Atheism - How can one lack belief?

[theleftone]

I am looking for someone to explain to me (a) the concept of "lacking a belief in the existence of any deities," and (b) how one can truly maintain a position once coming into contact with the concept of a deity. Thus, my questions would be as follows.

1. What does it mean to "lack belief in the existence of any deities?"
2. Is it possible for one to have such a "lack of belief?"
3. Is it possible for one to maintain such a position after being introduced to the concept of a deity?
4. If so, to number 3, how?

[harvey1]

But, why do the properties of matter and energy restrict what can happen next with respect to matter and energy? Are you saying it is impossible for matter/energy to act without humans having laws to describe it? Why?

nature will behave according to it's properties whether humans exist and make laws or not. What is impossible is for those immaterial laws to change or cause nature's behavior, the best they can do is describe what nature does and give us tools to predict(but not dictate) what will happen next. Our understanding, or even cognizance, is not required for nature to do what it will do anyway.

It sure sounds like you are saying that these properties of nature are determined by intrinsic laws of nature? Is that true?

Nature never tries to do what is not possible because it has no means to violate it's properties, this would take intent, something nature does not have.

So, the properties of nature are necessary? Necessary means that they are determined by law.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

It sure sounds like you are saying that these properties of nature are determined by intrinsic laws of nature? Is that true?

I am saying that these properties are what we observe in order to formulate laws, that those formulated laws exist only in your head, that those laws have no constraining power over nature and that what is intrinsic in nature are those properties. In the material world those laws do not exist or determine anything. THERE ARE NO LAWS OF NATURE outside of your(or my) head. Those laws are simply the best model of the real world we can formulate, a picture of reality, if you will.

So, the properties of nature are necessary? Necessary means that they are determined by law.

You have consistently failed to show this to be true.The properties exist, they do not need your(or my) permission to do so. They exist because they are part of what it is to exist in this universe, they were set when the universe condensed out of the energy that erupted from the Big Bang. Everything that followed was determined by those properties,not your mental model of them. You and your philosopical gymnastics are supremely unimportant to the universe.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

So, the properties of nature are necessary? Necessary means that they are determined by law.

You have consistently failed to show this to be true.The properties exist, they do not need your(or my) permission to do so. They exist because they are part of what it is to exist in this universe, they were set when the universe condensed out of the energy that erupted from the Big Bang. Everything that followed was determined by those properties,not your mental model of them.

Okay, so if the properties of the universe are contingent, then nothing necessarily keeps the properties as they have been. That's what contingent means. It's not for you or I to say that the universe must have these properties in the next millenium, or the next second for that matter. Your approach allows for supernatural events since what is supernatural today may not be supernatural tomorrow if we follow your view to its logical implication.

[bernee51]

Your approach allows for supernatural events since what is supernatural today may not be supernatural tomorrow if we follow your view to its logical implication.

If I may comment briefly....
Why do you have a problem with this? If something happens in the known universe it must be 'natural'. Nothing can occur that is 'suopernatural'. If we propose that something may happen outside of the constraints of the natural universe, it would by definition, be 'supernatural'. We may be able to imagine such things happening but that imagining doesn't mean they have or will happen. If there was a fundamental change in the known universe (or perhaps our understanding of it) to allow such 'supernatural imaginings' to happen, they would no longer be supernatural but natural occurances. We would have been mistaken in assuming they were supernatural.

Our ancestors may have seen thunder and lightning, or volcanic eruptions, or eclipses to be of supernatural happenings, with imaginings of godly intervention and direct causation. Our perception of of the universe has proven them to be purely natural.

[Grumpy]

harvey1 wrote

Quote:
So, the properties of nature are necessary? Necessary means that they are determined by law.

You have consistently failed to show this to be true.The properties exist, they do not need your(or my) permission to do so. They exist because they are part of what it is to exist in this universe, they were set when the universe condensed out of the energy that erupted from the Big Bang. Everything that followed was determined by those properties,not your mental model of them.

Okay, so if the properties of the universe are contingent, then nothing necessarily keeps the properties as they have been. That's what contingent means. It's not for you or I to say that the universe must have these properties in the next millenium, or the next second for that matter. Your approach allows for supernatural events since what is supernatural today may not be supernatural tomorrow if we follow your view to its logical implication.

The structure of the universe was frozen when energy condensed into matter, the basic properties of the universe(speed of light, gravity, etc.) can be observed directly to well past 90% of the total time the universe has existed to be the same as they are now, having been the same throughout those billions of years and there is no reason to expect them to change in the future. There is more evidence of this in our universe than there is proof that the sun will "rise" in the morning. While the probability of these properties changing is infinitesimal, it is not 0. The possibility you posit above is contained in that infinitesimal but not zero probability, hope you don't mind if I don't hold my breath, OK??? That is the real results of following my logic. The gaps where you can slip your god in are looking slimmer and slimmer.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

Your approach allows for supernatural events since what is supernatural today may not be supernatural tomorrow if we follow your view to its logical implication.

Why do you have a problem with this? If something happens in the known universe it must be 'natural'. Nothing can occur that is 'suopernatural'. If we propose that something may happen outside of the constraints of the natural universe, it would by definition, be 'supernatural'. We may be able to imagine such things happening but that imagining doesn't mean they have or will happen. If there was a fundamental change in the known universe (or perhaps our understanding of it) to allow such 'supernatural imaginings' to happen, they would no longer be supernatural but natural occurances. We would have been mistaken in assuming they were supernatural.

If the properties of the universe are contingent, then so are the laws that it runs by, and so are the violation of those laws. That means in effect that what today is supernatural because it would violate natural laws (as they are today), would be supernatural occurrences if they were to occur at all. I think your definition of supernatural would be the case no matter what. If God capriciously interferred today (or the properties of the universe capriciously changed) by making a giant eyeball appear over New Dehli, that would be a natural occurrence by your definition--a supernatural occurrence by everyone else's definition.

[harvey1]

The structure of the universe was frozen when...

Of course, that "frozen" part is dependent on the properties of the universe which are contingent (i.e., there is no law that makes them what they are).

there is no reason to expect them to change in the future. There is more evidence of this in our universe than there is proof that the sun will "rise" in the morning.

If there is nothing that necessarily makes the universe act or behave parsimoniously, then there is no algorithm that drives the "output" of the universe. Of course, even somewhere in pi is the hexadecimal representation (assuming ASCII format) of the complete work of Hamlet stated an infinite number of times (assuming the digits of pi occur randomly). However, there are also many more infinite numbers of very partial Hamlets that diverge off into random sequences. This is because the digits of pi are contingently occurring being that there is no apparent algorithm that forces a particular well-ordered sequence. As each sequence moves closer and closer to finishing the complete work of Hamlet, the likelihood of the next digit being a typo or a complete divergence (in ASCII format) is outstandingly great. This would seem to say that any argument for a contingent origin of the properties of the universe makes each and every second that is "natural" extremely unlikely.

[QED]

If there is nothing that necessarily makes the universe act or behave parsimoniously, then there is no algorithm that drives the "output" of the universe. Of course, even somewhere in pi is the hexadecimal representation (assuming ASCII format) of the complete work of Hamlet stated an infinite number of times (assuming the digits of pi occur randomly). However, there are also many more infinite numbers of very partial Hamlets that diverge off into random sequences. This is because the digits of pi are contingently occurring being that there is no apparent algorithm that forces a particular well-ordered sequence. As each sequence moves closer and closer to finishing the complete work of Hamlet, the likelihood of the next digit being a typo or a complete divergence (in ASCII format) is outstandingly great. This would seem to say that any argument for a contingent origin of the properties of the universe makes each and every second that is "natural" extremely unlikely.

Where's the best place to have an argument over this? You raised it The First Cause Argument topic where I pointed out that

This argument about higher orders of infinities applying to nearly but not quite complete Hamlets is very shrewd, but it needn't apply to the situation we're considering. Yes, if every fundamental interaction is being played out according to some such bizarre random sequence then it would, as you say, inevitably (i.e be infinitely more likely to) go "off the rails" at any moment. But we can argue that the job has been done already, with the sequence ending at the beginning of our time and with our physics evolving as a product of that event. So the physical laws would be liberated from the contingencies that gave rise to them and we would get to bask in their stability.

In other words what's to stop a random sequence of "ordered" events (like the ones you suggest are just about to come to an end) resulting in a new level of order that is self-sustaining?

[harvey1]

Where's the best place to have an argument over this? You raised it The First Cause Argument topic where I pointed out that

Grumpy has been changing back and forth, so this is where he settled upon in his responses. His responses have been a day or two behind your's, so that's why that happened.

Although, how about this. I'll attack atheism here as implying that supernaturalism is true (i.e., we ought to infintely expect the next events in the universe to diverge into irrational events), and I'll argue for necessity of God as a "first cause" there. Unfortunately these arguments overlap, but what can I do?

his argument about higher orders of infinities applying to nearly but not quite complete Hamlets is very shrewd, but it needn't apply to the situation we're considering. Yes, if every fundamental interaction is being played out according to some such bizarre random sequence then it would, as you say, inevitably (i.e be infinitely more likely to) go "off the rails" at any moment. But we can argue that the job has been done already, with the sequence ending at the beginning of our time and with our physics evolving as a product of that event. So the physical laws would be liberated from the contingencies that gave rise to them and we would get to bask in their stability.

In other words what's to stop a random sequence of "ordered" events (like the ones you suggest are just about to come to an end) resulting in a new level of order that is self-sustaining?

Well, assuming that there is a new level of order that is self-sustaining, what prevents that new level of order from suddenly disappearing?

[QED]

Well, assuming that there is a new level of order that is self-sustaining, what prevents that new level of order from suddenly disappearing?

Independence day -- I would have thought you could identify with that. It sounds like your saying things like principles of conservation cannot be the product of physical constraints within a closed system but that they must rely upon some metaphysical maintenance program to keep things in check. I think we all know that whatever we've been riding on for 14 billion years or so isn't the continued output of some random sequence. Science characterizes it all as an evolving process.