A question for theists and atheists alike.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 03:50 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 03:58 AM by rampant.a.i..)
A question for theists and atheists alike.
I'm so tired of hearing about infinite regress.

Because, really, it's just a basic human fear of the unknown (including death) repackaged as a "philosophical problem."

It's not. It's a problem only when focused on intently, like anything else, not unlike the Brain in A Vat scenario. It's interesting as a thought experiment, or to build a Sci-Fi Action franchise on, but there are only a few outcomes:

1. Focus on the problem and climb down a Cartesian hole, end up drunk in a cabin in the woods for months on end worrying about it, until you're dehydrated and malnourished enough to go "Hey, GodDidIt!" and flee the cabin.

2. Realize that not being able to see the bottom of the scaffolding on which you base human knowledge doesn't affect human knowledge in any real sense. Things are still true, sometimes we get something wrong and have to rebuild part of the framework, but hey, it still works, and there's no point in discarding truths you can verify by consensus, so many times over that a slight inkling of doubt doesn't make a difference. Yes, it's possible that Gravity could stop functioning tomorrow: This doesn't mean you should start planning the rest of your life around such a wildly remote, implausible possibility.

The only people truly concerned with regress are:

Intro to philosophy students, the fuckers who have an infinite array of "brand new never before proposed theories" because they didn't bother to read the first few chapters of the assigned course material, and epistemologists, usually those like A. Plantinga with an agenda to push.

Of the intellectually honest epistemologists, there are several theories:

Reliabalism, a "Justified true belief" is one shown to be true often enough that it can be assumed as such. Gravity: JtB.

Coherentism: The extent by which beliefs support other beliefs, and those beliefs function as JtB in a matrix. I have a rubber ball (supported by empirical evidence and past experience) and if I let go of this rubber ball it's going to bounce (" + gravity).

Foundationalism: I have a reasonable system of beliefs, based on properly basic beliefs, on which I can stack JtB.

Coherentism and Reliablism make the most sense to me. They are more naturally aligned with the innate process of the human experience to build a narrative (often after the fact or entirely within the mind, see: human eyesight and vision) that more or less corresponds with the objective world.

The need for a solid foundation to base beliefs on to qualify them as knowledge, or an authority figure to point to as the source of those JtBs, or a pronounced fear of infinite regress is intellectual bathophobia, or nyctophobia:

The individual is afraid of the dark. Afraid of the unknown. Afraid of death. Which is natural: It's an evolved, selected trait, to keep us safe from predators with better eyesight, the lack of awareness of our surroundings.

It activates our fight or flight mechanisms, it's the reason children worry about monsters under the bed or in the closet, and the reason horror fiction and film is a genre.

And so the individual builds a narrative to put their fears at ease, or an authoritative leviathan to protect them. Which, incidentally, is why we came up with Gods: Personification and/or shelter from the unknown.

Which led to a lot of arguments, and made a lot of people very upset, and should someday be regarded as a very bad idea.

β€œIt is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:20 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(23-05-2014 01:40 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  ...
Which makes it impossible for such a deity to NOT have a perfect predetermined plan and impossible for such a deity to NOT carry out that plan according to his plan.
...

Consider

Bummer! There are no perks to being a deity anymore.

Lousy hours,.. miserable working conditions... And NO free will.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 04:27 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
Before Genesis there was King Crimson and Yes.

Will they never get over it???

I wont even bother with Rush. Let alone Dream theater and Porcupine tree.

Sheesh!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Banjo's post
24-05-2014, 07:00 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(23-05-2014 05:50 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 05:29 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It is not possible that such a Being could not exist.

Sure it is. Thumbsup

A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition.

Remember? Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  How could it be anything but a void. There was no heaven and no earth:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There were no sun, moon, nor stars:
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And since many stars are actually distant galaxies, that means there were no galaxies.

What else is there?

Nothing.

Before Genesis, before god said "Let there be light", there was nothing. NOTHING.

Sounds like a void to me.

Because you conceptualize the universe expanding into pre-existing empty space (a void).

This is incorrect. The space-time manifold itself is expanding. The universe is not "filling up" a big empty void like most people imagine it. But rather, "space" itself is expanding. The illustration of a balloon being filled with air is a good example. The surface of the balloon as it expands is likened unto the space-time manifold.

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  But, before creation, there was no here, no there, no anywhere. NOTHING. How can omnipresence even exist, how can it be an attribute of any being, when the concept is meaningless in a place that isn't a place?

God exists independently of the universe and is timelessly eternal. I cannot explain how. I just know that God must possess those attributes. If He did not, He would not be God (in the sense of the Greatest Conceivable Being).

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  How can a place not be a place? Hell if I know, but you seem to think it can, and whatever that is, it's population is one. One impossible being who has paradoxical properties (e.g. omnipresence in a non-existence that has nothing to be omnipresent in) that are meaningless.

Your mind has been influenced by a naturalistic view of reality. For me I have no problem in stating that some of God's attributes seem paradoxical. In fact, I would expect them to.

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  YOU say this being always existed, that it never began to exist because it just always was. If this is not the first universe, then that means it made a universe before this one. Was that the first one?

Who knows?

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  Yes? Then apply my question to that - before making THAT universe this being had never used its power for anything, so why did it need/want/have the power it wasn't using?

God needs nothing. If He did, He would not be the Greatest Conceivable Being. For which is greater, that which needs nothing and is totally self-sufficient (aseity), or that which needs something and is reliant upon another (contingent)?

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I personally find it more likely (Occam's Razor) that a bunch of inert particles could exist necessarily than that a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being made up entirely of impossible paradoxes could exist necessarily.

In light of the current findings of astronomy and cosmology, this position is untenable. The evidence at our disposal points to an absolute beginning of all space-time, matter and energy some 15 billion years ago.

Paradoxes are not logical contradictions. If God existed, I would not expect to be able to understand Him completely.

I am not God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
The set of necessary beings can certainly very easily be the empty set.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
24-05-2014, 10:02 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(24-05-2014 04:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 01:40 PM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  ...
Which makes it impossible for such a deity to NOT have a perfect predetermined plan and impossible for such a deity to NOT carry out that plan according to his plan.
...

Consider

Bummer! There are no perks to being a deity anymore.

Lousy hours,.. miserable working conditions... And NO free will.

Victor von Doom said it best.

[Image: BoQUi3qIMAA7o6b.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
24-05-2014, 11:16 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(24-05-2014 07:00 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 05:50 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Sure it is. Thumbsup

A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition.

Remember? Rolleyes

A necessarily existing being exists necessarily by definition. Yes.

The being you describe is beyond comprehension and illogical and therefore not necessary.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: A question for theists and atheists alike.
(24-05-2014 07:20 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The illustration of a balloon being filled with air is a good example. The surface of the balloon as it expands is likened unto the space-time manifold.

(24-05-2014 01:34 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  But, before creation, there was no here, no there, no anywhere. NOTHING. How can omnipresence even exist, how can it be an attribute of any being, when the concept is meaningless in a place that isn't a place?

God exists independently of the universe and is timelessly eternal. I cannot explain how. I just know that God must possess those attributes. If He did not, He would not be God (in the sense of the Greatest Conceivable Being).

Let's think about this. We don't know, but we want to. A long time ago, before we had the freedom to lay about and ponder such things, conclusions were given without evidence, and they were accepted because....well why not, we didn't have anything better to conclude.

Now we know more, but we know that we don't know everything, and the better of us don't pretend to.

It completely (in my mind) makes sense that any attributes given to a god figure would also possess most of the same attributes of humans. Funny enough that "he" always does have these attributes, yet it isn't even philosophically honest to think "he" might, yet you continue to insist that it's the only option we have.

It's not. I'll wait for evidence of a better option, you can continue to defend a position that will needlessly divide and kill humanity.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: