So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

[Spectrum]

How is that for grounding the "purpose"... is that too vulgar in simplicity?

I believe it is too vulgar and too simplistic.

The "purpose" for all living things can be inferred from empirical evidence.
No living things emerged to be extinct and it is observed all living things strive to survive in general, other than the perverted who want to commit suicide.
Therefore we can infer the purpose of all living things is to survive and contribute to the continuation of the species.

Anything beyond the empirical, like having a soul that survives physical death and the purpose of humans are to obey God so they can go to heaven and avoid hell are pure speculations to soothe an inherent existential crisis driven by an active zombie parasite.

As for Laws of Nature established by Science, I am with Kant, i.e. these are created by humans.

Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.

We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.

For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances; and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid. -A125

The above argument is not easy to grasp until one has fully understood the principles within Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Since Kant is a credible philosopher, any one with alternative theory should at least prove Kant wrong before claiming theirs has any credibility.

Where Law of Nature [Physics, etc.] are taken to be independent of humans, it implies there is an external agency which establish them, i.e. a God which is illusory.

[Dark Matter]

Does God need a "purpose" other than to act according to his nature? I'd say no. "Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature." Does the universe need a purpose other than to manifest that nature? Again, no.

"Aha," says the atheist, "Then what need have you for a personal God?" Answer: Interactions can be had between nonpersonal things, but not fellowship. The concept truth might possibly be entertained apart from personality, the concept of beauty may exist without personality, but the concept of divine goodness, or what Kant calls man's "moral imperative," is understandable only in relation to infinite personality.

-- Updated September 22nd, 2017, 4:38 am to add the following --

Thus the Order and Regularity in the Appearances, which we entitle Nature, we ourselves introduce.

We could never find them in Appearances, had not we ourselves, or the Nature of our mind, originally set them there.

For this Unity of Nature has to be a Necessary one, that is, has to be an a priori certain Unity of the Connection of Appearances; and such Synthetic Unity could not be established a priori if there were not Subjective Grounds of such Unity contained a priori in the Original Cognitive Powers of our mind, and if these Subjective Conditions, inasmuch as they are the Grounds of the Possibility of knowing any Object whatsoever in Experience, were not at the same time Objectively Valid. -A125

The above argument is not easy to grasp until one has fully understood the principles within Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Since Kant is a credible philosopher, any one with alternative theory should at least prove Kant wrong before claiming theirs has any credibility.

Heavens, why would I, a theist, even want to prove Kant wrong? The above quote is not different than what I've said.

Where Law of Nature [Physics, etc.] are taken to be independent of humans, it implies there is an external agency which establish them, i.e. a God which is illusory.

News flash: not many theists take the "Laws of Nature" to be independent of humans.

What bigot brigade do you belong to?

[Steve3007]

Greta:

You're reminding me of the Matrix

Ha! Yes, I think I can vaguely remember that. I can certainly remember his distinctive voice. Maybe the question of whether purpose exists in the universe outside of the brains of living things is slightly different when considering a simulated universe like the one in the Matrix.

But, Greta, as it happens I was just going to mention you. From our past conversations about the nature of life, it seems to me that your views are not a million miles away from the idea of the universe itself being, in some sense, alive. If that's true (tell me if it isn't) then it might illustrate that different people can come to not-dissimilar conclusions starting from different-seeming positions. Which is why labels can be so misleading.

At first glance I'd have you labelled as "atheist" and Ranvier as "theist". But Ranvier doesn't actually self-identify as theist and seems to have something close to pantheistic views. A lot of people maintain that pantheism, at least in some forms, sits close to the boundary between theism and atheism and that it's debatable whether it should be seem as a "-theism" at all. So my assumed labels for both of you would probably not do justice to either of your views.

For myself, I'd probably be labelled as "atheist" and "materialist" but wouldn't be entirely happy with those either, without a lot of discussion about the details. But I guess, whether I like it or not, I probably am those two things. Approximately.

Yet if Planet X destroyed the Earth tomorrow, as apparently predicted by some Christians, where would all that purpose we have accumulated go?

So this suggests that if your view does in any way regard the universe as a whole as a living thing, you're still not convinced by the principle of "conservation of purpose" as I've called it.


I'll work my way through other posts in this thread when I can.

[Ranvier]

Steve3007

You're too intelligent to be an atheist...but I agree with the "materialist" part, which is already much better, as it's based on some "reality". Although, materialism is too integrated with the human dimension in perception of the physical "reality". What is a "thought" in such context, is it "real"?

[Count Lucanor]

Count Lucanor

Smiles, I'm not "soft" anything...lol
If I must be labeled, I'd say I'm open-minded agnostic because it's ignorance at best to claim with certainty that "there is no God". Although, in reality it's just irrational to think that one can state anything with an absolute certainty, like a fortune cookie...lol. You just make me giddy.

That's a common expression, but actually false. If you're not absolutely certain that all bachelors are unmarried men, or that there's no number so large that one cannot be added to it, then you might start worrying about being irrational. I won't say about all gods, but at least about one particular god, claimed to have infinite power, infinite knowledge, having consciousness and will, I can confidently assert that it does not exist, has not existed, nor ever will.

We can't explain (not the same as describe) the laws of physics yet, for instance: where did the four fundamental forces come from and how do these forces work,

When we can make very accurate predictions out of those descriptions, then they are not just descriptions, but something with very effective explanatory power. That will suffice.

yet you claim to "know" not only that there is no God but that you have an inkling of "brain power" to comprehend "what" God might be, even if you tripped over "God's foot". Hilarious.

Actually I have always kept an open mind to what people claim their gods might be. I listen to them carefully, I make questions, I look at their sacred texts, read their theologians, preachers and philosophers, and I give them every bit of opportunity to make sense or back up their claims. I'm yet to find something coherent, something that one could at least give the benefit of the doubt, and most of the time it shows up that they just happen to believe nonsense. George Carlin made a good joke out of this nonsense. I'll keep waiting for that comprehensive description of the gods.

...logically the human concept of God probably originated with the first "spark" of the human consciousness pondering his own existence.

So, if the concept of god appeared as an a posteriori representation in the mind of humans, in other words, if human existence predates the concept of god, then how is it that human existence cannot predate, according to your view, the concepts of purpose, laws, morals, etc.? What you're implying here puts another nail in the coffin of your lawgiver hypothesis, since the supposed receiver of the law appears BEFORE the supposed lawgiver itself.

Therefore, it stands to reason that the "innate moral faculties" are deeply intertwined with human "religiosity" or "superstition".

But then all an atheist would need to succeed in not being "confused" is having any superstition, like amulets, magic or astrology. Is that what you envision as a life of purpose, logic and rationality?

I see, so there is no purpose to the Solar system, the galaxy, or the universe for that matter but purpose suddenly is born because of human consciousness.

Well, actually it was you who said that concepts suddenly are born because of human consciousness. You admitted this just a few lines above, remember?:

...logically the human concept of God probably originated with the first "spark" of the human consciousness

Perhaps you are simply confused by the definition of the human concept of purpose?

By now it's obvious in which philosophical coordinates we can locate your ideas. You have reified the concept of purpose as a thing in itself, not a concrete one, but an abstract entity dwelling in the realm of Platonic ideas. So you talk about purpose being placed here or there, independent of consciousness and the subject, being only united contingently by the act of a lawgiver. But as we have also seen above, you also contradict yourself when implying that the concept of god appeared as an a posteriori representation in the mind of humans. It's all a big messy confusion from which I guess you're trying to pull out the miracle of a coherent argument.

-- Updated September 22nd, 2017, 10:27 pm to add the following --

OK, good. So I think it's clear (and has been for a long time) that the proposition being discussed by at least the above three posters is:

There is a law of "conservation of purpose". i.e. Purpose cannot be created or destroyed. If purpose exists now then it must have existed before now.

Ranvier, by the tone of that post, supports this proposal.

That's a good way to put it, which translates in nothing else but good old Idealism: purpose will be an abstract entity dwelling in the realm of Platonic ideas. It can be assigned or taken away from subjects and if someone claims it's intrinsic to human experience, Ranvier will find it absurd.

[Sy Borg]

From our past conversations about the nature of life, it seems to me that your views are not a million miles away from the idea of the universe itself being, in some sense, alive. If that's true (tell me if it isn't) then it might illustrate that different people can come to not-dissimilar conclusions starting from different-seeming positions. Which is why labels can be so misleading.

"Living systems" is the word I'd use, since the word "life" technically only refers to biology. Many natural systems - from galaxies, stars and planets to viruses and molecules - do the same thing as life does. They have an emergent point that could be referred to as "birth". Then there is a lively and chaotic "juvenile"stage. Then the systems settle down, "maturing", and they become more complex and stable. Then there is gradual decline leading to system breakdown aka "death" - and the bits are re-used by other entities.

At first glance I'd have you labelled as "atheist" and Ranvier as "theist".

I'm agnostic. Mostly rational but I had a peak experience interesting enough to put me on the fence.

I'm more panvitalist than pantheist. From what I can gather the universe is a bit like the early Earth, mostly chaotic but with increasing zones of order as it cools and, at some point, emergences occur. I think the most likely outcome of what could be thought of as cosmic evolution or gestation (depending on whether one's perspective pans in or out) is that intelligence capable of space travel will become ever more common in the cosmos, and that life around neighbouring stellar systems will increasingly network and in time effectively form a nerve net equivalent in (at least) their region of the galaxy.

For the record, I'm not sure sure about the universe being all one thing, unless like an ecosystem. With galaxies moving apart it seems that they will increasingly become island universes in themselves unless some clever species (or its superpowered AI) learns to manipulate time and space. Maybe.

But Ranvier doesn't actually self-identify as theist and seems to have something close to pantheistic views. A lot of people maintain that pantheism, at least in some forms, sits close to the boundary between theism and atheism and that it's debatable whether it should be seem as a "-theism" at all. So my assumed labels for both of you would probably not do justice to either of your views.

Here we have memetic evolution, with the madly personified God meme increasingly becoming more naturalistic, almost Spinozan as serious mystical thinkers delve more deeply and question old assumptions. Meanwhile, with researchers increasingly probing the very large and the very small, science becomes ever more weird, often bordering on the mystical ... "We are made of star stuff!" says Neil dGT breathlessly as he walks out of the light :)

I suspect that studies into the nature of time could become quite similar to mysticism.

For myself, I'd probably be labelled as "atheist" and "materialist" but wouldn't be entirely happy with those either, without a lot of discussion about the details.

Yes, these labels are very broad.

Yet if Planet X destroyed the Earth tomorrow, as apparently predicted by some Christians, where would all that purpose we have accumulated go?

So this suggests that if your view does in any way regard the universe as a whole as a living thing, you're still not convinced by the principle of "conservation of purpose" as I've called it.

Correct. Consider the "purpose" of a microbe. Stuff happens, and purpose (being a product of order) can be lost in chaotic events, although perhaps retrievable by a sufficiently advanced technology.

[Spectrum]

For myself, I'd probably be labelled as "atheist" and "materialist" but wouldn't be entirely happy with those either, without a lot of discussion about the details. But I guess, whether I like it or not, I probably am those two things. Approximately.

Re details, 'physicalism' is a later and preferable term than 'materialism'.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical.
Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Some claim 'materialism' is synonmymous to 'physicalism', but technically there are critical differences.

-- Updated Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:16 am to add the following --

What bigot brigade do you belong to?

I can understand why you are so quick in striking others with your 'spiky-hammer'. This is because you are unfortunately driven by some internal subliminal force that compel you to do so as it sense a psychological threat.

When I was a panentheist [for many many years], I used to think non-theists were very stupid to deny the Absolute Being because that inference to my mind then was SO obvious.

[Ranvier]

Count Lucanor

1. I recommend numbering each thought so it's easier to reply without the use of long quotes or at least for the ease of reference to a specific point.

2. "If you're not absolutely certain that all bachelors are unmarried men, or that there's no number so large that one cannot be added to it, then you might start worrying about being irrational".

Such is the dance of word games: Not all bachelors, masters, MD's or PhD's are unmarried men. I could "play" with "that one" to add to the other "one" to make it an infinity of "one" but first figure out which "one" you mean in this word game.

3. "When we can make very accurate predictions out of those descriptions, then they are not just descriptions, but something with very effective explanatory power. That will suffice".

I'll make a very accurate prediction that tomorrow will be another day... Have you learned any insight and "explanation" about the Sun, tomorrow, or the future day for that matter?

4. I'll include a quote here so it's not out of context:

Actually I have always kept an open mind to what people claim their gods might be. I listen to them carefully, I make questions, I look at their sacred texts, read their theologians, preachers and philosophers, and I give them every bit of opportunity to make sense or back up their claims. I'm yet to find something coherent, something that one could at least give the benefit of the doubt, and most of the time it shows up that they just happen to believe nonsense. George Carlin made a good joke out of this nonsense. I'll keep waiting for that comprehensive description of the gods.

Curious, you can understand that an electron is not really a "ball" spinning around an "atom" but when it's in respect to ancient texts written by people privileged enough to even be capable to write for an audience that could barely understand concepts of good or evil, all of a sudden you'll take everything grotesquely literally to confuse yourself

5. I must quote this one because otherwise it may become even more gibberish:

So, if the concept of god appeared as an a posteriori representation in the mind of humans, in other words, if human existence predates the concept of god,??? then how is it that human existence cannot predate, according to your view, the concepts of purpose, laws, morals, etc.? What you're implying here puts another nail in the coffin of your lawgiver hypothesis, since the supposed receiver of the law appears BEFORE the supposed lawgiver itself.

a posteriori
[ˌä ˌpästērēˈôrē, ˌā ˌpästērēˈôrī]
ADJECTIVE
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes. Compare with a priori.

ADVERB
in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than by making assumptions or predictions.

Therefore, we have a reasoning from the observation of "known" (birth and death) facts... that you conclude to be:
"... if human existence predates the concept of god, then how is it that human existence cannot predate the concepts of purpose, laws, morals, etc.?"

The above sentence doesn't make sense, and here is why...
I think that you confuse "concepts" with "reality". Just because I have a "concept" of an electron, doesn't make it a "reality" or that, if it exists, that it wasn't there prior to the conception of the concept in my mind.

6. This leads us to more confusion of "concept of God" vs "actual God", as well as the "concept of purpose" vs "actual purpose".
This is why you wrote this:
"Well, actually it was you who said that concepts suddenly are born because of human consciousness. You admitted this just a few lines above, remember?"
In reference to this:
"I see, so there is no purpose to the Solar system, the galaxy, or the universe for that matter but purpose suddenly is born because of human consciousness".
Based on this:
"...logically the human concept of God probably originated with the first "spark" of the human consciousness".

The human "concept of God" has nothing to do with "actual God" nor does the human "concept of purpose" have anything to do with the "actual purpose". Do you see the distinction?

Otherwise you'll keep coming up with false conclusions reflected by subjective perception.

[Fanman]

DM:

From a finite point of view, the “infinite and eternal nature” is indefinite but not non-existent: the existential reality will always fall short of the ideal.

I'm not really sure what you mean here? You're using some terms that are not clearly defined and the context you're using them in is not very clear (to me). In many ways, real life (if that's what you mean by existential reality) often falls short of the ideals, but how does that relate to the “infinite and eternal nature”? We have no way of identifying with such a quality, because we're finite. So making statements about it's nature seems presumptuous. We can of course presume or conceptualise ideas and ideals about the “infinite and eternal nature”, but we cannot know anything qua knowledge - we cannot even know that it exists. I think that the same can be said of absolutes, because they imply that things falling under that category are not subject to change. In a universe where everything seemingly undergoes change (please correct me if I'm wrong), it doesn't seem to follow that there's an entity that doesn't also undergo change (is immutable). An entity that is therefore separate from the universe because of that quality, yet is also a part of it.

[Count Lucanor]

Such is the dance of word games: Not all bachelors, masters, MD's or PhD's are unmarried men. I could "play" with "that one" to add to the other "one" to make it an infinity of "one" but first figure out which "one" you mean in this word game.

A classic example of the fallacy of equivocation. Sureley, you can turn everything into a word game if you want to escape the bad consequences (for the soundness of your argument) of dealing with analytic or a priori synthetic statements, but we will know, because it's too obvious, that you had resorted to sophistry.

I'll make a very accurate prediction that tomorrow will be another day... Have you learned any insight and "explanation" about the Sun, tomorrow, or the future day for that matter?

Your description does not take form of a scientific law, it's just an ordinary description. But scientific explanations of the movement of objects, the composition of our solar system, the forces involved, what's the sun made of, etc., do have a lot of insight and predictive power. Has an eclipse taken us by surprise? I don't think so.

Curious, you can understand that an electron is not really a "ball" spinning around an "atom" but when it's in respect to ancient texts written by people privileged enough to even be capable to write for an audience that could barely understand concepts of good or evil, all of a sudden you'll take everything grotesquely literally to confuse yourself

Too bad you didn't pay attention to the entire quote. I made it quite clear that I gave "every bit of opportunity" to absolutely everyone who wants me or anyone else to believe in his/her gods. I didn't only mention the ancient scribes and their old texts, but the whole legion of advocates of theism, ancient and modern.

Therefore, we have a reasoning from the observation of "known" (birth and death) facts... that you conclude to be:
"... if human existence predates the concept of god, then how is it that human existence cannot predate the concepts of purpose, laws, morals, etc.?"

Again, you keep stumbling over your own words and start blaming me for your confusion. You see, it's some sort of habit you have of carelessly shooting arguments without noticing what they imply against your own previous statements. In the case above, you jump to say that it is my conclusion that "human existence predates the concept of god". But it doesn't really matter if I believe it or not, nor if I say it or not. What's more important is that you believe it and you said it, because then we can follow the logical consequences of what we both know you believe. The logical statement constructed takes the following form: "If [what Ranvier asserts is true], then X". X is something Ranvier previously asserted as being false. In other words, you have been caught in a blatant contradiction.

The above sentence doesn't make sense, and here is why...
I think that you confuse "concepts" with "reality". Just because I have a "concept" of an electron, doesn't make it a "reality" or that, if it exists, that it wasn't there prior to the conception of the concept in my mind.

The human "concept of God" has nothing to do with "actual God" nor does the human "concept of purpose" have anything to do with the "actual purpose". Do you see the distinction?

There you go, unaware of how these statements hurt your own arguments. You have just acknowledged that you can have a concept of something that does not exist. Since people can have false concepts, including those of prima causa or the "ultimate reason", it becomes a rational possibility that no such first cause, or such "ultimate reason" exist. This goes against your own case that dismissing a first cause or "ultimate reason" is illogical and confused. Your whole case was constructed under the premise that believing in such things was a logical imperative, and now you have blown dynamyte to your argument's structure.

[Ranvier]

Count Lucanor

Word games and sophistry

I was attempting to provide evidence in arguing logic or rationalization without defining the meaning precisely, which is almost impossible to do with our human language, including mathematics. If you don't define "bachelor" or "unmarried" to the point of justification for a reason of having two different words, expressions, or concepts; therefore, you can't make "bachelors" = "unmarried" and argue the certainty of rational. In other words, it would be irrational to have two different expressions with exactly the same meaning. Therefore, one can't logically argue for two expressions to be equal as in X = Z and Y = Z, therefore X = Y and be absolutely certain about this. Such logic only makes sense in terms of reality of human concepts but it has no basis in "reality".

There is another thread about this, where there is an argument for 1 + 1 = 2, which is a perfectly sound mathematical logic but we all know that no two apples are exactly the same "expression" in "reality".

This is why you wrote this:

"If you're not absolutely certain that all bachelors are unmarried men... then you might start worrying about being irrational".

But a "bachelor" may be a priest "married" to God... in human sense or "unmarried" may mean someone in a long term relationship and hence not a "bachelor". We can't be "certain" of anything... including "God does not exist" This is similar to arguing a "one true religion", which is illogical.

Therefore, arguing any such certainty is irrational in being "confused" by self indulgent certainty. Do you get it?

[Count Lucanor]

What was in discussion (part of it, since there are other things you still have to deal with) is absolute certainty. And the issue here is the evident truth of analytic propositions, which are true precisely for being tautological. "All bachelors are unmarried men" is a classic expression and there are other ways to rephrase it, meaning exactly the same (i.e. "given that a bachelor is an unmarried man, all bachelors are unmarried men", etc.). Making it a word game in the English language will not change the nature of the expression being a priori analytical. In Spanish, the homonymy in the word corresponding to "bachelor" (soltero), simply does not exist, the term is unequivocal, and the absolute certainty of the statement remains.

Now, let's see the rest.

[Ranvier]

Count Lucanor

I did not respond to the rest of your contentions because if we can't "agree" on the relativistic nature of "subjective reality", then there is no point in arguing with an "absolute certainty".

-- Updated September 23rd, 2017, 9:46 pm to add the following --

... which is my sarcastic way of saying, you claim to be God

[Count Lucanor]

Count Lucanor

I did not respond to the rest of your contentions because if we can't "agree" on the relativistic nature of "subjective reality", then there is no point in arguing with an "absolute certainty".

-- Updated September 23rd, 2017, 9:46 pm to add the following --

... which is my sarcastic way of saying, you claim to be God

Well, my experience in these debates is that the believers always end up running to their favorite safe shelters: faith, solipsism, relativism.

[Ranvier]

That's a good argument to keep me at the "table"... but it doesn't change the fact that our "subjective reality" is only relative. My entire life experience is an "empirical" evidence of that "subjective fact". Otherwise, obviously you would agree with me on everything I say