3 ms·

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist

by User23 2y ago

I made a point, but you got defensive and missed it. I’m not defending theism, I’m pointing out what I find to be an amusing irony about supposedly rationalist atheism. I’m not pointing out open questions, I’m presenting offered answers. To the atheist that all these things happened for no reason at all isn’t an open question, it’s a definitively held belief. > Just because there are open questions doesn't mean there is a god. There are unknowns -> ? -> Must be god. > I were to follow your argument as "there are unknowns thus god You are hallucinating an argument I never made. If you want to engage please address what I actually wrote. This has nothing to do with “god of the gaps” or any such thing. It’s simply highlighting the definitively held atheist belief that reason played no role in any of the given phenomena. > All of the same arguments you made also apply to aliens. This doesn’t make any sense. But sure an atheist might believe that alien life also evolved, once again, for no reason at all. Or are you trying to propose something more sophisticated like that our reality is a simulation created by advanced aliens? Positing that our reality was created by an in some sense superior alien intelligence or intelligences does mean things didn’t happen for no reason at all. It’s moderately interesting to compare simulationism with other intelligent design theories. I’m not going to do that here, but I will note that “supernatural” literally just means above nature, so vis a vis our perceived reality the creator or creators of the simulation would be supernatural beings. Similarly any admin actions they might take would be miraculous.

card_zero 2y ago
You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable. And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.
- User23 2y ago
  The limitations of science say nothing about atheism or theism. However, the metaphysics of science firmly rest on the notion that things do happen for reasons and that those reasons are potentially knowable. The rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists, why stars and planets exist, why life exists, and why occasionally intelligent life such as ourselves exists. That there are atheists who still hold the rationalist position is unsurprising, since it’s quite common for people to hold unexamined contradictory beliefs. Certainly you can get to the monotheistic God from there, but there are plenty of other alternatives that avoid the things happened for no reason at all problem, such as panpsychism just to name one.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    "rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists" That might be some sub-set of some narrow band of 'rationalist'. But it is not a common viewpoint of atheist. So guess your point, that atheist aren't rational, using a narrow definition of 'rational' I'd say the more common view atheist is that there are no 'reasons'. It is all physical processes, with no 'reason' behind it at all. It's all just cause and effect, the billiard ball universe. Quarks/Electrons/atoms/molecules. All just interacting with no 'reason'. I think the nature of this argument wasn't with this view of universe, it was with which people you were attributing that did believe this way.
    - User23 2y ago
      Why is there cause and effect? Oh, right, for no reason at all. That doesn’t sound like a rational position to me.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Well at the point where you are going to question the flow of time, or why any law of physics exists. Then also, why even use words. What words have any meaning. What does the word 'rational' even mean. What is a 'question' to begin with. This seems more like category errors, or applying words from one level of meaning to another level. If you are going to go go that far, then nothing even exists to discuss.
FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"you got defensive" I guess, if by responding, you mean 'defensive'. Any counter point is a defense. I think maybe unwittingly, or maybe on purpose sarcastically, you are just playing with words. And maybe I lost the thread of the point you were making. You're entire paragraph was about 'reason', and how physics does not allow for 'reason', or explain reason, that nothing that happens is because of 'reason' and thus atheist are irrational because physics is not rational. Maybe you are just making a little joke, that Atheist just believe in a physical world, and there is no 'reason' or intelligence behind it, it is just all cause and effect. That they are 'irrational' because they are in the universe and the universe is 'irrational'. You basically just made a common argument for Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory(the alien), take your pick. That because we can't explain things inside the universe with 'reason', there must be some 'supernatural' level beyond our first order natural world, that would have reason. Something beyond our own that has reason, in order to create ours that does not have reason. But really, on re-reading your argument, and response. I am not sure. I don't know any atheist that believe as you say they do. So it seemed like a straw man, you are projecting an atheist belief to knock it down. Just because they don't believe in a god, doesn't mean we wont be able to figure things out, to find the 'reason' for why things are the way they are. It is very difficult when picking up an argument mid-stride with a stranger on the internet. I thought you were making an anti-atheist point, which sounded like Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory. But maybe you were just making some observation on how humans can't know, because if the universe is all determined, then they can't break free of that to observe it from the outside. -> Maybe you were making a little joke, the physical/real world is irrational, atheist believe in only a physical/real universe, thus atheist are irrational. If you want to re-state your original point, that would be good.

by User23 2y ago

card_zero 2y ago

You know, you're only saying that it's in a manner of speaking anti-rational to deny the existence of a god who is, presumably, supremely rational. It's an amusing observation, but it doesn't follow that it's reasonable to think the being exists just because the being is supposed to be reasonable. And this argument certainly sounds similar to the "God of the gaps" argument. Instead of "there are things science can't explain" it's more like "the scientific world view doesn't satisfy my gut feeling that things happen for reasons", but that's a similar kind of gap, just a more philosophical one.

User23 2y ago
The limitations of science say nothing about atheism or theism. However, the metaphysics of science firmly rest on the notion that things do happen for reasons and that those reasons are potentially knowable. The rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists, why stars and planets exist, why life exists, and why occasionally intelligent life such as ourselves exists. That there are atheists who still hold the rationalist position is unsurprising, since it’s quite common for people to hold unexamined contradictory beliefs. Certainly you can get to the monotheistic God from there, but there are plenty of other alternatives that avoid the things happened for no reason at all problem, such as panpsychism just to name one.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "rationalist view says that there are reasons for why the universe exists" That might be some sub-set of some narrow band of 'rationalist'. But it is not a common viewpoint of atheist. So guess your point, that atheist aren't rational, using a narrow definition of 'rational' I'd say the more common view atheist is that there are no 'reasons'. It is all physical processes, with no 'reason' behind it at all. It's all just cause and effect, the billiard ball universe. Quarks/Electrons/atoms/molecules. All just interacting with no 'reason'. I think the nature of this argument wasn't with this view of universe, it was with which people you were attributing that did believe this way.
  - User23 2y ago
    Why is there cause and effect? Oh, right, for no reason at all. That doesn’t sound like a rational position to me.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Well at the point where you are going to question the flow of time, or why any law of physics exists. Then also, why even use words. What words have any meaning. What does the word 'rational' even mean. What is a 'question' to begin with. This seems more like category errors, or applying words from one level of meaning to another level. If you are going to go go that far, then nothing even exists to discuss.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

"you got defensive" I guess, if by responding, you mean 'defensive'. Any counter point is a defense. I think maybe unwittingly, or maybe on purpose sarcastically, you are just playing with words. And maybe I lost the thread of the point you were making. You're entire paragraph was about 'reason', and how physics does not allow for 'reason', or explain reason, that nothing that happens is because of 'reason' and thus atheist are irrational because physics is not rational. Maybe you are just making a little joke, that Atheist just believe in a physical world, and there is no 'reason' or intelligence behind it, it is just all cause and effect. That they are 'irrational' because they are in the universe and the universe is 'irrational'. You basically just made a common argument for Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory(the alien), take your pick. That because we can't explain things inside the universe with 'reason', there must be some 'supernatural' level beyond our first order natural world, that would have reason. Something beyond our own that has reason, in order to create ours that does not have reason. But really, on re-reading your argument, and response. I am not sure. I don't know any atheist that believe as you say they do. So it seemed like a straw man, you are projecting an atheist belief to knock it down. Just because they don't believe in a god, doesn't mean we wont be able to figure things out, to find the 'reason' for why things are the way they are. It is very difficult when picking up an argument mid-stride with a stranger on the internet. I thought you were making an anti-atheist point, which sounded like Intelligent Design/God/Simulation Theory. But maybe you were just making some observation on how humans can't know, because if the universe is all determined, then they can't break free of that to observe it from the outside. -> Maybe you were making a little joke, the physical/real world is irrational, atheist believe in only a physical/real universe, thus atheist are irrational. If you want to re-state your original point, that would be good.