Why I'm not an Atheist

[Deleted member]

I still don't see how you can [with PSR and brute contingency in mind] refute an argument that seeks to explain how (and with that why) the universe started, before you've seen anything of the actual argument.

 

[Dre89]

Then you don't understand what the PSR and brute facts are.

Any atheistic cosmological model has to assume the PSR and brute facts, that's not really questionable. That doesn't mean the model is wrong, it just means the athiest has to justify these metaphysical positions.

If the PSR is true, and brute facts are impossible, that doesn't mean that the particular cosmological model is wrong, it just means that it would have needed a cause. Meaning the idea that it removes the necessity of God, or some other cause is wrong.

 

[kataklysm336]

Then you don't understand what the PSR and brute facts are.

Any atheistic cosmological model has to assume the PSR and brute facts, that's not really questionable. That doesn't mean the model is wrong, it just means the athiest has to justify these metaphysical positions.

If the PSR is true, and brute facts are impossible, that doesn't mean that the particular cosmological model is wrong, it just means that it would have needed a cause. Meaning the idea that it removes the necessity of God, or some other cause is wrong.

I reject the PSR because it states that everything has a cause or a reason. It makes a positive claim with little evidence. There could be something that is simply unexplainable, so there is no reason for me to believe that everything was caused.

Brute facts could be possible, so there is no reason for me to discount them.

I think that you are assuming the argument The Paprika Killer does not account for them automatically, which is why he thinks it is important to see the actual argument first.

 

[Dre89]

What justifications for the PSR have you read? The PSR is a position that requires justification, it's isn't a justification itself.

You also gave no reason why brute facts are possible, you just just assumed they were as a reason not to discount them.

The argument doesn't account for them. Any argument that believes a specific cosmological model removes the need for God is basically unaware of these metaphysical positions, otherwise they would know that the cosmological model is irrelevant. Under the metaphysics required for this specific cosmological model to exist without God, pretty much any cosmological model can exist, so the specific model doesn't matter, yet the argument is that this specific model is what matters, meaning they don't understand the metaphysical assumptuons involved.

 

[kataklysm336]

What justifications for the PSR have you read? The PSR is a position that requires justification, it's isn't a justification itself.

I know it requires justification. I reject it because it's not justified. Take the PSR to mean: Given anything, x, if x is the case then there is a sufficient reason why x is the case

If we apply this to the PSR itself, I feel it makes very little sense. Given that everything has a cause, there is a sufficient reason why everything has a cause. Essentially the question becomes "why does everything have a cause?" which seems to be a question without an answer.

I have no reason to believe that everything was caused, so I should not assume the PSR.

You also gave no reason why brute facts are possible, you just just assumed they were as a reason not to discount them.

Well I can't come up with a reason why they can't exist so there is no reason for me to say they don't. They may not, but I am not going to assume they do or do not.

The argument doesn't account for them. Any argument that believes a specific cosmological model removes the need for God is basically unaware of these metaphysical positions, otherwise they would know that the cosmological model is irrelevant. Under the metaphysics required for this specific cosmological model to exist without God, pretty much any cosmological model can exist, so the specific model doesn't matter, yet the argument is that this specific model is what matters, meaning they don't understand the metaphysical assumptuons involved.

Which metaphysical positions is the theory unaware of? The PSR and brute contingency?
Kind of sounds like you might be saying that the scientists need to prove that God can't exist, and even if they did that then whatever theory they came up with would be no better than any other?

 

[Sucumbio]

The Principle of Sufficient Reason - Leibniz's view and the paradox of Buridan's ***

[COLLAPSE="***"]...the case also of Buridan's *** between two meadows, impelled equally towards both of them, is a fiction that cannot occur in the universe....For the universe cannot be halved by a plane drawn through the middle of the ***, which is cut vertically through its length, so that all is equal and alike on both sides.....Neither the parts of the universe nor the viscera of the animal are alike nor are they evenly placed on both sides of this vertical plane. There will therefore always be many things in the *** and outside the ***, although they be not apparent to us, which will determine him to go on one side rather than the other. And although man is free, and the *** is not, nevertheless for the same reason it must be true that in man likewise the case of a perfect equipoise between two courses is impossible. [/COLLAPSE]

Just thought I'd share. Why? Because ***.

***!!!!

 

[Dre89]

Kat- You don't need to disprove God. You do need to justify metaphysical positions which render him unnecessary though. The specific cosmological models are important for science, just not for the God debate.

 

[GwJ]

I'd still like to see your argument for the necessity of god though.

 

[MuraRengan]

The PSR is that everything has an explanation or reason for existing, which is different to the first cause argument. For example, the PSR can be problematic for theists, because they have to address the issue of an explanation for God. Some say he's explained by himself, some say he's explained by his essence, and some say there is no explanation (brute fact).

Explaining God beyond exposing necessity may not be necessarily necessary (strange repeat of words there). Verm and I both went over several pages ago arguments that point toward the metaphysical being inherently incomprehensible to humanity. By virtue of being metaphysical we cannot assume even the most basic principles to be applicable to a metaphysical "entity". We cannot assume PSR to the metaphysical because PSR may be an inapplicable concept to that. It would essentially be like saying, "How hot is no?" One cannot apply a temperature to the concept of "no." In the same manner we should not assume that the PSR can be applied to the metaphysical.

Further evidence against PSR applying to the metaphysical god lies in the paradoxes of infinity that I outlined many pages ago. Assuming the PSR in all cases leads to an infinite amount of regressing cases that need to be explained. However, this infinity cannot be true because it would be illogical for any one state of being to exist if there are an infinite amount of criteria needed to bring it to its existence (I can elaborate on this concept if necessary). Therefore, it is necessary that at least one criterion in the chain of cause and effect that must not adhere to the PSR.

However, in the past people have noted that the single entity that breaks the PSR does not need to be metaphysical. kataklysim mentioned it here:

I reject the PSR because it states that everything has a cause or a reason. It makes a positive claim with little evidence. There could be something that is simply unexplainable, so there is no reason for me to believe that everything was caused.

Brute facts could be possible, so there is no reason for me to discount them.

It's difficult to disprove brute facts, however, ALL the evidence in the way the universe works contradicts the hell out of it. I'd certainly never believe in it over believing in a god, because brute facts make absolutely no sense, though a metaphysical causer does.

 

[GwJ]

This is all going right over my head. Every time we get into metaphysics, I turn into the village idiot. Can someone explain what brute contingency and PSR are?

I learned in my logic class that contingency means that something is neither necessary nor impossible and thus has a chance factor to it when predicating something to a subject, correct?

 

[MuraRengan]

Brute contingency/fact - something that exists without cause

PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) - essentially the principle of cause and effect

 

[Chuee]

It's difficult to disprove brute facts, however, ALL the evidence in the way the universe works contradicts the hell out of it. I'd certainly never believe in it over believing in a god, because brute facts make absolutely no sense, though a metaphysical causer does.

Would you not consider Laws of Mathematics and Logic brute facts?

 

[GwJ]

How can you consider logic a brute fact by Mura's definition?

Logic isn't an inherent feature that humans know. Premise A and B will not always give conclusion C. The way I see it, we base our logic on what we agree upon. We agree that given examples A, B, C, and D, this kind of argument works this way and we can use that as precedent for future logical arguments.

I can see mathematics as being brute fact, but neither logic or math are things. They're merely concepts.

 

[Dre89]

Brute facts are those which have no explanation.

Mathematics is axiomatic, so it's brute.

Brute contingency is when you believe that something contingent specifically has no explanation. Brute contingencies generally require more justification then saying the existence of a necessary being like a deity (assuming you've shown the deity is necessary) is a brute fact.

 

[GwJ]

So, am I getting this right?

Brute contingencies require more justification, because by the very nature of a brute contingency, you are virtually necessitating a non-necessary subject.

or is it more like:

Brute contingencies require more justification, because by the very nature of a brute contingency, you are saying something exists without explanation that is not necessary and thus requires an explanation to explain its existence.


Please bear with me, I really want to be able to grasp what this is.

 

[Dre89]

It's the second one, because brute facts aren't always necessitated. For example some people think quantum fluctuations are brute facts (they're not but that doesn't matter here) but no one would say they're necessary existences.

It's also because contingent thing generally have more specific forms. For example, it takes less to justify a minimalist God than it does to justify a minimalist God with seven personas (meaning it's no longer minimalist but you get my point).

Necessary beings as brute facts aren't to be assumed to be possible by default either, they just require less justification than contingent ones.

 

[GwJ]

So are you saying that since quantum fluctuations aren't necessary, they require an explanation for the "why" before we can take them into account?

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I'm am completely surprised how many replies this blog has seen. Almost 1000 !_!

 

[Dre89]

Gw- I'm saying they're not brute facts. QFs require the existence of things like time, space, matter, energy etc. so to me that isn't brute.

 

[MuraRengan]

Would you not consider Laws of Mathematics and Logic brute facts?

Mathematics and logic are consequential to our plane of existence. They are by-products of the reality that we can experience. If you consider that our reality may have been caused, and that those concepts may be inapplicable to a metaphysical reality, then I can't say I consider them universally brute. They are self evident to us, but our experience is not necessarily the only experience.

Besides, concepts are irrelevant to an atheistic argument against god. Pure math or logic would never produce matter, so whether or not it is brute is inconsequential to a theological discussion.

 

[GwJ]

Gw- I'm saying they're not brute facts. QFs require the existence of things like time, space, matter, energy etc. so to me that isn't brute.

Oh, ok. So, what you're saying is that since QFs require things like space, time, etc... they can't be the cause of the universe, correct?

 

[kataklysm336]

It's difficult to disprove brute facts, however, ALL the evidence in the way the universe works contradicts the hell out of it. I'd certainly never believe in it over believing in a god, because brute facts make absolutely no sense, though a metaphysical causer does.

Why does 1+1=2?
Why does everything in the universe have a cause?
Why does gravity work? (this is different than how does gravity work?)

The answer is simply "Because it does."
To me these are brute facts. You could ask why? why? why? why? why? but at some point it doesn't make any sense to answer the why.

For example some people think quantum fluctuations are brute facts (they're not but that doesn't matter here) but no one would say they're necessary existences.

On the contrary, I think that matters a lot here. If they are brute then we have provided an explanation as to why God isn't necessary. You just saying "they're not" isn't enough of a reason to believe they aren't.

Gw- I'm saying they're not brute facts. QFs require the existence of things like time, space, matter, energy etc. so to me that isn't brute.

Could time/space be brute? (I am thinking space more so than time. Theoretically they have show that time couldn't have existed before the big bang because of the density (or something or other) was to strong that time stops. So, technically there is no 'before the big bang')

Also, I am not so sure that QF require the things you mentioned, I am not well versed enough to understand the implications of QF so that's as far as I'll take it.

 

[Shorts]

Seriously, this thread's throat needs to be cut.

 

[MuraRengan]

Why does 1+1=2?
Why does everything in the universe have a cause?
Why does gravity work? (this is different than how does gravity work?)

The answer is simply "Because it does."
To me these are brute facts. You could ask why? why? why? why? why? but at some point it doesn't make any sense to answer the why.

You're wrong. As long as something has a reason, it is not a brute fact. If the world followed this logic science would've been hindered for hundreds of years. Your stance is 100% unscientific. There was a time when "God created everything" was considered a brute fact, yet you reject that notion. What, then, allows you to make an assumption about any of these other things being brute fact? Science would never support "because it does" as the answer to any of those questions, so how do you justify your belief?

Asking why is exactly what HAS to be done. If you don't do it, you're intentionally avoiding the truth.

Could time/space be brute? (I am thinking space more so than time. Theoretically they have show that time couldn't have existed before the big bang because of the density (or something or other) was to strong that time stops. So, technically there is no 'before the big bang')

I don't believe that either are brute, and I have a theorem to prove it as well. However, before I can explain the theorem I have to convince a lot of people that science's current understanding of both time and space is flawed (which I myself hesitate to assert with any authoritative certainty.)

The flaw I see with science's current understanding of time is that time is considered generally as "change". The reason why scientists believe that time "didn't exist" prior to the big bang is because the mass of energy was so dense that nothing about it could change. However, I think it's fairly easy to prove that simply because something doesn't change doesn't mean that it is without time. I could go on with that proof if people deem it worthwhile.

The flaw I see with science's current understanding of space is that they believe that the prior to the big bang, they believe that all occupyable space was condensed into a singularity and that it was literally IMPOSSIBLE for any physical thing to exist outside of that singularity. Furthermore, it believes that when the big bang occurred, the amount of occupyable space began to increase, and that as the universe expands more occupyable space is created. I think that entire notion is defeated by the following question: "If there was no more occupyable space, then what exactly is the universe expanding into?

 

[GwJ]

Seriously, this thread's throat needs to be cut.

Why? we're actually getting somewhere now. If you're not in the discussion, don't try and come here and tell us that we should stop discussing it.

 

[Dre89]

Gw- Depends what you call the universe. I would consider things like time and space contingent aspects of the universe, so the universe would already need to exist for QFs to occur.

 

[GwJ]

I agree, this is all moot without some definitions for what it is that we call "universe" and "space". I do thank you though, I'm finally catching on to the terminology and logic you've been using all this time.

 

[Dre89]

You're welcome. That was my point really, to inform people of the landscape, not to get people to take my path through it.

Do remember this is only one small aspect of metaphysics though. I personally find it the most relevant, and it's the type you'll find in most contemporary philosophy of religion.

Really, my belief in the PSR and disbelief in the possibility of brute contingencies are the only things stopping me being an atheist.

 

[crawlshots]

Dre, in your opinion what are the qualities of the metaphysically necessary God? What are some widely accepted qualities of what the monotheistic-minded world thinks of as God that you don't think are metaphysically necessary? (This question is stemming from the thought process that if God is metaphysically necessary, then it follows that God has to have certain qualities.)

 

[Chuee]

Science would never support "because it does" as the answer to any of those questions, so how do you justify your belief?

Not really. The basic answer to the things he said are because it does. All we can really give as to why the Laws of Physics work, are that they work, because data shows that they do. When you ask the why question you just push further and further back.

 

[Dre89]

Crawl- Some necessary qualities I would say are things like being self necessary (total independence, nothing else explaining your existence) being eternal and changless, having no specific form (eg. Not having a physical shape, or something like seven personas). Some more controversial ones are things like the will and the three omnis.

Traits I'd say aren't necessary are things like the trinity, loving us and designing the universe for us. Note that many people who believe in these things don't claim they're necessary. Some people believe God has both necessary and contingent traits.

 

[Muro]

dre- I still dont understand how that's not speculation

 

[GwJ]

Well, the qualities aren't really speculation that he stated. If the god would need to overcome the problems he has with a purely scientific explanation, it would need those qualities necessarily.

 

[Muro]

yeah but there's nothing to sugest that such a thing exists

 

[GwJ]

Well, I think his basis on it is the philosophical idea that the scientific explanations for the universe's creation are logically impossible and therefore the only way to reconcile with it is to have a being be the creator.

 

[Dre89]

I have reasons for thinking the first cause needs those properties, I just didn't provide them.

The reason why I think the first cause needs to have entirely necessary properties is because I think it can't have contingent ones.

I then reason that it needs things like self necessity, eternity, changelessness etc. and basically I end up with the properties of a deity.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that, I'm just summing it up here.

 

[GwJ]

Oh, ok. So you arrived at the concept of deity through means from which most classical theists don't. That's very interesting.

 

[Muro]

The reason why I think the first cause needs to have entirely necessary properties is because I think it can't have contingent ones.

why is that? why does it have to have different properties from everything else we have observed?

 

[Dre89]

Gw- I criticise classical theists just as much as I do athiests.

Muro- Because everything in the universe is contingent (doesn't exist in every possible world) and I believe the first cause must be necessary.

To understand why I think that, you need to understand the concept of ontological priority. Ontology is metaphysical subfield which studies being, so ontology refers to being. So for example, the first cause is by definition the most ontologically prior reality, because if something was ontologically prior it that would be the first cause instead. Note that it isn't always the same thing as chronological priority. For example a big debate in metaphysics is whether the essence of a being is OP to its existence, or vice versa, yet these are probably chronologically equal.

Now with necessary properties (that exist in every possible world) there is nothing OP to them because they are the only possibility.

However, with contingent properties, there is something OP to them, which is the various possibilites the property could end up being. There are multiple possibilities of what the property could be, and one way or another of those properties ends up becoming a reality. The problem is that this 'selection process' is ontologically prior (not chronologically prior) to the existence of the actual thing, and of course you can't have something OP to the first cause. Now I obviously don't mean that there was a literal selection process, but you get my point. The first cause can't be a product of some selection process or movement. Even total randomness is still a selection process, just a different methodology. When you think about it, you're saying that the first cause was created by randomness, or some other process, which clearly doesn't make sense.

This is the problem with believing in brute contingencies, because it fails to acknowledge the difference between necessary and contingent properties. BCs basically say that they have the same properties ontologically (existing without explanation), when they don't; a necessary property exists in all possible worlds and a contingent one doesn't.

That was just off the top of my head, I probably didn't do it justice but hopefully I can clear things up if you have any questions.

 

[GwJ]

Do you think there is a possibility that the universe could have possibly not been created?