the discussion down without sufficient reason, and ignorance is not sufficient reason,
Click to expand...
Proposing Dark Ages' ideas to advance the human cause, is wrong.

If you have a 21st century idea, let's discuss.
 
Thomas said:
Or:
Oh no, the old "Why is there anything at all?"

I don't like the question

Therefore it's inadmissible
Click to expand...
You are committing the straw man fallacy. I never said I didn't like the question. I've only heard it all my life.

Ask the question again if you like.....you don't know the answer. No one does.

You can invent any answer you want, so can anyone else. No value in that.
 
Oh, that's curious – we cross-posted.

Which ideas of Gray's do you think are 'Dark Age' Ideas?
 
OK, let's get back to that.

You say:
Oh no, the old "Why is there anything at all?"
No one knows.
Next question.

I say:
I find the answer 'no one knows' insufficient reason to invalidate the question – if such were the case, we'd have given up asking questions a long time ago, surely?

Cosmologists, for example, ask that question – and offer theories as possible answers – are you telling them to pipe down and move along?
Along with some of the theories, I also allow for a Gratuitous Act on behalf of God as the First Cause of existence.

Here, of course, I expect a reaction against my introducing God, as something lacking proof or evidence, but then I invalidate that rebuttal, but saying that you a priori assume that God must necessarily be an object subject to investigation – that it must surrender itself to a particular intellect.

That you choose to disbelieve in God, on grounds you find reasonable, is one thing.
To expect others to accept that, in itself, and unqualified, as sufficient argument is another.

So for me, the question why is there anything at all is a viable, reasonable and rational question to which the answer 'no-one knows' is no grounds on which not to ask it.
 
Thomas said:
OK, let's get back to that.

You say:
Oh no, the old "Why is there anything at all?"
No one knows.
Next question.

I say:
I find the answer 'no one knows' insufficient reason to invalidate the question – if such were the case, we'd have given up asking questions a long time ago, surely?

Cosmologists, for example, ask that question – and offer theories as possible answers – are you telling them to pipe down and move along?
Along with some of the theories, I also allow for a Gratuitous Act on behalf of God as the First Cause of existence.

Here, of course, I expect a reaction against my introducing God, as something lacking proof or evidence, but then I invalidate that rebuttal, but saying that you a priori assume that God must necessarily be an object subject to investigation – that it must surrender itself to a particular intellect.

That you choose to disbelieve in God, on grounds you find reasonable, is one thing.
To expect others to accept that, in itself, and unqualified, as sufficient argument is another.

So for me, the question why is there anything at all is a viable, reasonable and rational question to which the answer 'no-one knows' is no grounds on which not to ask it.
Click to expand...
I never said you couldn't ask the question, but we know the answer is "we don't know". Ask it as many times as you like. If you expect a different answer, that is one definition of crazy. We will get an answer when we have evidence to support an answer.

A scientific theory is an explanation supported by lots of evidence. No cosmologist has offered a scientific theory as to why there is anything at all. They offer reasonable conjecture. There is no evidence to support a scientific theory. Cosmologists don't know the answer either, which is why I wrote, "we don't know". If they knew, I would have parroted that answer.

And going backwards a bit...."why is there anything at all"? Is there any other possible condition for reality other than something? Can you give an example of reality without something? No.

So it's really, why does reality exist? No one knows. And if you concoct an answer, any answer, then you are intellectually dishonest.
 
Naturalist said:
I never said you couldn't ask the question, but we know the answer is "we don't know".
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think if you ask a scientist, they admit the limits of knowledge, but they don't tgherefore insist that it is impossible to inquire beyond that limit ... they don't say 'we don't know' as a means of shutting down inquiry, or affirming a personal opinion.

Naturalist said:
We will get an answer when we have evidence to support an answer.
Click to expand...
That's back to my suggestion that you and I define God differently – I think your definition is philosophically redundant if you think God is subject to empirical determination.

Naturalist said:
And going backwards a bit...."why is there anything at all"? Is there any other possible condition for reality other than something? Can you give an example of reality without something? No.
Click to expand...
Yes. God. God is not a thing – and yet neither is God nothing.

Naturalist said:
So it's really, why does reality exist? No one knows. And if you concoct an answer, any answer, then you are intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
OK, but God is not a concocted answer, so ...
 
Thomas said:
I disagree. I think if you ask a scientist, they admit the limits of knowledge, but they don't tgherefore insist that it is impossible to inquire beyond that limit ... they don't say 'we don't know' as a means of shutting down inquiry, or affirming a personal opinion.


That's back to my suggestion that you and I define God differently – I think your definition is philosophically redundant if you think God is subject to empirical determination.


Yes. God. God is not a thing – and yet neither is God nothing.


OK, but God is not a concocted answer, so ...
Click to expand...
I didn't say "we don't know as a means of shutting down inquiry". That's a straw man fallacy. I wrote that if we get the evidence to support an answer then we'll have an answer. Try not to commit fallacious reaonsing.

Prove that God is not subject to empirical determination.

Prove that God is not a thing. Or not nothing.

God is your concocted answer, you are intellectually dishonest.
 
Naturalist said:
Prove that God is not subject to empirical determination..
Click to expand...
That is a circular argument..
You cannot empirically prove something not subject to empirical determination..
..so why ask for it??

However, it is claimed that G-d created the universe, so that necessarily means
that G-d is not PART of the universe. :)
 
muhammad_isa said:
That is a circular argument..
You cannot empirically prove something not subject to empirical determination..
..so why ask for it??

However, it is claimed that G-d created the universe, so that necessarily means
that G-d is not PART of the universe. :)
Click to expand...
That which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top