The Will, Determinism and Atheism

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

[JackDaydream]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

As far as I can see, the clear picture of complex order is one of the reasons why I would not consider myself as an atheist. I definitely got to the point of examining the beliefs about religion(Roman Catholicism) and this included looking at science. In some ways, science seems to rule out the idea of God, but not completely because it does appear that there are such intricate patterns.

I know that I have many synchronicities, which may be about seeing these patterns. In some ways there are rational explanations for so much, but, even then, rationality is an order in it's own right, just as the stability of the laws of physics is about underlying order. Some may just see it is an underlying evolutionary development, like Stephen Hawking, and the evolution of consciousness as a factor. Nevertheless, it does seem that this consciousness is an underlying force, which may be like the idea of the Tao. This is the angle which some of the new physicists come to, including Paul Davies and Fritjof Capra. If anything, it may be that some previous ideas of God were too anthropomorphic.

Sometimes, it is easy to see such chaos in the world, and to be overwhelmed by the 'mess'. Here, it is easy to feel overwhelmed, especially when watching the news. I also find it hard to see the order in my own life and feel almost abandoned by any cosmic consciousness. However, it may be that there is so much to be unravelled on a personal level and that life comes with potential scope for finding new solution, and this is where the free will aspect comes in, as reflection on potential choices and pathways. In that respect, it is as if each person is part of the evolution of consciousness and part of the 'divine'. This way of seeing it is compatible with some kinds of theism, or with sone forms of the Buddhist understanding of reality.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

As far as I can see, the clear picture of complex order is one of the reasons why I would not consider myself as an atheist. I definitely got to the point of examining the beliefs about religion(Roman Catholicism) and this included looking at science. In some ways, science seems to rule out the idea of God, but not completely because it does appear that there are such intricate patterns.

I know that I have many synchronicities, which may be about seeing these patterns. In some ways there are rational explanations for so much, but, even then, rationality is an order in it's own right, just as the stability of the laws of physics is about underlying order. Some may just see it is an underlying evolutionary development, like Stephen Hawking, and the evolution of consciousness as a factor. Nevertheless, it does seem that this consciousness is an underlying force, which may be like the idea of the Tao. This is the angle which some of the new physicists come to, including Paul Davies and Fritjof Capra. If anything, it may be that some previous ideas of God were too anthropomorphic.

Sometimes, it is easy to see such chaos in the world, and to be overwhelmed by the 'mess'. Here, it is easy to feel overwhelmed, especially when watching the news. I also find it hard to see the order in my own life and feel almost abandoned by any cosmic consciousness. However, it may be that there is so much to be unravelled on a personal level and that life comes with potential scope for finding new solution, and this is where the free will aspect comes in, as reflection on potential choices and pathways. In that respect, it is as if each person is part of the evolution of consciousness and part of the 'divine'. This way of seeing it is compatible with some kinds of theism, or with some forms of the Buddhist understanding of reality.

Hey Jack!

...you mentioned Paul Davies...of course The Mind of God is a good read which, oddly enough, covers the OP topics of determinism, indeterminism, free will, along with logical necessity and so on.

With respect to Stephen Hawking, of course, his infamous quote of “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" provides for an intriguing inference (and associated concepts) concerning some sense of an ordered world, along with having purposeful existence conducive to the emergence of self-aware conscious Beings... .

But back to a-theism. considering modern day discoveries in physics, ever wonder how an a-theist reconciles their belief system?

[Pattern-chaser]

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

It's the highlighted bit where the problems arise. An "ordered world" does not necessarily require a "master organiser".

...

Also, your reasoning seems to apply equally to all humans, not just atheists. Those theists who believe in a "master organiser" not included, of course. But for the rest of us, atheists and theists alike, your reasoning seems to apply.

[3017Metaphysician]

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

It's the highlighted bit where the problems arise. An "ordered world" does not necessarily require a "master organiser".

...

Also, your reasoning seems to apply equally to all humans, not just atheists. Those theists who believe in a "master organiser" not included, of course. But for the rest of us, atheists and theists alike, your reasoning seems to apply.

PC!

Thanks for your contribution, I appreciate your thoughts. With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

[JackDaydream]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

As far as I can see, the clear picture of complex order is one of the reasons why I would not consider myself as an atheist. I definitely got to the point of examining the beliefs about religion(Roman Catholicism) and this included looking at science. In some ways, science seems to rule out the idea of God, but not completely because it does appear that there are such intricate patterns.

I know that I have many synchronicities, which may be about seeing these patterns. In some ways there are rational explanations for so much, but, even then, rationality is an order in it's own right, just as the stability of the laws of physics is about underlying order. Some may just see it is an underlying evolutionary development, like Stephen Hawking, and the evolution of consciousness as a factor. Nevertheless, it does seem that this consciousness is an underlying force, which may be like the idea of the Tao. This is the angle which some of the new physicists come to, including Paul Davies and Fritjof Capra. If anything, it may be that some previous ideas of God were too anthropomorphic.

Sometimes, it is easy to see such chaos in the world, and to be overwhelmed by the 'mess'. Here, it is easy to feel overwhelmed, especially when watching the news. I also find it hard to see the order in my own life and feel almost abandoned by any cosmic consciousness. However, it may be that there is so much to be unravelled on a personal level and that life comes with potential scope for finding new solution, and this is where the free will aspect comes in, as reflection on potential choices and pathways. In that respect, it is as if each person is part of the evolution of consciousness and part of the 'divine'. This way of seeing it is compatible with some kinds of theism, or with some forms of the Buddhist understanding of reality.

Hey Jack!

...you mentioned Paul Davies...of course The Mind of God is a good read which, oddly enough, covers the OP topics of determinism, indeterminism, free will, along with logical necessity and so on.

With respect to Stephen Hawking, of course, his infamous quote of “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" provides for an intriguing inference (and associated concepts) concerning some sense of an ordered world, along with having purposeful existence conducive to the emergence of self-aware conscious Beings... .

But back to a-theism. considering modern day discoveries in physics, ever wonder how an a-theist reconciles their belief system?

Strangely, in real life most of the people who I know believe in God, so most discussion which I have about atheism are online. Of course, not all atheists think identically, as, for example, Freud, Nietzsche and Marx all had different approaches. However, it is frequently based on the philosophy of realism , with the need for thought of 'God' not being necessary to understanding the nature of causality.

Also, it does seem that science has replaced religion for many. Darwin's theory of evolution seems to be a starting point, although Darwin was not an developing the argument with a view to the formation of an atheist system of belief. It seems that for many the idea of explanations for many of the 'mysterious' aspects of life seem to rule out a need to adopt a belief in God. This is frequently connected with the philosophy of materialism and the associated determinism. The idea of the 'supernatural' often causes difficulty for people, including the idea of life after death, which may be construed as a way of social control.

The idea of determinism in relation to God's existence is complicated as well because some religious believers didn't believe in free will, because they argued for predestination. It does not follow that all theists believe in free will, and many theists do follow a lot of ideas within science, without seeing the two religion and science as incompatible.

If anything, it may be that there is an entire spectrum of possibilities of belief or lack of belief in God, and, also, it depends on socialisation. I remember being at school as a young child, in classes with people who had not been brought up in any kind of religious background and they simply couldn't relate to the idea of God at all, because it was not within their frame of reference. It is also likely that early socialisation has pprofound lasting implications for general thinking at a deep level. For example, I am aware that the roots of my own ideas, including values, are based on the way I was encouraged to think and approach life as a child.

Also, there is the psychological aspects of choice of belief, and one of the reasons why I have mostly religious friends is because they find it helpful for coping with difficulties in life, in a meaningful way for them. In contrast, some people have struggled as a result of religion, especially with the guilt and fear associated with religious systems and this has led them to think their way through such ideas, and I can identify with that because fundamentalist approaches to religion can be so extremely narrow.

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

As far as I can see, the clear picture of complex order is one of the reasons why I would not consider myself as an atheist. I definitely got to the point of examining the beliefs about religion(Roman Catholicism) and this included looking at science. In some ways, science seems to rule out the idea of God, but not completely because it does appear that there are such intricate patterns.

I know that I have many synchronicities, which may be about seeing these patterns. In some ways there are rational explanations for so much, but, even then, rationality is an order in it's own right, just as the stability of the laws of physics is about underlying order. Some may just see it is an underlying evolutionary development, like Stephen Hawking, and the evolution of consciousness as a factor. Nevertheless, it does seem that this consciousness is an underlying force, which may be like the idea of the Tao. This is the angle which some of the new physicists come to, including Paul Davies and Fritjof Capra. If anything, it may be that some previous ideas of God were too anthropomorphic.

Sometimes, it is easy to see such chaos in the world, and to be overwhelmed by the 'mess'. Here, it is easy to feel overwhelmed, especially when watching the news. I also find it hard to see the order in my own life and feel almost abandoned by any cosmic consciousness. However, it may be that there is so much to be unravelled on a personal level and that life comes with potential scope for finding new solution, and this is where the free will aspect comes in, as reflection on potential choices and pathways. In that respect, it is as if each person is part of the evolution of consciousness and part of the 'divine'. This way of seeing it is compatible with some kinds of theism, or with some forms of the Buddhist understanding of reality.

Hey Jack!

...you mentioned Paul Davies...of course The Mind of God is a good read which, oddly enough, covers the OP topics of determinism, indeterminism, free will, along with logical necessity and so on.

With respect to Stephen Hawking, of course, his infamous quote of “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" provides for an intriguing inference (and associated concepts) concerning some sense of an ordered world, along with having purposeful existence conducive to the emergence of self-aware conscious Beings... .

But back to a-theism. considering modern day discoveries in physics, ever wonder how an a-theist reconciles their belief system?

Strangely, in real life most of the people who I know believe in God, so most discussion which I have about atheism are online. Of course, not all atheists think identically, as, for example, Freud, Nietzsche and Marx all had different approaches. However, it is frequently based on the philosophy of realism , with the need for thought of 'God' not being necessary to understanding the nature of causality.

Also, it does seem that science has replaced religion for many. Darwin's theory of evolution seems to be a starting point, although Darwin was not an developing the argument with a view to the formation of an atheist system of belief. It seems that for many the idea of explanations for many of the 'mysterious' aspects of life seem to rule out a need to adopt a belief in God. This is frequently connected with the philosophy of materialism and the associated determinism. The idea of the 'supernatural' often causes difficulty for people, including the idea of life after death, which may be construed as a way of social control.

The idea of determinism in relation to God's existence is complicated as well because some religious believers didn't believe in free will, because they argued for predestination. It does not follow that all theists believe in free will, and many theists do follow a lot of ideas within science, without seeing the two religion and science as incompatible.

If anything, it may be that there is an entire spectrum of possibilities of belief or lack of belief in God, and, also, it depends on socialisation. I remember being at school as a young child, in classes with people who had not been brought up in any kind of religious background and they simply couldn't relate to the idea of God at all, because it was not within their frame of reference. It is also likely that early socialisation has pprofound lasting implications for general thinking at a deep level. For example, I am aware that the roots of my own ideas, including values, are based on the way I was encouraged to think and approach life as a child.

Also, there is the psychological aspects of choice of belief, and one of the reasons why I have mostly religious friends is because they find it helpful for coping with difficulties in life, in a meaningful way for them. In contrast, some people have struggled as a result of religion, especially with the guilt and fear associated with religious systems and this has led them to think their way through such ideas, and I can identify with that because fundamentalist approaches to religion can be so extremely narrow.

Jack!

Yes, as some have agreed, in Christianity, religion (dogma/literal interpretation/fundamentalism) has the potential to give the concept of God a bad name. Ironically though, I see many a-theists base their no-god belief on anti-fundamentalism (Bill Maher). So the question remains, how does the a-theist justify their belief system vis a vis the indetermined/determined nature of the Will and the sufficiently determined world of cause and effect. And, as a humanistic footnote, if the historical figure of Jesus existed in a history book, what causes the a-theist to deny his existence?

As an aside, and in a similar way of unifying dichotomies (compatibilism), the top down/bottom up analysis of an informational feedback loop seems to be all part of an ordered world of cause and effect... (since you mentioned Paul Davies):

[3017Metaphysician]

Hello fellow philosophers!


Being the existentialist that I am (Christian Existentialist) I remain fascinated about the why’s of existence. Or said another way, it can be enlightening to explore the questions and answers associated with the why's, or perhaps more specifically, what actually causes a human to do what they are considered destined to do.

A humanistic view of our own agency has it that we are in part endowed with metaphysical phenomena (consciousness) in a so-called subjective realm of Being, with 'things' like; sentience, the will, volition and various other intellectual and emotional needs and instinctual impulses. For example, we have learned that arguably, the will takes primacy in the cause of all human behavior. In that sense, within the realm of having a will to be, resides things like sentience which is all part of our intrinsic needs for happiness, purpose, love, meaning, and so on.

With respect to having a free will though, much like an independent moderate in politics, a compatibilist view (which is what I’d be considered X2) has it that there exists no dichotomy between determinism and free will; both can be integrated into one’s belief system, based upon analogous phenomena including empirical knowledge from not only self-awareness (Being), but modern physics and abstract structures of our physical world (quantum indeterminism). In other words, the study of the subject-object dynamic make it possible to infer both free will and determinism are compatible.

As apposed to a thesis, this is more of a poll or query into how does an a-theist justify their belief system with respect to free will and determinism (to include both self-determination/biological determination and determination proper). My first question is:

Determinism seems inconsistent and/or counterintuitive to the a-theist's believe system since a determined world of cause and effect implies an ordered world (that includes a master organizer). How does the a-theist reconcile their self-determined free will with a highly complex ordered world of cause and effect?

As far as I can see, the clear picture of complex order is one of the reasons why I would not consider myself as an atheist. I definitely got to the point of examining the beliefs about religion(Roman Catholicism) and this included looking at science. In some ways, science seems to rule out the idea of God, but not completely because it does appear that there are such intricate patterns.

I know that I have many synchronicities, which may be about seeing these patterns. In some ways there are rational explanations for so much, but, even then, rationality is an order in it's own right, just as the stability of the laws of physics is about underlying order. Some may just see it is an underlying evolutionary development, like Stephen Hawking, and the evolution of consciousness as a factor. Nevertheless, it does seem that this consciousness is an underlying force, which may be like the idea of the Tao. This is the angle which some of the new physicists come to, including Paul Davies and Fritjof Capra. If anything, it may be that some previous ideas of God were too anthropomorphic.

Sometimes, it is easy to see such chaos in the world, and to be overwhelmed by the 'mess'. Here, it is easy to feel overwhelmed, especially when watching the news. I also find it hard to see the order in my own life and feel almost abandoned by any cosmic consciousness. However, it may be that there is so much to be unravelled on a personal level and that life comes with potential scope for finding new solution, and this is where the free will aspect comes in, as reflection on potential choices and pathways. In that respect, it is as if each person is part of the evolution of consciousness and part of the 'divine'. This way of seeing it is compatible with some kinds of theism, or with some forms of the Buddhist understanding of reality.

Hey Jack!

...you mentioned Paul Davies...of course The Mind of God is a good read which, oddly enough, covers the OP topics of determinism, indeterminism, free will, along with logical necessity and so on.

With respect to Stephen Hawking, of course, his infamous quote of “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" provides for an intriguing inference (and associated concepts) concerning some sense of an ordered world, along with having purposeful existence conducive to the emergence of self-aware conscious Beings... .

But back to a-theism. considering modern day discoveries in physics, ever wonder how an a-theist reconciles their belief system?

Strangely, in real life most of the people who I know believe in God, so most discussion which I have about atheism are online. Of course, not all atheists think identically, as, for example, Freud, Nietzsche and Marx all had different approaches. However, it is frequently based on the philosophy of realism , with the need for thought of 'God' not being necessary to understanding the nature of causality.

Also, it does seem that science has replaced religion for many. Darwin's theory of evolution seems to be a starting point, although Darwin was not an developing the argument with a view to the formation of an atheist system of belief. It seems that for many the idea of explanations for many of the 'mysterious' aspects of life seem to rule out a need to adopt a belief in God. This is frequently connected with the philosophy of materialism and the associated determinism. The idea of the 'supernatural' often causes difficulty for people, including the idea of life after death, which may be construed as a way of social control.

The idea of determinism in relation to God's existence is complicated as well because some religious believers didn't believe in free will, because they argued for predestination. It does not follow that all theists believe in free will, and many theists do follow a lot of ideas within science, without seeing the two religion and science as incompatible.

If anything, it may be that there is an entire spectrum of possibilities of belief or lack of belief in God, and, also, it depends on socialisation. I remember being at school as a young child, in classes with people who had not been brought up in any kind of religious background and they simply couldn't relate to the idea of God at all, because it was not within their frame of reference. It is also likely that early socialisation has pprofound lasting implications for general thinking at a deep level. For example, I am aware that the roots of my own ideas, including values, are based on the way I was encouraged to think and approach life as a child.

Also, there is the psychological aspects of choice of belief, and one of the reasons why I have mostly religious friends is because they find it helpful for coping with difficulties in life, in a meaningful way for them. In contrast, some people have struggled as a result of religion, especially with the guilt and fear associated with religious systems and this has led them to think their way through such ideas, and I can identify with that because fundamentalist approaches to religion can be so extremely narrow.

Jack!

With respect to Darwinism, don't forget not only is it just a theory (much like the BB) but even worse, much like no one knows where the Singularity came from in the BB theory, Darwin only hypothesized with an already existing ensemble of species; not 'the first one'.

So, no one really knows about how things emerge ex-nihilo.

[Pattern-chaser]

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of. The world is, I think, a mixture of chaos and order. How else could/should it be?

[3017Metaphysician]

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of. The world is, I think, a mixture of chaos and order. How else could/should it be?

PC!

Of course I know you're kidding . That would not align with how the world actually works. Randomness and indeterminism is far different than complete chaos.

Are you not able to answer the question? It's ok if you can't, but it only begs other questions about how you arrive at holding certain beliefs.... no?

[Pattern-chaser]

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of. The world is, I think, a mixture of chaos and order. How else could/should it be?

Of course I know you're kidding . That would not align with how the world actually works. Randomness and indeterminism is far different than complete chaos.

I was speaking generally, where "chaos" is no better than "randomness" or "indeterminism". But you derail us both if you think that "complete chaos" has much to do with this. Black and white are the extreme fence-posts; almost nothing happens there. The fence, dark grey to light grey, is where all the action is. In this example, it's where the world is: in the grey area. Chaos and order, or choose your preferred alternative synonyms.



P.S. I can answer your question; I have answered your question, but you chose not to recognise it as an answer. Look:

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of.

[3017Metaphysician]

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of. The world is, I think, a mixture of chaos and order. How else could/should it be?

Of course I know you're kidding . That would not align with how the world actually works. Randomness and indeterminism is far different than complete chaos.

I was speaking generally, where "chaos" is no better than "randomness" or "indeterminism". But you derail us both if you think that "complete chaos" has much to do with this. Black and white are the extreme fence-posts; almost nothing happens there. The fence, dark grey to light grey, is where all the action is. In this example, it's where the world is: in the grey area. Chaos and order, or choose your preferred alternative synonyms.



P.S. I can answer your question; I have answered your question, but you chose not to recognise it as an answer. Look:

With respect to your premise concerning an ordered world, one thought or question would be:

What then, in your view, requires an 'ordered world' to exist?

Nothing, that I know of.

Pc!

LOL. You don't seem to be very serious, at least enough to want to engage in discourse. It's as if you have no basic understanding in theoretical physics at all. Don't mean to be so brutally honest. A universe that lacks any degree of things like law, order, or regularity, in theory, either doesn't exist at all (or the way we understand how existing things exist) or is where chaos rules totally. Indeterminism and randomness in nature is again, different, and has been uncovered through quantum uncertainty via folks like Heisenberg, Godel, Turing... . I think you get that

Anthropic conditions don't emerge from any aspect of chaos. How is that possible? Randomness and indeterminism using your words, is obviously " better " than chaos. You seem to be suggesting that there are no differences. Do you think consciousness emerged from any aspects of chaos?

On the other hand, if you wish to argue for Multiverse with randomly selected inhabited worlds that are ordered in such a way that are essential to the preservation of life, I'm all ears. After all, I'm a big fan of synthetic a priori propositions!

Anyway, back to the central question that we're having fun with... . You seem to be suggesting nothing at requires something to exist. Please share your theory about how that is possible, if you are able?

[Pattern-chaser]

It's as if you have no basic understanding in theoretical physics at all.

In my younger days, soon after I graduated, I could explain Schrodinger's Wave Equation to you, and show you how to use it to determine how electrons tunnel through some semiconductor devices. I have a basic grounding in physics.

A universe that lacks any degree of things like law, order, or regularity, in theory, either doesn't exist at all...

Please read what I write. I have not suggested such a thing. I have suggested that the world probably needs both chaos and order, neither of them in its extreme and 'pure' state, of course.