Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]And no, the multiverse concept did not, to my understanding, arise among theoretical physicists out of a desire to explain "fine-tuning" (which itself, again, is a debatable "problem" since we cannot know under what conditions life can arise).

AGAIN, cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe being conducive to life. Not ...[text shortened]... t give you a free pass to be ignorant of the issue being discussed or to debate poorly.[/b]

AGAIN, cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe being conducive to life. Nothing. At all. Please understand, the initial conditions are finely tuned, and this would be true whether or not life existed. Quite apart from considerations of the anthropic principle, scientists have to contend with the fine-tuning problem because it is a fact about our universe. The initial conditions began in a state of low entropy—this requires an explanation.

Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

Huh? What the heck does that mean? That you're just B.S.-ing? If so, I have to ask, why am I even wasting my time discussing this topic with you? C'mon, dude, get it together! Simply because I'm a theist, doesn't give you a free pass to be ignorant of the issue being discussed or to debate poorly.

Why are you losing your cool now? I made that one glib post (one of the few short ones that was meant to be glib) where I mentioned the "sky is blue" thing, and you haven't let go of it since. It was an attempt at humor; although, perhaps poorly conceived.

I think I have it together, dude. The only thing that could be at issue is whether I'm conveying my ideas clearly and precisely enough.

Originally posted by JS357
We need "The universe is a whatever."

Seriously. It might instead be a uncaused thing. Or more precisely, causality might not apply to its beginning, only to its constituent parts.

But that is to be determined.

Secondly, we need to determine what kind of thing causality is. Is it a principle of thought, an assumption we make that makes the world intel ...[text shortened]... to the universe, or would be as an a priori fact. Philosophers disagree on what causality is.

Secondly, we need to determine what kind of thing causality is. Is it a principle of thought, an assumption we make that makes the world intelligible, an a priori fact, or an a posteriori fact.

The scientific enterprise is dependent on the reality of causality, i.e., the notion that current physical conditions were preceded and caused by prior physical conditions. If the universe is infinitely old, these prior physical conditions will continue backwards forever. However, no one believes anymore that our universe has always existed. At some point in the finite past, the universe began to exist. It is perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation for that beginning, based on the metaphysical principle of causality.

Originally posted by Soothfast
[quote]AGAIN, cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe being conducive to life. Nothing. At all. Please understand, the initial conditions are finely tuned, and this would be true whether or not life existed. Quite apart from considerations of the anthropic principle, scientists have to contend with the fine-tuning problem beca g that could be at issue is whether I'm conveying my ideas clearly and precisely enough.

Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

This Wikipedia page is discussing fine-tuning for life. That's a separate issue. What cosmologists wrestle with is why the initial conditions are as they are, and not something else. If there are other universes, then, perhaps, the initial conditions of our universe need not be considered remarkable, or at least less so. As it stands, however, the only evidence we have is that our universe began as it did, seemingly readymade, replete with physical laws and cosmological constants. If that doesn't cause you to wonder, then I don't know what will.

I made that one glib post (one of the few short ones that was meant to be glib) where I mentioned the "sky is blue" thing, and you haven't let go of it since. It was an attempt at humor; although, perhaps poorly conceived.... I think I have it together, dude. The only thing that could be at issue is whether I'm conveying my ideas clearly and precisely enough.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

This Wikipedia page is discussing fine-tuning for life. That's a separate issue. What cosmologists wrestle with is why the initial conditions are as they are, and not something else. If there are other universes, then, perhaps, the initial conditions of our universe need not be c issue is whether I'm conveying my ideas clearly and precisely enough.[/b]

Fair enough.[/b]

This Wikipedia page is discussing fine-tuning for life. That's a separate issue. What cosmologists wrestle with is why the initial conditions are as they are, and not something else. If there are other universes, then, perhaps, the initial conditions of our universe need not be considered remarkable, or at least less so. As it stands, however, the only evidence we have is that our universe began as it did, seemingly readymade, replete with physical laws and cosmological constants. If that doesn't cause you to wonder, then I don't know what will.

It's the only kind of "fine-tuning" definition I've ever heard of, and the kind Stephen Hawking, say, discusses occasionally. So I guess part of the problem here is that we've got different definitions for this term. But a quick search of cyberspace only brings up the definition I'm using -- having to do with life.

As for your fine-tuning issue, well, honestly, I do not perceive the relevance to our debate concerning a god. Cosmologists in a trillion intrinsically different universes could be asking why their universe is put together the way it is, and not in some other way. It's an interesting question, yes, but tangential to my arguments. I'd likely invoke the anthropic principle here, if put to it.

Edit: I have now found some sites discussing, as far as I know, the stripe of fine-tuning you're on about.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Secondly, we need to determine what kind of thing causality is. Is it a principle of thought, an assumption we make that makes the world intelligible, an a priori fact, or an a posteriori fact.

The scientific enterprise is dependent on the reality of causality, i.e., the notion that current physical conditions were preceded and caused by [i]pri ...[text shortened]... e to demand an explanation for that beginning, based on the metaphysical principle of causality.[/b]

I disagree with the idea of the scientific enterprise being dependent on the REALITY of causality. I won't belabor it, only to say that science has a commitment to certain methodologies and principles of thought. There is no necessity for a metaphysical commitment of any kind, whether to atheism or causality or the Razor.

You state that the principle of causality is metaphysical. Any metaphysical character imputed to causality is not imputed to it as necessary for doing science.

So while the claim is made that it is perfectly reasonable to demand an explanation for that beginning, based on the [so-called, I insert] metaphysical principle of causality, the reasoning for that position has not, IMO, been successfully made, because the metaphysical nature and applicability of the principle of causality to the matter has not been shown -- and cannot be shown, I believe at this point in time.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Read these recently on another website, thought they were pretty interesting food for thought... for those inclined.

• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?

• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of ob ...[text shortened]... ry? Why can't it simply be ignored? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?

The thing is if you are going to judge one thing as better than another you
must have a value system in place where you can make such judgments. Since
an Atheist can call whatever he or she wants as important, or give one point
of view more value than another, I don't see how it could be anything other
than personal taste nothing more for the Atheist. After all if the Atheist values
human life than how actions touch human life is valued by that; however, if
there are any "exceptions" the Atheist can devalue one over another as they
see fit with just cause, at least they can make the claim anyway no matter
how they call it good or bad. It sill boils down to nothing more than personal
taste and the value system of the day. If there are so called social norms they
want to use, than they can pick what they deem as an acceptable social norm
and run with it, exceptions can be brought as needed or wanted, after all there
are no rules except those that they make up as they go.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The thing is if you are going to judge one thing as better than another you
must have a value system in place where you can make such judgments. Since
an Atheist can call whatever he or she wants as important, or give one point
of view more value than another, I don't see how it could be anything other
than personal taste nothing more for the Atheist. A ...[text shortened]... ed or wanted, after all there
are no rules except those that they make up as they go.
Kelly

If this is you walking your faith, I suggest you pick up after it.

Originally posted by JS357
Secondly, we need to determine what kind of thing causality is. Is it a principle of thought, an assumption we make that makes the world intelligible, an a priori fact, or an a posteriori fact. I think the only compelling justification for saying it applies to the universe, or would be as an a priori fact. Philosophers disagree on what causality is.

However we decide to define causality, one thing is fairly certain (I think): causality cannot exist apart from the physical dimension of time, simply because time will be a necessary component of any definition of causality.

And what is time? Digging up what I remember from a relativity course I took years ago, the stuff of time is events: physical events in one or more spatial dimensions. If nothing ever happened in the universe, that is, everything stayed in exactly the same position and same energy state from one moment to the next moment, then there would be no way to distinguish one "moment" from another, and thus time (as a dimension) is not only irrelevant but in fact nonexistent. Thus, time is not something that has any sort of substance or "body" to it that can exist apart from a physical system -- which is to say, a system consisting of energy and/or matter of some kind; but a physical system, while necessary, is not sufficient. Things must change in the system for there to be time. (There's also the issue of time having a "direction," which is another interesting topic that could be explored at some later temporal coordinate. 😉 )

Does the Big Bang have a "cause"? If we answer with "yes," then we're taking the Big Bang to be an effect of a cause that preceded it, in which case the flow of time does not begin at the Big Bang but rather precedes it by at least some small measure. However, the universe may have begun spontaneously, much as in the widely accepted theory of quantum mechanics a so-called "virtual particle" can spontaneously appear from a vacuum, exist for a fleeting instant, and then disappear. It is bizarre stuff that upset Einstein himself to no end and seems to violate the sacred principle of the conservation of energy, but it is (as I recall) a natural consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. A virtual particle does not really have a "cause" as such, aside from the dictates of mathematical probability. By the same token, then, the Big Bang need not have a cause.

I propose that the ultimate physical "law," and the only one that governs the "multiverse" as a whole and is not restricted to the confines of this universe within it or that, is really a mathematical law: the "law of random chance," which in effect is the law of no law. I tread here into waters that meet the shores of many current multiverse models, I believe, though I will not swear to it. And what gave rise to this law of random chance? Nothing. It is a mathematical concept. Ask this question: what gave rise to the integer 3? Nothing: it is again a purely mathematical concept.

Random chance is like the quintessential "impersonal god". It has no favorites and no biases, because a random process is by definition a process in which all possible outcomes have the same probability of occurring. It makes more sense to me. A "personal god" with a purpose and a plan shatters that beautiful symmetry by introducing biases. A personal god of the biblical sort is much more complex than impersonal chance alone, as I (more or less) said earlier: for now there is not only bias that ruins symmetry, there is a personality, a thought process, a purpose to the thought process which produces a plan, and then arbitrary powers to put the plan into action. All of which is unnecessary if we merely allowed a simple, blind, random process run through trillions upon trillions of trials until a universe with conditions suitable for life is spontaneously birthed. No bias here, just a nonzero probability which translates into the idea that "it was bound to happen eventually".

Once a nice universe such as this one is birthed, natural processes arrange the matter and energy within its confines until, say, planets form. Physical processes lead to chemical ones, which in turn lead to biological ones with the development of the first coacervates...

Originally posted by JS357
I don't. Revelation has no test for authenticity and reliability.

To the person whose sole arbiter is his own mind, nothing can be verified.

Originally posted by JS357
If this is you walking your faith, I suggest you pick up after it.

You think personal taste isn't the bottom line in morals for those that do not
have an outside moral compass? By all means enlighten me on how I am
wrong! Like all things that require a judgment you need something to measure
against, if you don't know which way is up, you'll never know if you are flying
upside down.
Kelly

Originally posted by Soothfast

Either I failed to clearly articulate the argument or you have missed it. One of the main points was that the atheist who claims that existence has always been is just as guilty of short-circuiting explanation as the theist who ends all discussion with the dismissive 'goddunnit' proclamation.

That's what I wanted: at the very least, equal g ...[text shortened]... time, I'm out of it at the moment.[/b]

That's what I wanted: at the very least, equal guilt.
You no get.

I am not advocating that both are wrong; I am merely pointing out that both are essentially claims about how things came to be. On one side, the creation has always been. On the other side, creation was caused by an agent who has always been.

This levels the playing field, removes the double-standard, and puts the onus on the theist to start trying to explain the origins of their god, just as the atheist is expected to account for the origins of the universe.
The theist cannot explain what cannot be explained, whereas the atheist cannot explain away reality. Either God is transcendent, or nothing is.

There isn't much different between the two, really.
I rescind my earlier statement. Now, you get.

In essence, the theist argument is that the bedrock of reality -- the source of all things -- is Thought.
So, you're a closet theist, eh?

Why would such an entity come first, and simpler things like humans come later? It's upside-down logic.
You are laboring under a few misconceptions here. God didn't come first: He has always been. In a creation scenario, I would expect to see said creation less complex than its creator--- in fact, I cannot think of a single created thing that was more complex than its creator. Can you?

Possibilities of higher and alternate states of dimensionality don't even register on your radar.
Really? Is your head so full of your own viewpoint that you missed such a basic component of theism?

We hold that, before time was created, God existed. There's a higher and alternate state of dimensionality.

We hold that, upon His resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ received a body which not only allowed Him to walk through wall, but was capable of space travel. There's another higher and alternate state of dimensionality.

We hold that, at the end of human history, a new universe will be created and that His followers will reside in this paradise forever. There's yet another higher and alternate state of dimensionality.

We hold that, until that time, there exists a hidden spiritual plane of existence, inhabited by angels, both fallen and chosen. There's another higher and alternate state of dimensionality.

Do you know what "time" is defined to be?
Sure.

The idea of a "beginning" to all of reality, for instance, is problematic and leads to all sorts of paradoxes that a god, however omnipotent, cannot fix.
Problematic though it might be for your argument, the general supportable consensus points to a beginning. I cannot think of one paradox in that reality. What did you have in mind?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think personal taste isn't the bottom line in morals for those that do not
have an outside moral compass? By all means enlighten me on how I am
wrong! Like all things that require a judgment you need something to measure
against, if you don't know which way is up, you'll never know if you are flying
upside down.
Kelly

I don't know if you are a parent. I will enlighten you on how you are wrong. Moral codes are passed on within a society before a person has much in the way of personal taste or the ability to express/act on it. Personal taste is not available to the 2 or 3 year old. Nor was it available to the child's parent's when they were 2 or 3. In the early years there is a lot of teaching by admonition - "We don't do that, Kelly," or "You are a nice boy to share your toys with RJ like that," - together with reward and punishment - and by example. One of the very first moral lessons is to be obedient to your parents and the people they tell you to be obedient to, like your babysitter.

The moral code of a society group, etc. is passed on primarily being taught parent to child, although teachers and priests and other influencers get involved later on.

Most if not all societies enshrine their moral code in religion which tends to give the moral code divine authority (the Uberparent and the human priests representing Him) and which tends to stabilize the moral code with respect to outside influences. There are other benefits and a few risks to this enshrinement, that we need not go into here.

Backing up the enshrinement even more, is enshrinement in love of community, group, country. Government doesn't just obtain compliance to the standards of society by law enforcement, it also serves as a rallying point for a people to adhere to the standards of society out of love of homeland, heritage, etc. On a smaller scale, various local institutions, whether it is the Boy Scouts or the Rotary Club, work within communities to uphold certain ideals and standards.

So you see, I hope, that there is an outside moral compass that influences everyone in a community. It is the society that the individual is in. The society will, consciously or not, enshrine its moral codes, ideals and standards in whatever institutions exist that can assist in their being followed. That includes religion. God didn't install a society's moral code in their religion, the society did.

You don't have special moral status just because you think that God is the author of your moral code. I think you should not judge others simply on the basis of whether they believe the way you do. It is simple prejudice -- pre-judging-- to do that instead of judging them on what they either say is moral, or, better, on what they do. That prejudice disgusts me.

So if you are flying upside down, first your parents will tell you which way is up, then your teachers, your priests, other elders, friends, community leaders and public role models, and if necessary, the government.

I could go on. I think you really should look into 'stages of moral development' by say, googling on that term.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
God didn't come first: He has always been.

If this explanation is permitted, then nothing should prevent us from asking if something simpler than it is possible, having the same attribute of having "always been," and yet not conscious, personal or omniscient. Some ongoing random process, say, that endlessly generates universes with randomly varying attributes, until one is produced that is conducive to life (i.e. nice cosmological constants, low initial entropy, etc.) I direct you to my previous post for more on this.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In a creation scenario, I would expect to see said creation less complex than its creator--- in fact, I cannot think of a single created thing that was more complex than its creator. Can you?

Yes, gobs and scads and multitudes. If we just want to confine ourselves to this universes alone, which should be sufficient, we can watch as a simple cloud of interstellar gas and dust coalesces over time to produce a system of stars and planets. Clearly we cannot wait around long enough to see any one gas cloud go through this whole process, but we can observe many different systems in various stages of stellar development and put the pieces together.

Something perhaps more clear cut: the Miller-Urey experiments, in which very basic chemical ingredients were subjected to sparks from electrodes over a protracted period, with the end result being the synthesis of many of the amino acids needed for living metabolisms (at least, metabolisms that we know of). The states of the matter inside the experiment's flasks, then, became more complex than their initial states, meaning they were states that were less probable to form spontaneously by chance (this essentially is the physical definition of "complexity" and/or "order" ).

There are other examples of open thermodynamic systems that increase in complexity and order over time, and of closed thermodynamic systems that form localized complexity and order (an example of the latter being the universe itself).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]That's what I wanted: at the very least, equal guilt.
You no get.

I am not advocating that both are wrong; I am merely pointing out that both are essentially claims about how things came to be. On one side, the creation has always been. On the other side, creation was caused by an agent who has always been.

This levels the playing field, ...[text shortened]... nning. I cannot think of one paradox in that reality. What did you have in mind?

Quote: "...in fact, I cannot think of a single created thing that was more complex than its creator. Can you? "

In the divine-creator sense of the word 'created,' I can't think of a single created thing.