[Besoeker]

In the final analysis atheism is a Judaizing Protestant sect born out of the Spinoza-Kant-Hegel trifecta. Standing next to Hegel is Feuerbach and next to Spinoza and Kant is Schleiermacher, who was later negatived by Feuerbach. It is [the result of] what happened when German illuminism allowed itself to be influenced by the bodily realism of Jewish mysticism.

Or, more succintly and more accurately, an absence of theism.

[jakell]

ok. But look, you didn't seem to catch the crux of the argument I presented. I am not saying that 'something can]/i] come from nothing' because [i]we have never seen that before, but rather because the metaphysical principles necessarily involved in the motion are mutually exclusive.

Well I was going to leave this alone while you were sticking to waffly metaphysics, but you've made a nod towards actual physics here. Quantum mechanics shows us that particles and antiparticles can emerge from nothing (and go back to nothing), unless you want to deny quantum mechanics. I've seen QM (and Relatively) dismissed as Jewish sophistry, and maybe you would like to take this route in the same way you dismissed anything emerging from Islam.

The trouble is, your metaphysics here is based upon our previous intuitive understandings of cause and effect, and this covers the vast majority of circumstances however, there are exceptions as QM shows us.

[Potemkin]

Or, more succintly and more accurately, an absence of theism.

According to the dictionary definition, you are correct. However, this apparent conceptual simplicity masks an essential complexity. Something made atheism thinkable, in the sense that it could be thought. As david.findlay has pointed out, the very fact that there is something rather than nothing is itself a deeply mysterious thing. It's weird. Even worse, this something appears to have had a definite beginning in time, a definite origin. Causality cannot be extended beyond this point of origin, so what triggered it? More weirdness. It made perfect sense for humans to believe in the existence of supernatural beings in order to account for the existence and the changeable nature of the material world, to provide an ontological grounding for the mysterious Being of the world we experience. Atheism, as a coherent worldview, didn't exist until a few centuries ago, and was in fact unthinkable (in the sense that it couldn't be thought). Something made it thinkable, and that something can be traced back to the scientific method (which brackets metaphysical speculation as being meaningless and aims to provide purely naturalistic explanations of phenomena), and the development of German transcendental philosophy. This, for the first time, made atheism into a coherent and thinkable worldview. I'm with Donald on this one.

[jakell]

Feck, now you done it, you've mentioned definitions in conjunction with the robot's post, maybe you haven't met him yet.

Now we'll probably get his standard diatribe about atheism which Pants managed to put to bed a while back (took about 4-5 pages in the first version of this thread)

[Potemkin]

Quantum mechanics shows us that particles and antiparticles can emerge from nothing (and go back to nothing), unless you want to deny quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, it's a fundamental fact that even vacuum fluctuations (which is what you are describing) cannot violate the principle of the conservation of mass-energy. The vacuum is, of course, constantly bubbling with virtual particles flickering in and out of a 'virtual' existence. They never achieve full existence, because of the conservation of mass-energy, but their virtual existence is enough to have real, observable macroscopic effects (the Casimir Effect, for one). This is not the same thing as saying that the vacuum creates something out of nothing. The total amount of mass-energy in the universe neither increases nor decreases. It's not objects or things which are 'real'; it is the abstract concept of mass-energy which is 'real'. You cannot create mass-energy out of nothing.

[jakell]

Nevertheless, it's a fundamental fact that even vacuum fluctuations (which is what you are describing) cannot violate the principle of the conservation of mass-energy. The vacuum is, of course, constantly bubbling with virtual particles flickering in and out of a 'virtual' existence. They never achieve full existence, because of the conservation of mass-energy, but their virtual existence is enough to have real, observable macroscopic effects (the Casimir Effect, for one). This is not the same thing as saying that the vacuum creates something out of nothing. The total amount of mass-energy in the universe neither increases nor decreases. It's not objects or things which are 'real'; it is the abstract concept of mass-energy which is 'real'. You cannot create mass-energy out of nothing.

Yeah, I know, I'm just citing it to indicate that our intuitive appreciation of cause and effect is not as rock solid and reliable as we like to think.

A possible important exception to this might be the matter/antimatter imbalance that occurred in the early stages of our Universe, and quite relevant too as that is what is being discussed.

[Potemkin]

Yeah, I know, I'm just citing it to indicate that our intuitive appreciation of cause and effect is not as rock solid and reliable as we like to think.

Indeed it isn't, but even Aristotle was pointing out the crudity of our intuitive appreciation of cause and effect. This is nothing new. Besides, any serious discussion should not be based on such crude, intuitive notions anyway.

A possible important exception to this might be the matter/antimatter imbalance that occurred in the early stages of our Universe, and quite relevant too as that is what is being discussed.

But that is merely a form of symmetry-breaking, rather than being the acausal spontaneous generation of something out of nothing. Spontaneous symmetry-breaking was an important aspect of the early evolution of the universe - without it, the universe would have been a very boring place, and we wouldn't exist. But it's not really relevant to this discussion.

[starman2003]

You cannot create mass-energy out of nothing.

From what I've read the gravitational energy of the Universe has, in classical physics, a sign opposite that of energy (and matter) i.e. negative instead of positive. The Universe is said to be "a big nothing when added up" and arose when nothing in the form of 0,0,0,0 became nothing in the form of -5,+5, 3,-3, 1, -1 etc. I never read Krause A Universe from Nothing but I believe that's his view.

[Potemkin]

From what I've read the gravitational energy of the Universe has, in classical physics, a sign opposite that of energy (and matter) i.e. negative instead of positive. The Universe is said to be "a big nothing when added up" and arose when nothing in the form of 0,0,0,0 became nothing in the form of -5,+5, 3,-3, i, -1 etc. I never read Krause A Universe from Nothing but I believe that's his view.

This is the specualative idea that the entire universe is merely a gigantic vacuum fluctuation. The problem with this view is that the universe does not seem to be gravitationally closed, and will continue to expand indefinitely. A vacuum fluctuation, by definition, must emerge and then vanish again. The universe, it seems, ain't going anywhere.

[jakell]

Indeed it isn't, but even Aristotle was pointing out the crudity of our intuitive appreciation of cause and effect. This is nothing new. Besides, any serious discussion should not be based on such crude, intuitive notions anyway.

Well, yes and no, I think we have to address them first in order to move past them them. My focus nowadays tends to be on the common understanding of things in order that we may move it slightly forwards. This usually turns out to be the 'immovable object' though.

But that is merely a form of symmetry-breaking, rather than being the acausal spontaneous generation of something out of nothing. Spontaneous symmetry-breaking was an important aspect of the early evolution of the universe - without it, the universe would have been a very boring place, and we wouldn't exist. But it's not really relevant to this discussion.

I bow to your superior knowledge, I've studied QM in some depth at times but nearly always forget most of it after a week or two due to the strangeness of it ie, it's hard to find anything to reinforce the knowledge.
I've retained enough to recognise that it can't be used as a general psuedoscientific lubricant though, so I'm happy with that.

[Potemkin]

Well, yes and no, I think we have to address them first in order to move past them them. My focus nowadays tends to be on the common understanding of things in order that we may move them slightly forwards. This usually turns out to be the 'immovable object though.

In my experience, trying to convince people that their commonsense notions about the world are mistaken is futile or even dangerous. Look where it got Socrates.

I bow to your superior knowledge, I've studied QM in some depth at times but nearly always forget most of it after a week or two due to the strangeness of it ie, it's hard to find anything to reinforce the knowledge.
I've retained enough to recognise that it can't be used as a general psuedoscientific lubricant though, so I'm happy with that.

The only way to get to grips with QM (I won't say 'understand it', because nobody really understands it) is to actually use it to perform calculations. It is, after all, basically just an algorithm for making predictions about observable variables.

[jakell]

It probably won't be long now before Agent Steel steps up to inform us that we are dong his thread wrong again, possibly precipitating a part III. As his requirements are mysterious I'll remain dangerously off-topic and add to this:

In my experience, trying to convince people that their commonsense notions about the world are mistaken is futile or even dangerous. Look where it got Socrates.

I'm quite happy with people having and resting upon common-sense notions about the world, they get us by most of the time and in most situations, in fact they are worth applauding. In a fraction of issues they don't work very well though, and my focus would be on persuading folks to entertain a paradigm shift now and again.

[Potemkin]

I'm quite happy with people having and resting upon common-sense notions about the world, they get us by most of the time and in most situations, in fact they are worth applauding. In a fraction of issues they don't work very well though, and my focus would be on persuading folks to entertain a paradigm shift now and again.

In my own (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, most people won't accept even that, jakell. They don't seem to regard their commonsense opinions about the world as being merely useful fictions, subject to revision in the light of new evidence, but as incontrovertible truths which cannot and should not be questioned. If you present them with evidence or rational arguments that their beliefs are mistaken, it seems to upset them somewhat. Some of them even become hysterical and/or homicidally enraged. Even over the internet, where it's reasonably safe, it's usually a wasted effort.

[Decky]

Book learnin gives you the brain fever.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It made perfect sense for humans to believe in the existence of supernatural beings in order to account for the existence and the changeable nature of the material world, to provide an ontological grounding for the mysterious Being of the world we experience. Atheism, as a coherent worldview, didn't exist until a few centuries ago, and was in fact unthinkable (in the sense that it couldn't be thought). Something made it thinkable, and that something can be traced back to the scientific method (which brackets metaphysical speculation as being meaningless and aims to provide purely naturalistic explanations of phenomena), and the development of German transcendental philosophy. This, for the first time, made atheism into a coherent and thinkable worldview. I'm with Donald on this one.

No, this is poor thinking. While you might say it made some sense to use a supernatural story to explain why the universe is as it is, it was not 'perfect'. The arguments about why a universe exists if it implies something coming from nothing also apply to the supernatural beings. It's simply wrong to say a coherent atheism "couldn't be thought". "The universe just is" is just as coherent as "there was a prime mover". Strands of Buddhism managed without supernatural beings ordering the universe.

The scientific method makes it easier to see that supernatural explanations are unnecessary. I don't think it's any form of philosophy that has encouraged atheism, so much as psychology that shows us how people frequently fool themselves, and sociology that describes how societies use ideas to tie themselves together, whether or not they are logical. It's easier to step back and examine unspoken assumptions about the truth of the religion you're indoctrinated into.

[Besoeker]

I think the very simple point is that there is no plausible argument against atheism.

[noemon]

This, for the first time, made atheism into a coherent and thinkable worldview. I'm with Donald on this one.

Epicurus.

[Potemkin]

No, this is poor thinking. While you might say it made some sense to use a supernatural story to explain why the universe is as it is, it was not 'perfect'.

No theory about the nature of the world is perfect, PC. Even science, by its nature, is an incomplete, and therefore 'imperfect' explanation of the world.

The arguments about why a universe exists if it implies something coming from nothing also apply to the supernatural beings.

But the supernatural beings are, well, supernatural. Their Being is therefore not the same as the Being of the observable world, and does not require ontological grounding.

It's simply wrong to say a coherent atheism "couldn't be thought". "The universe just is" is just as coherent as "there was a prime mover". Strands of Buddhism managed without supernatural beings ordering the universe.

Buddha got around this problem by proclaiming the mysterious Being of the world to be an illusion, Maya. The essence of all things, the essence of our own experiences and our own being, is sunnyata, emptiness. It therefore requires no ontological grounding. Yet even Buddhism degenerated into a folk religion with gods and demons and all sorts of supernatural entities. And most Buddhists still regard the Buddha as being 'up there', somewhere, watching over his faithful followers.

The scientific method makes it easier to see that supernatural explanations are unnecessary. I don't think it's any form of philosophy that has encouraged atheism, so much as psychology that shows us how people frequently fool themselves, and sociology that describes how societies use ideas to tie themselves together, whether or not they are logical. It's easier to step back and examine unspoken assumptions about the truth of the religion you're indoctrinated into.

While I think there's some truth to that, it was the transcendental philosophy of Kant, in particular, which made atheism intellectually respectable (though Kant himself was not an atheist). Kant demonstrated that the form, the shape, of what we experience is actually a projection of our own minds onto the chaotic jumble of sense-impressions which we experience from moment to moment. Even such fundamental things as 'space' and 'time' are merely "forms of thought" which we project onto the phenomenal world to make sense of what we experience. Schopenhauer called this Kant's "Copernican revolution" - from thenceforth, there could be no rigid distinction between the world "out there" and the nature of our own subjectivity. The noumenal world is unknowable and can be bracketed as metaphysics and therefore requires no ontological grounding, and the phenomenal world is a projection of our innate "forms of thought" and therefore also requires no ontological grounding. Who needs God?

@noemon : Epicurus did not deny the existence of the Gods. He merely said that they are distant and are unconcerned about us, so we should likewise be unconcerned about them. This is, I suppose, practical atheism, but is certainly not theoretical atheism.

[noemon]

@noemon : Epicurus did not deny the existence of the Gods. He merely said that they are distant and are unconcerned about us, so we should likewise be unconcerned about them. This is, I suppose, practical atheism, but is certainly not theoretical atheism.

Did Kant, Spinoza or Hegel deny the existence of the God(s)? The modern atheist argument relies more on the Epicurean axioms than on any of those 3 that Donald mentioned.

[Donna]

Spinoza and the Western Philosophers

One of the greatest materialists that ever lived, and than whom no one adduced stronger arguments in defence of his theory—was Epicurus. The great, the virtuous, the noble and chaste Epicurus, who called the higher ends and divine laws mere inventions of the human mind, and rejected the idea of the human Soul as being immortal. Who of our modern positivists has ever said of the origin of our being, anything stronger than this: “The soul . . . . . must be material, because we trace it issuing from a material source; because it exists, and exists alone, in a material system; is nourished by material food; grows with the growth of the body; becomes matured with its maturity; declines with its decay; and hence, whether belonging to man or brute must die with its death.”* And yet, he was a Deist and a Theosophist; for apart from a system entirely his own, the profound philosophy of which is evinced in the cohesive power of his school never equalled by any other ancient school of philosophy—he devoted his whole life to the study of natural sciences and the analysis of divine action in its relations to nature. His conclusion was that the Universe which is infinite could not be the product of divine action, since the existence of evil cannot be accounted for. Notwithstanding this, and though disbelieving in a God as an intelligent Principle, he admitted the existence of both a Supreme Being and gods or Spirits, living and immortal beings, of human shape but colossal proportions.
On the other hand, Spinoza was a recognized “systematic Atheist” as Bayle brands him;* against whom was pronounced the terrific Anathema Maranatha, and whose system of negation Malebranche terms a chimera both ridiculous and terrible. And yet, no more refined, spiritual nature than Spinoza’s ever breathed upon earth. If by Epicurus abstract ideas were continually transformed into the gross concrete forms of a material Universe; by Spinoza the material conceptions of Science, from the Solar system down to the molecular structure of a leaflet, were mellowed down to the most Raphaelic hues, and the grossest substances assumed the shadowy, ethereal outlines of an ideal world. So much did this martyr of transcendent Theosophy impress himself upon the subsequent generations of thinkers that Schleiermacher speaking of “the holy but proscribed Spinoza” reaches the most touching pathos. “The Divine Spirit transfuses him,” he says. “The infinite was his beginning and end, the universe was his only and everlasting love. In holy innocence and deep humility he mirrored himself in the eternal world, and saw also how he was its noblest mirror. Full of religion was he, and full of a holy spirit, and therefore he stands alone and unrivalled, master of his art, but exhalted above profane Society, without disciples and without even citizenship!”†
The conceptions of this “atheistical” Theosophist, about God are among the most original. Iron-bound as they are by the law of necessity reigning everywhere in physical nature, we find him solving the most abstract ideas by rigidly geometrical definitions. His is a system of metaphysical ideas from which evolve a series of theorems—a demonstration from the eight definitions and seven axioms of the first book of the Ethica.

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavats ... ph_021.htm