The Student Room Group

Atheist Q and A

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Supermonkey92
I don't think you read the content of many intelligent atheists. Ironic considering.

Could you explain how it is nonsense rather than asserting it? That's whether the idea that the universe is a brute fact or the idea that materialism entails it being a brute fact or both. It is a philosophical question. QED.

And how do we answer the question? ( i assume by 'yet' you expect we will find the answer) science? Physics in particular?

Posted from TSR Mobile


See bolded answer. Philosophy is not a science and can contribute nothing to what is a simple scientific question, the answer to which is not simple to discover, and may not be simple to understand.

Scientific endeavour may, eventually, make the necessary discoveries. If not, then we'll never know. I'm sure I shall go to my grave in ignorance of the answer, as will you.
Original post by Good bloke
See bolded answer. Philosophy is not a science and can contribute nothing to what is a simple scientific question, the answer to which is not simple to discover, and may not be simple to understand.

Scientific endeavour may, eventually, make the necessary discoveries. If not, then we'll never know. I'm sure I shall go to my grave in ignorance of the answer, as will you.


I can't see emboldened writing on the app. I'll assume you just meant that it's nonsense because it's philosophy, that's all you added to me post.

So you are saying it's a scientific question? (Simple at that?!) Just tell me how science even has the tools the tackle the question.

So you are sitting on the fence. Science could answer it or it couldn't. Of course that's assuming that science can even answer it in principle.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Blondie987
Do you feel that there is absolutely no possible way that there is some kind of 'creator'? Or are you open to the idea of there being something/someone otherworldly that did create the world in some way? :smile:

I feel that the existence of a 'creator', of sorts, is about as plausible as the existence of unicorns. I basically subscribe to Bertrand Russell's view on this point:

I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.


Admittedly he is talking about the Christian God specifically, which is just one further level of implausible (than any 'creator' ) .
Original post by Supermonkey92
I can't see emboldened writing on the app. I'll assume you just meant that it's nonsense because it's philosophy, that's all you added to me post.

So you are saying it's a scientific question? (Simple at that?!) Just tell me how science even has the tools the tackle the question.

So you are sitting on the fence. Science could answer it or it couldn't. Of course that's assuming that science can even answer it in principle.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Just read what I have written in my replies and think it though. They have been a complete answer.
Original post by Supermonkey92
I can't see emboldened writing on the app. I'll assume you just meant that it's nonsense because it's philosophy, that's all you added to me post.

So you are saying it's a scientific question? (Simple at that?!) Just tell me how science even has the tools the tackle the question.

So you are sitting on the fence. Science could answer it or it couldn't. Of course that's assuming that science can even answer it in principle.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not sure what Good Bloke is on about to be honest; he seems a bit lost in all this. Most of what you're saying makes sense. You might be interested in this: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/49jlxz/question_on_the_sociology_of_why_philosophers_are/
Original post by YesAllMen
I'm not sure what Good Bloke is on about to be honest; he seems a bit lost in all this. Most of what you're saying makes sense. You might be interested in this: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/49jlxz/question_on_the_sociology_of_why_philosophers_are/


Perhaps, then, you can explain how a philosopher's opinion changes what is the (currently unknown) truth about the origins of the universe?
Original post by Good bloke
Just read what I have written in my replies and think it though. They have been a complete answer.


You are being vague on purpose it seems. You haven't replied much apart from asserting that the common atheist answer is nonsense.

As I've said. It seems to follow from materialism that the universe is a brute fact. If you are a materialist and seek to hold on to intelligibility within the universe, please explain how.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by YesAllMen
I'm not sure what Good Bloke is on about to be honest; he seems a bit lost in all this. Most of what you're saying makes sense. You might be interested in this: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/49jlxz/question_on_the_sociology_of_why_philosophers_are/


Thanks for the link.

Although, he seems to wish to act as though he has a firm handle on what he thinks (and more importantly, to come across as though he has reasons to think what he does!) He digs himself a whole by deliberately not answering. Just not replying would have been more efficient.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
Perhaps, then, you can explain how a philosopher's opinion changes what is the (currently unknown) truth about the origins of the universe?
I have little to no interest in getting into a debate about this, however your objections to supermonkey92's posts involved the idea that "atheists don't say X because it's nonsense" (which is false) and that he should "speak with intelligent atheists" (which, if he did, including philosophers which are majorly non-theist, then he would find that most would agree with his ideas). I'm not too sure what your criteria for intelligence is but perhaps you should consider raising the bar a little

The link provided was to show the different possibilities of the existence of the universe, and why the idea of brute fact would hold (which is what you were objecting to). It might not be a satisfying answer, however it's an answer nonetheless. Claiming some initial conditions of the universe are a brute fact is a positive answer as to their origins, and it's quite different than saying that one doesn't know what the origins are. This is a metaphysical question, hence, philosophy has a part to play. If is in indeed the case that you're unfamiliar with the existent philosophical literature (which I suspect is the case) then as supermonkey92 said above, not replying would be a more efficient use of your time

The user above posted a quote by Russell, here's another:

Copleston: (...) But your general point, then, Lord Russell, is that it's illegitimate even to ask the question of the cause of the world?
Russell: Yes, that's my position.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Supermonkey92
You are being vague on purpose it seems. You haven't replied much apart from asserting that the common atheist answer is nonsense.

As I've said. It seems to follow from materialism that the universe is a brute fact. If you are a materialist and seek to hold on to intelligibility within the universe, please explain how.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I made a thread on consciousness actually and it's nice to know someone thinks like I do. I don't see how pure materialism can give rise to intelligence i.e. the conscious.
Original post by nikembab
And what makes you thnk there is no God?

I don't label myself as an atheist, so I was merely putting that question to those that are. :smile:
Original post by Supermonkey92
You are being vague on purpose it seems. You haven't replied much apart from asserting that the common atheist answer is nonsense.

As I've said. It seems to follow from materialism that the universe is a brute fact. If you are a materialist and seek to hold on to intelligibility within the universe, please explain how.

Posted from TSR Mobile


I have told you that philosophical theories are irrelevant to the truth about the universe. How, then, can I be an adherent of materialism, which is a branch of philosophy?

You must separate science and philosophy. Either seek the truth of the universe's origins, by becoming a physicist, or spend your life speculating and positing vainly about it by becoming a philosopher.
Original post by Good bloke
I have told you that philosophical theories are irrelevant to the truth about the universe. How, then, can I be an adherent of materialism, which is a branch of philosophy?

You must separate science and philosophy. Either seek the truth of the universe's origins, by becoming a physicist, or spend your life speculating and positing vainly about it by becoming a philosopher.


So materialism - the world view which says that only things that are physical are real - is rejected by you because it's philosophical?! It's really just a statement that follows from science being the main (perhaps only) meaningful way to talk about the world.

Which is what you are saying.

How can you stay consistent and reject materialism, yet be an atheist who thinks of science as you do?

What this has really been, is a wild goose chase to deny being a materialist or that the universe is a brute fact so you can ignore my original question.

Note, you haven't even explained how physics could in principle answer the question why the universe exists. You've simply replied with assertions.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Supermonkey92
So materialism - the world view which says that only things that are physical are real - is rejected by you because it's philosophical?! It's really just a statement that follows from science being the main (perhaps only) meaningful way to talk about the world.

Which is what you are saying.

How can you stay consistent and reject materialism, yet be an atheist who thinks of science as you do?

What this has really been, is a wild goose chase to deny being a materialist or that the universe is a brute fact so you can ignore my original question.

Note, you haven't even explained how physics could in principle answer the question why the universe exists. You've simply replied with assertions.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You do put a lot of words in other people's mouths and draw a lot of false conclusions from what they say, don't you?

Physics is the study of the physical world using scientific processes and principles. It deals in the real world.

Philosophy deals with speculation about beliefs, myths and morals.

Which do you think is more likely to arrive, eventually, at an answer to the question of our origins? I think the former is.

Other atheists may like to philosophise with you. I prefer the scientific process. We are all different.
Original post by Good bloke
You do put a lot of words in other people's mouths and draw a lot of false conclusions from what they say, don't you?

Physics is the study of the physical world using scientific processes and principles. It deals in the real world.

Philosophy deals with speculation about beliefs, myths and morals.

Which do you think is more likely to arrive, eventually, at an answer to the question of our origins? I think the former is.

Other atheists may like to philosophise with you. I prefer the scientific process. We are all different.


OK. By why don't you actually answer my questions and give reasons for why you think so.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think physics and answer the question. I'm afraid 'I think the former' is more likely is you, yet again, being vague. I'll try to help where I can. The trend seems to be that we only discuss something when I bring forth an argument and you like do assertively dismiss it.

Here's an argument for why physics cannot answer the question - courtesy of a physicist;

"A:*The state of physics at any time can be (roughly) summarised by three things.

1. A statement about what the fundamental constituents of physical reality are and what their properties are.
2. A set of mathematical equations describing how these entities change, move, interact and rearrange.
3. A compilation of experimental and observational data.

In short, the stuff, the laws and the data.

B:*None of these, and no combination of these, can answer the question “why does anything at all exist?”.

C:*Thus physics cannot answer the question “why does anything at all exist?”.




Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Supermonkey92
OK. By why don't you actually answer my questions and give reasons for why you think so.


I have. It is not my fault you ignored it. Physics is a scientific process; if there is evidence there it may find it eventually. Philosophy is pure speculation, founded on the musings of the ill-informed and untrained.

You may think the opposite. I don't care. You asked what I thought.
Original post by Good bloke
I have. It is not my fault you ignored it. Physics is a scientific process; if there is evidence there it may find it eventually. Philosophy is pure speculation, founded on the musings of the ill-informed and untrained.

You may think the opposite. I don't care. You asked what I thought.


So, you reason is that 'if there is evidence there it (physics) may find it eventually'?!

Well, it serves as a great example of begging the question. But the fact that ignored the rest of my post has said more than the entirety of your replies combined.

I'm not sure why you replied. You either thought you had something to say but couldn't explain why you think so, or realised that you didn't have good reasons for what you think. So vaguely mused about science possibly having the answer.

If you don't actually engage in the points I put forward, we should stop wasting time. Though if it's important for you to have the last word, I won't stop you.



Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Good bloke
I have. It is not my fault you ignored it. Physics is a scientific process; if there is evidence there it may find it eventually. Philosophy is pure speculation, founded on the musings of the ill-informed and untrained.

You may think the opposite. I don't care. You asked what I thought.


Apart from science being built upon the shoulders of philosophers, if there was no philosophy there would be no scientific method, nor science for that matter. if there was no philosophy there would be no maths, (at least not as we know them).
Original post by garfeeled
Apart from science being built upon the shoulders of philosophers, if there was no philosophy there would be no scientific method, nor science for that matter. if there was no philosophy there would be no maths, (at least not as we know them).


So you think the man in the cave who needed to know how many haunches of mammoth he had left had to wait until a philosopher came along to think it through for him?

I doubt that very much. I think he managed to work it out himself.
Original post by Good bloke
So you think the man in the cave who needed to know how many haunches of mammoth he had left had to wait until a philosopher came along to think it through for him?

I doubt that very much. I think he managed to work it out himself.





But that is simple maths. This gives a good example, the Greeks initially though of the number 1 not as a number but an arbitary unit and every number greater than that was just made up multiples of that unit, I.e the number three was 1 followed by 1 followed by 1.

Now for basic maths that works fine, if you are counting the number of apples in a tree then that works.

But for irrational numbers such an idea is simply impossible, a guess what it's was philosophers of mathematics which discovered irrationality and paved way for their usage in imaginary numbers which have great usage in fields beyond pure maths, such as physics (a subset of science)

another example would be Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica, a hugely important work in the history of maths, one that approaches maths from a philosophical in an attempt to define a definitive set of axioms from which all maths could be built from (FYI axioms are a idea borrowed from classical philosophy, and how they are defined is decided by philosophers of mathematics and linguistics).

So yeah, a cave man might not have need philosophy but for our society to exist as it currently does we really did.

Quick Reply