06 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI believe Bbarr has already addressed the 'beginning' issue; he is
What explanation do atheists give for the existence of the physical world, both its beginning and current states?
agnostic about whether there was a beginning or whether the universe
is eternal. That is, we mark t=0 at the so-called Big Bang and the
knowledge that we are able to gain starts at that point, but that doesn't
preclude the possibility that there was something going on before then.
So, if your first question is asking 'What was there before the Big
Bang?,' then Bbarr (and many other atheists I have known) will answer
'I don't know.' As for the second question -- how do you account for
the current state of the physical world (given that it exists) -- that
question is so vast and broad, to answer it would entail encyclopedic
explanations. My answer is that the Big Bang happened, massive
amounts of energy and matter issued forth, the universe formed and
in that mess our world was formed, too. As for how our world ended
up the way it did, evolutionary theory -- from simple non-organism
molecules to more complex ones, to prokaryotes to eukaryotes,
simple to complex organisms, &c &c -- gives the best and most probable
response for the past few billion years' worth of biological growth on
this particular planet.
Is this the sort of answer you are looking for?
Nemesio
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAny atheist that defends mechanistic materialism (where there is casual determinism) must deny the advances done in quantum mechanics or axiomatically claim that the absence of pure casual determinism (same cause = same effect) in quantum mechanics is due to the shortcomings of the current state of knowledge.
I ask any of the proclaimed atheists if there be any school of atheistic thought which does not entail mechanistic materialsm?
I haven't found any atheist that makes that leap knowingly while admitting mechanistic materialism.
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioSomewhat. That bit where you said:
I believe Bbarr has already addressed the 'beginning' issue; he is
agnostic about whether there was a beginning or whether the universe
is eternal. That is, we mark t=0 at the so-called Big Bang and the
knowledge that we are able to gain starts at that point, but that doesn't
preclude the possibility that there was something going on before then.
So, ...[text shortened]...
this particular planet.
Is this the sort of answer you are looking for?
Nemesio
"from simple non-organism molecules to more complex ones, to prokaryotes to eukaryotes, simple to complex organisms..."
For the atheist, what law(s) govern this process? What is the mechanism or impetus?
06 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaWhich is precisely the point of this first stage. I ask again, what explanation does the atheist offer for the physical world and its current state?
Any atheist that defends mechanistic materialism (where there is casual determinism) must deny the advances done in quantum mechanics or axiomatically claim that the absence of pure casual determinism (same cause = same effect) in quantum mechanics is due to the shortcomings of the current state of knowledge.
I haven't found any atheist that makes that leap knowingly while admitting mechanistic materialism.
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNever mind the atheist, the scientist (irrespective of his/her stance on the existence of the
Which is precisely the point of this first stage. I ask again, what explanation does the atheist offer for the physical world and its current state?
Divine) doesn't assert that there exists a complete explanation for this. Bbarr referred to the
metaphysically random, and Palynka mentioned quantum physics which entails the denial of
one-to-one causality and the acceptance of randomness as part of the physical universe.
So, any explanation that you might get will necessarily entail a degree of randomness wherein
things happened without apparent or discernible causation.
Nemesio
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAgain, this belief doesn't require a particular stance on the Divine (as I am a theist of sorts).
For the atheist, what law(s) govern this process? What is the mechanism or impetus?
How did the first non-organism become the first bacterium? We only have some speculations with
some experiments trying to simulate the world 3.5 billion years ago. I'd turn to Scottishinnz for
a more detailed explanation, but it involves 'primordial soup,' lightning, heat and stuff like that.
We've been only running the experiments for a few decades and in a small environment, not a
biospheric one over millions of years, so it's only guesswork. I'm not in the field (and I don't read
much about it), so I don't know what advances have taken place in this field of inquiry.
It may be that the first one was merely an accident (due to the aforementioned randomness) that
turned out to be advantageous to the newly formed organism. Again, I'd have to defer to the
people who are experts in biology.
Nemesio
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm sure you'll find more than one explanation.
What explanation do atheists give for the existence of the physical world, both its beginning and current states?
Speaking for myself, an atheist, I don't think the available evidence warrants any positive belief concerning cosmological origins. I know some do not find that "satisfying", but I think that's the way it is. I also don't see any rational grounds for accepting the principle of sufficient reason, so we might just have to live with the ignorance.
Concerning "current states", my view certainly would not rely on "mechanistic materialism". In fact, I would say my view is neither mechanistic nor materialistic. At some point, you should probably clarify what you mean by "mechanistic materialism" because your claim that a majority of atheists endorse mechanistic materialism strikes me as absurd.
Or you could just get on with your argument designed to show that "reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it".
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMany atheists would make reference to evolutionary theory as the best supported, most plausible explanation available. So would many theists, by the way.
For the atheist, what law(s) govern this process? What is the mechanism or impetus?
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloA novel idea! I think you and I should both pray for this to happen. If it does, it would
Or you could just get on with your argument designed to show that "reason itself is reason enough to discount evolution and/or happenstance as the cause of life as we know it".
indubitably prove that prayer does indeed move mountains!
Nemesio
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioI'll pray with you. I actually am interested to hear what Freaky's argument is. If we could only get past this "first phase" as he calls it. Honestly, if the first phase was just to figure out if at least some atheistic stances do not entail mechanistic materialism, then I think bbarr already took care of that way back in post #2.
A novel idea! I think you and I should both pray for this to happen. If it does, it would
indubitably prove that prayer does indeed move mountains!
Nemesio
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by NemesioFreaky is famous for his interminable beating around the bush in the name of building some speculative argument. I think his grand strategy is simply to bore his opponents to death.
A novel idea! I think you and I should both pray for this to happen. If it does, it would
indubitably prove that prayer does indeed move mountains!
Nemesio
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDifferential survival, whether that is chemical stability, or the longevity of particular DNA sequences is inconsequential.
Somewhat. That bit where you said:
"from simple non-organism molecules to more complex ones, to prokaryotes to eukaryotes, simple to complex organisms..."
For the atheist, what law(s) govern this process? What is the mechanism or impetus?
07 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettI think his grand strategy is simply to bore his opponents to death.
Freaky is famous for his interminable beating around the bush in the name of building some speculative argument. I think his grand strategy is simply to bore his opponents to death.
Have I succeeded so soon?
To be fair, my assertion addresses the majority position of atheism, that of mechanistic materialism. While some fringe ideas have been presented here (see bbarr's agnostic stance toward the reality of the physical world, or a stab at perfect randomness), every reference to atheism that I have found supports the assertion that the majority position is as stated.
Were it not for contrariarns attempting to raise exceptions to the assertion (which indirectly support the claim), we would have been much farther along by this point. Not one person raising a voice in protest to the assertion has offered support for their disagreement, other than giving a minority (or, in bbarr's case, quite possibly a singular) view.
So, if we can get on with it...
Perhaps this can be accepted as a working definition of the commitment of the materialist:
1. Causation within the physical order is non-purposive.
2. The physical order is closed, and not influenced by anything outside.
3. All states supervene on physical states, i.e., there is only one way that anything not physical (biological, psychological, sociological, moral) can be.
Any arguments there?
07 Nov 06
At the risk of drawing this out any further, some points for clarification please.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
1. Causation within the physical order is non-purposive.
Non-purposive meaning what?
2. The physical order is closed, and not influenced by anything outside.
Physical order meaning what?
3. All states supervene on physical states, i.e., there is only one way that anything not physical (biological, psychological, sociological, moral) can be.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If the physical order is closed, to what extent can anything not-physical exist? And if it does, how can it have any bearing on a closed physical system?