Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    I have a question for atheists.

    Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.

    However, in every corner of science and philosophy, arguments from explicability are used (or EA's).

    For example, a common argument from physicists regarding the reality of consciousness, is that if it isn't reduced to physical systems it is essentially inexplicable. We argue things are likely false because they are inexplicable.

    Now, suppose we apply an EA to the question: why do things exist? Well that would seem to rule out the common claim by atheists that the universe is a brute fact or the laws of nature are brute facts. Because an EA implicitly entails that these options are false, that an inexplicable options is false.

    Ofcourse, atheists may say: well it's meaningless to apply and Explicability argument to that question. Fair enough.

    But this seems to leave us 3 options with how to use EA'S.

    1) some EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Others - like for why things exist - are not.

    2) no EA'S for a conclusion are legitimate.

    3) all EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Even for why things exist.

    If you are atheist who thinks the universe and/or the laws of nature are brute facts, you cannot take option 3.

    It seem option 2 is ruled out by anyone who uses an EA in other contexts, scientific or philosophical. Almost all atheists?

    So that leaves 1.* The trouble, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be any non-question-begging way of defending option 1.* For why should we believe that EAs are legitimate in other cases, but not when giving some account of the sheer existence of things?* It seems arbitrary to allow the one sort of EA but not the other sort.* The atheist cannot respond by saying that it is just a brute fact that some kinds of EAs are legitimate and others are not, because this would beg the question against 3, which denies that there are any brute facts.

    Interested to know how far explicability arguments go!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would question that very first premise. And note that if there were a 'creator god' they would be, in all religious traditions 'inexplicable'.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Atheists think they are so rational but they are actually extremely ignorant and irrational.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serah.exe)
    Why do Muslims, Christians, Jews etc believe in a god?

    Because it's their choice

    Why do atheists not believe in a god?

    Because it's their choice.
    Are you an atheist or do you believe in GOD?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by slade p)
    Atheists think they are so rational but they are actually extremely ignorant and irrational.
    Atheists tend not to be the ones who deny evolution, anthropogenic climate change, the big bang and the fact the Earth orbits the Sun.

    It is completely out of order to call such a huge group of people (of which I am included) 'extremely ignorant and irrational'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    I can't really make sense of this, sorry. Theism encompasses all sorts of belief in God, and classical theism, which is what you're referring to, doesn't have to necessitate anything from any scripture (as many philosophers have shown).
    Theism is belief in a god who actively takes an interest in what human beings get up to. This includes notions of sin, fate and life after death.

    Deism is a belief in a god which permeates the universe, maybe puts some laws of physics into place etc but does so in a disinterested manner. Belief in such a god wouldn't matter because it doesn't require any action on the part of the believer.

    Theism doesn't require scripture that's right. But theism as a belief means a god who cares what people get up to, and given modern definition of a monotheistic god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc) this amount of power inevitably leads towards totalitarianism.

    If you are referring to believe in a god which has no interest in humanity then you are referring to deism. That is a different debate. Remember it's aTHEISM not aDEISM we are talking about here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Atheists tend not be the ones who deny evolution, anthropogenic climate change, the big bang and the fact the Earth orbits the Sun.

    It is completely out of order to call such a huge group of people (of which I am included) 'extremely ignorant and irrational'.
    98% of the posts he makes are anti-atheist lol; think he's a troll
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Does the universe seem that it has existed without a beginning?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    who knows ? does it even make any sense to speak of time before the existence of the Universe ?

    and what about "God" ? did he exist without a beginning ? why ? because someone says so ?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    98% of the posts he makes are anti-atheist lol; think he's a troll
    I've seen that username before but couldn't put my finger on where.

    You might be right.

    But anyone who puts that much effort in is more likely some kind of fundamentalist.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gwilym101)
    Possibly, we have no way of knowing.
    Well I didn't mean to ask if we are certain. Just if it looks like the universe is eternal. I take it as a given that it's possible for the universe to either exist without a beginning or have a beginning (not that I wouldn't be interested to know if you think one is impossible?)

    So really I should have said: 'does the evidence point towards it being eternal'?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I would question that very first premise. And note that if there were a 'creator god' they would be, in all religious traditions 'inexplicable'.
    Could you be specific? What would you question?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Could you be specific? What would you question?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That it is 'a very common claim' by atheists that 'the universe exists inexplicably'. I emboldened it when I quoted your post.

    I also don't see a theistic argument solving the explicability conundrum as that would require an inexplicable 'creator god'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent question!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    who knows ? does it even make any sense to speak of time before the existence of the Universe ?

    and what about "God" ? did he exist without a beginning ? why ? because someone says so ?
    But I didn't ask if there was time before the universe existed. Unless you could point out where I assumed or suggested it?

    I simply asked if it seems that the universe is eternal, or beginning less.

    So far you've asked why the universe couldn't be beginning less. I take that, from the context of the whole post, to simply mean it's possible that the universe could be eternal. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    If I am, I can only assume that you meant it in a stronger sense. Not only is it possible, but it is plausible or likely that the universe is eternal.

    Any reason for this? (if you meant that).

    When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    That it is 'a very common claim' by atheists that 'the universe exists inexplicably'. I emboldened it when I quoted your post.

    I also don't see a theistic argument solving the explicability conundrum as that would require an inexplicable 'creator god'.
    Sorry the TSR app doesn't even let me see emboldened font.

    OK, what would atheists posit as the explanation for why the atheists exist?



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Not enough evidence.

    The OP is an atheist for a hundred gods without realising. They just believe in one religion, and are an atheist for all the other religions and gods men have dreamed up or still believe in.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    Sorry the TSR app doesn't even let me see emboldened font.

    OK, what would atheists posit as the explanation for why the atheists exist?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah it's a pretty poor app.

    Not knowing the answer is not the same as believing there is no answer. For example, I don't know the integration of ((e^4x)/75)^x but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't 6. In fact I may even suggest that it is beyond my intellectual abilities to find the answer. But that wouldn't make the answer 6 either.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BefuddledPenguin)
    theism is belief in a god who actively takes an interest in what human beings get up to. This includes notions of sin, fate and life after death.
    Theism includes all beliefs in God. The notions of morality and the afterlife are not exclusive to theism, since many forms of deism have the view too

    Deism is a belief in a god which permeates the universe, maybe puts some laws of physics into place etc but does so in a disinterested manner. Belief in such a god wouldn't matter because it doesn't require any action on the part of the believer.
    deists straightforwardly affirmed that there was a supreme agental intellect who designed and created the universe. What they deny is that this intellect intervenes in its creation (in a non-natural sense) and thus also any sort of special revelation.

    This doesn't mean he doesn't care about morals or has no interest

    See here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/#RelEnl

    Theism doesn't require scripture that's right. But theism as a belief means a god who cares what people get up to, and given modern definition of a monotheistic god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc) this amount of power inevitably leads towards totalitarianism.
    Again, you're speaking of classical or Anselmian theism or theistic personalism - not 'theism' by itself.

    If you are referring to believe in a god which has no interest in humanity then you are referring to deism. That is a different debate. Remember it's aTHEISM not aDEISM we are talking about here.
    Adeism isn't a word, and rightfully so. Atheism rejects all beliefs in God. Theism can also include pantheism, panentheism, process theology, open theism, none of which hold the totalitarian characteristics you're talking about (btw these have already been addressed above why it's not inherently totalitarian)

    We've had this exact discussion before on the idea of 'deism' before: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3482545&page=9&highlight=&p=58192499#p ost58192499
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    without time, there is no beginning, no end. If you ask if the Universe has a beginning, you place yourself within a temporal; dimension. If you take away time, the question becomes meaningless

    Once again : if there is no time then , no "beginning", no "ending"
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    But I didn't ask if there was time before the universe existed. Unless you could point out where I assumed or suggested it?

    I simply asked if it seems that the universe is eternal, or beginning less.

    So far you've asked why the universe couldn't be beginning less. I take that, from the context of the whole post, to simply mean it's possible that the universe could be eternal. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

    If I am, I can only assume that you meant it in a stronger sense. Not only is it possible, but it is plausible or likely that the universe is eternal.

    Any reason for this? (if you meant that).

    When you say 'who knows' - it seems you aren't saying it's likely at all. Simply, 'well it's possible that the universe could be eternal'.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well, a flat or an open universe would be "eternal" (but with different fates)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    Atheists think they are so rational but they are actually extremely ignorant and irrational.
    You are ignorant of the finer points of Ancient Greek and Roman theology. Everyone is because the religions have to all intents and purposes died out.

    Are you irrational in disbelieving it yourself? Or is it perfectly rational to be an atheist towards Zeus and Minerva and all the rest of them?

    And what is rational in a belief in whichever revealed religion you subscribe to?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 19, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.