The best arguments atheists and religionists have been able to muster

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Atheists
Materialistic determinism: all events, all human actions, morals, conscience are ultimately reducible to physics and material factors.


Religionists
Design: the lawful order and rational intelligibility of the universe; the fine tuning of the mathematical properties of the cosmos.
 
Cypress said:
Atheists
Materialistic determinism: all events, all human actions, morals, conscience are ultimately reducible to physics and material factors.


Religionists
Design: the lawful order and rational intelligibility of the universe; the fine tuning of the mathematical properties of the cosmos.
Click to expand...
Excellent condensation, C.

To me, it's the first supposition that doesn't require
an added factor manifested subjectively rather than objectively.

That's to me, of course. Others could see it differently.
 
Cypress said:
Atheists
Materialistic determinism: all events, all human actions, morals, conscience are ultimately reducible to physics and material factors.


Religionists
Design: the lawful order and rational intelligibility of the universe; the fine tuning of the mathematical properties of the cosmos.
Click to expand...
Yup.

The atheists have more difficulty in seeing that they and the theists are both manifestations of guesswork...beliefs. But don't get me wrong, the theists do have difficulty seeing it. Just not as much as do atheists.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Excellent condensation, C.

To me, it's the first supposition that doesn't require
an added factor manifested subjectively rather than objectively.

That's to me, of course. Others could see it differently.
Click to expand...
To me, the first argument doesn't have that much explanatory power. It does not explain where the mathematical laws and organizing properties come from, why they exist, etc.

One weakness of the second argument is that it doesn't actually conclusively point to a God of Abraham, a Tao, a Brahman, or other supernatural entities defined by humans
 
Cypress said:
To me, the first argument doesn't have that much explanatory power. It does not explain where the mathematical laws and organizing properties come from, why they exist, etc.

One weakness of the second argument is that it doesn't actually conclusively point to a God of Abraham, a Tao, a Brahman, or other supernatural entities defined by humans
Click to expand...
My own explanation comes from my inability to imagine the universe being anything but infinite.
If the universe is indeed infinite, anything that can possibly exist within our perception of the laws of physics
not only WILL exist, but will possibly exist an infinite number of times.

So will other things that we can't imagine,
just somewhere else in that infinite space.

The most complex mathematical laws and organizing properties would have then manifested themselves totally randomly.
Acknowledging that I obviously can't know for sure,
that's my best guess as to what's true.

Further, that's also what I HOPE is true,
because I'd hate to believe that this very imperfect world was designed on purpose.
 
Cypress said:
Miriam Webster dictionary definition:

"Religionist" - a person adhering to a religion.

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of RELIGIONIST

a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
Click to expand...
dumbist must refer to one adhering to being dumb then.......you know......the sort of person who thinks everyone "adhering to a religion" is like the next?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dumbist must refer to one adhering to being dumb then.......you know......the sort of person who thinks everyone "adhering to a religion" is like the next?......
Click to expand...
You LOL'd like you thought it was a made up word and stupid for me to use, when in fact the word is found in the Mirriam Webster dictionary.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
My own explanation comes from my inability to imagine the universe being anything but infinite.
If the universe is indeed infinite, anything that can possibly exist within our perception of the laws of physics
not only WILL exist, but will possibly exist an infinite number of times.

So will other things that we can't imagine,
just somewhere else in that infinite space.

The most complex mathematical laws and organizing properties would have then manifested themselves totally randomly.
Acknowledging that I obviously can't know for sure,
that's my best guess as to what's true.

Further, that's also what I HOPE is true,
because I'd hate to believe that this very imperfect world was designed on purpose.
Click to expand...
Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is not a bad argument - that anything that is possible will become possible somewhere in the universe or multi verse or whatever you want to call it, and we just happen to live in a little corner of the universe where conditions are precisely tuned and organized for complex matter and life.

To me it is not philosophically satisfying because it invokes luck, and it gives off a vague whiff of trying to sweep the coincidence of the rational order of the universe under the carpet.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is not a bad argument - that anything that is possible will become possible somewhere in the universe or multi verse or whatever you want to call it, and we just happen to live in a little corner of the universe where conditions are precisely tuned and organized for complex matter and life.

To me it is not philosophically satisfying because it invokes luck, and it gives off a vague whiff of trying to sweep the coincidence of the rational order of the universe under the carpet.
Click to expand...
I somewhat understand your perspective, C,
and I also understand how it could work well
with those of a certain attitude or predisposition.

It doesn't quite work for me, but then again,
I'm OK with the concept of rational order being kept under the carpet.

I'd have a harder time trying to live with the idea
that what passes for our rational order
was somehow deliberately calculated.

Believing that would leave me in a constant state of rage,
with no intermittent respite as I manage to enjoy now,
and I would never have reached the age that I am now.

I suspect that you somewhat understand my perspective as well.
Perspectives don't have to be shared to be at least somewhat understood.
 
Cypress said:
Atheists
Materialistic determinism: all events, all human actions, morals, conscience are ultimately reducible to physics and material factors.


Religionists
Design: the lawful order and rational intelligibility of the universe; the fine tuning of the mathematical properties of the cosmos.
Click to expand...
what an idiotic and contrived false duality.

you've only summarized your own idiocy.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, the anthropomorphic principle is not a bad argument - that anything that is possible will become possible somewhere in the universe or multi verse or whatever you want to call it, and we just happen to live in a little corner of the universe where conditions are precisely tuned and organized for complex matter and life.

To me it is not philosophically satisfying because it invokes luck, and it gives off a vague whiff of trying to sweep the coincidence of the rational order of the universe under the carpet.
Click to expand...
it's dumb as fuck. but the opposite is not "rational order".

nothing in this thread is smart.
 
Kamala Trump said:
you've only summarized your own idiocy.
Click to expand...
Trouble with reading comprehension?

These aren't my ideas. Determinism and argument from design have been around for centuries and promoted by many brilliant people.

I just am able to succinctly distill them down to their core essence.


Are you one of those JPP superegos who imagine you are capable of coming up with your own deeply original, unique, and astonishingly profound insights?
 
Kamala Trump said:
and they're both stupid.

this is what I'm telling you.
Click to expand...
No, wrong. What you were telling me is that they were my own ideas.

The thread title itself specifically indicates that these are the ideas I have heard from atheists and religionists.

I accept your tacit confession that your reading comprehension sucks.
 
Cypress said:
No, wrong. What you were telling me is that they were my own ideas.

The thread title itself specifically indicates that these are the ideas I have heard from atheists and religionists.

I accept your tacit confession that your reading comprehension sucks.
Click to expand...
its your belief that these two categories are meaningful, but they;re not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top