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]

We have good reason... in postulating that there is a material world.

Yet we are poorly placed to reference such claims to any absolutes. I think you might be filtering my words through your impression of me as an arch materialist again.

Okay, I didn't think you would argue that point, but the fact is that you did.

From a purely philosophical view, you are right, the world may not be material at all. That's what idealists might say. However, that's not what I mean. I mean that we have good reason to say that the world around us has "stuff" with kickable properties that cause us to say, "ah, stuff." I hope you would at least grant that, right?

Well then, I think you are being radical. In order to make your point you have to draw a line at something arbitrary like leptons, quarks etc. being material. Again, this is fine for practical purposes in the applied (kickable) sciences but I think you are mistaken to take this differentiation and run with it in a philosophical sense.

When I refer to material, what I'm referring to is that there is a phenological existence to things. Even in math or logic, there is a phenological existence to things. That's why logic has qualifiers such as the existential quantifier. It means that something exists. But there are other symbols in logic that do not refer to something phenological. For example, sentential connectives (e.g., implication), truth, interpretations, etc..

When I speak of quarks and leptons, it really doesn't matter if there is something else in reality (e.g., strings and loops, etc.), eventually by precepts of logic there must be something phenological that must be referred to (even if it is nothing at all--such as, there exists nothing). The logic of nothing (i.e., no spacetime, no fields, no potentials, etc.), for example, is immaterial since there is nothing phenological that we could in principle refer to other than nothing.

Therefore, when I'm talking about a material/immaterial divide, I'm really saying that in order to be talking about a rational world (versus a mystical world where nothing can be known), there must exist phenology of some sort, and that's what science observes. There must also exist a logic behind that phenology, and that's what science cannot observe because it is metaphysical. It is behind the curtain. The world could always behave quite randomly and whimsically. The world might be composed of what is "immaterial" in the absolute sense, as the idealist says, but there is still a phenological world being discussed in order to fulfill the obligation to have a rational conception of the world.

As with Plato's allegory of the cave, the HP tells us that our perceived realities are all just shadows on the walls of some higher dimensional cave. In M-theory the cave would be a 5-D spacetime and our 4-D world would be the boundary of that 5-D spacetime. So if everything accessible to us is no more than a shadow of something else then what rights do we have in designating anything as material or immaterial?

If a phenology underlies our world, then in principle it is "material" meaning that there is "stuff" that has kickable properties. Take the worst case scenario that the world was born from nothing (i.e., no spacetime). This "nothing" could have kickable properties if it could be shown how a universe tunneling from nothing (e.g., Vilenkin's model) would have a certain signature that astrophysicists or particle physicists could detect. If it made a great deal of success at predicting these signatures, then a universe from "nothing" model would be a full-fledged theory on the origin of the world. Nothing would be "material" in the sense that it has a physical signature.

This demonstrates why this material/immaterial divide is justified, and indeed is required to have a rational conception of the world. Of course, we could always become mystics, but the purpose of science is to take discovery to its natural rational limits, which means coming to the point where the absolute phenology and the absolute principles have been discovered. That is, science cannot find any more cause to seek deeper since such a final theory meets all the requirements of scientific theories and nothing more can be found to elaborate on what has been discovered. It would be a boring world after such a discovery (if it's even possible), but this is the goal of science. I can show you TOE quotes by famous scientists which suggest this aim.

[Bugmaster]

When I refer to material, what I'm referring to is that there is a phenological existence to things.

Sorry, what does "phenological" mean, exactly ? Also, are you saying that the existential quantifier ("there exists X where foo(X) is Y") actually refers to objects in the real world ?

The logic of nothing (i.e., no spacetime, no fields, no potentials, etc.), for example, is immaterial since there is nothing phenological that we could in principle refer to other than nothing.

So, you're saying that "nothing" doesn't technically exist, therefore our concept of "nothing" must refer to an immaterial "nothing" object that exists. That seems contradictory to me.

Nothing would be "material" in the sense that it has a physical signature.

If it has a material signature, then it's not "nothing", because a material signature is already "something" :-)

[harvey1]

Sorry, what does "phenological" mean, exactly? Also, are you saying that the existential quantifier ("there exists X where foo(X) is Y") actually refers to objects in the real world?

No. I'm saying that to assert that something exists is to say that it has phenological existence. Phenological existence is a primitive in logic and math, so it is a primitive in any rational scheme (since rationality depends on some conception of logic/math).

So, you're saying that "nothing" doesn't technically exist, therefore our concept of "nothing" must refer to an immaterial "nothing" object that exists. That seems contradictory to me.

No. Nothing might have technically existed at the beginning. In which case it would be the phenological state of the world at the beginning.

If it has a material signature, then it's not "nothing", because a material signature is already "something"

The "nothing" means a phenological state. If "nothing" logically implies the phenological existence of "something," then a signature would come from "something" that could only imply there was at the beginning "nothing."

[Grumpy]

harvey1

No. I'm saying that to assert that something exists is to say that it has phenological existence. Phenological existence is a primitive in logic and math, so it is a primitive in any rational scheme (since rationality depends on some conception of logic/math).

Math/logic do not rule nature, they describe what it does. Any "law" we derive from math/logic is just a description of that behavior we have never seen violated. We depend on these"laws" to be able to predict what nature will do next, to know what to expect, we call that property of nature(it always acts in ways we describe as laws) "casuality" Which has never been seen to have been violated.

Both laws and casuality are just our best description of the way nature acts, a photograph of reality,having no reality or influence in the material world. Were we(or other intelligence) not here to contain those laws within our mind, they would not exist, yet nature would not notice the difference, it would go on acting according to it's intrinsic rules. Argument in this area would seem to support lack of counsiousness of the universe, not the reverse.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

This statement is false. Reality does not obey any immaterial rules, natures rules are built in by the structure of the universe

Okay, what structures the universe?

in other words if a world would violate the limits of nature no possible combination of events will allow that world to come into being.

What do you mean by possible?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Okay, what structures the universe?

You will need to be talking to the cosmologists and particle physicists, you'll find both studying that very thing at places like CERN or NASA. The answer is not to be found in navel gazing, but you can guess all you like.

What do you mean by possible?

That which can be, given the nature of the universe.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

Okay, what structures the universe?

You will need to be talking to the cosmologists and particle physicists, you'll find both studying that very thing at places like CERN or NASA.

Thanks for the suggestion. I checked Fermi Labs since that's closer to my house, and here's what Fermi said:

The outcome of each collision has many possibilities, whose probabilities are described using the quantum theories of the Standard Model. The details of each collision are constrained by the law of energy conservation, one of the fundamental physics laws.

So, it appears that after taking your advice I'm told that the laws of nature (e.g., quantum laws and energy conservation) structure nature. Hmm... it looks like you have it backwards.

What do you mean by possible?

That which can be, given the nature of the universe.

Okay, now that I have your definition, let me substitute the word "possible" with your definition and let's see what you said here:

The limits inherent in nature insure that worlds [which can[not] be, given the nature of the universe]... never had a chance to exist, in other words if a world would violate the limits of nature no... combination of events [which can[not] be, given the nature of the universe] will allow that world to come into being.

You are basically saying that nature only allows worlds which nature allows. Of course, that only begs the question on what could nature allow given that nature allows only what it allows. It suggests the possibility that a supernatural occurrence is not forbidden since there is nothing that determines what nature allows but it's own behavior.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Quote:
The outcome of each collision has many possibilities, whose probabilities are described using the quantum theories of the Standard Model. The details of each collision are constrained by the law of energy conservation, one of the fundamental physics laws.

So, it appears that after taking your advice I'm told that the laws of nature (e.g., quantum laws and energy conservation) structure nature. Hmm... it looks like you have it backwards.

It appears you either don't understand English or you are ignoring the operative word in the concepts. The actual itrinsic properties of matter and energy are what determine how they behave. They are not the same as a rule you make up and try to say it determines what the universe can and cannot do! That law(the one in your head) may have great accurracy or predictive powers but it in no way enforces or dictates anything nature does, that is just nonsense!

The limits inherent in nature insure that worlds [which can[not] be, given the nature of the universe]... never had a chance to exist, in other words if a world would violate the limits of nature no... combination of events [which can[not] be, given the nature of the universe] will allow that world to come into being.

You are basically saying that nature only allows worlds which nature allows. Of course, that only begs the question on what could nature allow given that nature allows only what it allows. It suggests the possibility that a supernatural occurrence is not forbidden since there is nothing that determines what nature allows but it's own behavior.

That's a leap too far!!! Nature shows no need or ability to create anything outside of(super to) itself, you have no evidence of that creation and, besides, nature behaves the way it does because of the properties of the matter and energy making up the universe, no intelligence required.

Grumpy 8)

[harvey1]

The actual itrinsic properties of matter and energy are what determine how they behave.

Why must these intrinsic properties determine how they behave? Can't you have a situation where matter and energy behave indeterminantly?

You are basically saying that nature only allows worlds which nature allows. Of course, that only begs the question on what could nature allow given that nature allows only what it allows. It suggests the possibility that a supernatural occurrence is not forbidden since there is nothing that determines what nature allows but it's own behavior.

That's a leap too far!!! Nature shows no need or ability to create anything outside of(super to) itself

If "the object will never act in any other way but the one allowed by it's intrinsic limits," then why are those intrinsic limits based on the restriction of what we have observed in the past? Or, why are those intrinsic limits based on nature's inability to act without logical reason altogether?

you have no evidence of that creation and, besides, nature behaves the way it does because of the properties of the matter and energy making up the universe, no intelligence required.

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?

[Grumpy]

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?

As usual, you get everything backwards!!! I am saying 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.

If "the object will never act in any other way but the one allowed by it's intrinsic limits," then why are those intrinsic limits based on the restriction of what we have observed in the past? Or, why are those intrinsic limits based on nature's inability to act without logical reason altogether?

Because the intrinsic properties are the same now as they were in the past all the way back to the beginning of this universe. Natures behavior is constrained by the properties of the universe, not by logic or math. 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.

Why must these intrinsic properties determine how they behave? Can't you have a situation where matter and energy behave indeterminantly?

Because they are built in to the structure of the whole universe as an interlocking web of forces and particles, their uniformity a result of the fact that everything in the universe originated at a single point. A situation where any particle or force acts outside of those properties CANNOT occur, everything is caused by everything that has gone before. Matter and energy cannot act outside of their properties, period.

Grumpy 8)