IS and OUGHT

[Immanuel Can]

I hinted at the account when I mentioned limitation. Limitation is either a necessary consequence of reality or a part of the definition of what it means to be real:

That doesn't really help. It's ex post facto. It means, maths and logic have to be real, because we see they're already real. It doesn't really explain why they exist in the first place, or how they can be are part of an (allegedly) random universal beginning.

Limitation exists because it necessarily exists

Limitation defines existence, because existence is defined by limitation. Limitation exists because it has to exist. Classic examples of circular logic.

No, the fact that something exists...and that it's coherent, and describable by rationality and mathematics, and that there exist creatures capable of realizing it...all of that is wildly unlikely in a random universe. It's far more unlikely than you winning the lottery six times in a row. And yet, you take those odds?

Better not play poker.

Put colloquially, if nothing exists, not even "rules," then there would be no rule ensuring that nothing exists

You don't have to "ensure" that nothing "exists." Nothing is non-existence. It's the non-thing that should be expected, so it doesn't have to be explained. That's why the classical philosophical question is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" not "Why does nothing exist?"

Nothing doesn't "exist." It means "doesn't exist."

I’m not worried about the tactical element, though: I can defend the ontology of mathematics and logic as a consequence of limitation in reality; the moral realist won’t be able to defend “moral law” as a discovery. Or at least I’d love to see someone try.

Oooh. A challenge! I love it.

What do you mean by "as a discovery"? I want to make sure I hit your benchmark, if I try.

Well, that's just another way to say that if moral realism is objective and true, then it would be "discoverable" (as in, different thinkers from completely different backgrounds could independently come to the same conclusions in the same way mathematicians do).

Hmmm...no good.

Things are discovered at particular places at times, by particular people, working within particular suppositions. For instance, despite all the briliant people in China and India, neither country discovered science. Why not, if people all come to the same conclusions?

It's only now, after the discovery, that the Chinese and Indians (or Africans, or South Americans) have science. And they have it by using the same methods and suppositions discovered by Westerners.

So if discoveries have to be universal in order to be confirmable, then science cannot be confirmed. And I'm sure you don't think that...well, reasonably sure.

But our debate here is mostly about this. We've covered what "good" is, but the answer you've given has decoupled "good" from "ought," so we're just waiting on when you have the time to reply about that.

True, but the messages are getting so long that I can only reply when I have a long period of time to work on it. So that's limiting my ability to respond. I have obligations.

So far, this other discussion is much shorter and more manageable, at least in message format.

Atheism isn't a worldview, it doesn't have a full ontology other than rejection, denial, or skepticism of theistic propositions.

Yes, I've said that. Atheism is bare-bones negation. (But mere "skepticism" is properly "agnosticism," not Atheism. It has to be rejection or denial to be "Atheism.")

Atheism is one wish-based claim. That's true. But it has corollaries. Being so minimal on its own, it can't get by without certain kinds of other suppositions, among which are things like Materialism or Physicalism. Because if there are metaphysical entities in the universe, be they ghosts or angels or souls or even such things as genuine identities and consciousnesses, then Atheism gets really, really shaky. There's no reason to disbelieve anymore, unless you can convince people that the whole idea of a transcendent God is contrary to science or something. So you have to define science down to Materialism or Physicalism to obtain that. By banning metaphysics by fiat, right at the start, supppositionally, the Atheist can continue to claim that others are "irrational" and "unscientific." He can get it no other way, so far as I can see.

So I'm asking how an Atheist can avoid committing to such ontologies. And you point to yourself, and say, "I"m one." But you've said nothing about how you manage to pull that off, rationally speaking. But I'm listening.

[Astro Cat]

Limitation defines existence, because existence is defined by limitation. Limitation exists because it has to exist. Classic examples of circular logic.

No, the fact that something exists...and that it's coherent, and describable by rationality and mathematics, and that there exist creatures capable of realizing it...all of that is wildly unlikely in a random universe. It's far more unlikely than you winning the lottery six times in a row. And yet, you take those odds?

Better not play poker.

Transcendental argument isn't question begging (circular logic). It is using reductio ad absurdum to show that a premise is impossible. In this case, the nonexistence of limitation is an impossible premise, ergo, limitation is ontologically necessary. What that means is a question: is it ontologically necessary, or is it perhaps the definition of what it means to exist? The latter part is not an argument, but semantic musing.

Semantic questions aside, limitation does exist because it has to exist. The supposition of its absence entails its presence, which by reductio ad absurdum negates the possibility of its absence. That's what it means to be incorrigibly true. It's similar to cogito ergo sum, where doubting one's existence entails one's existence, ergo one exists if one's asking the question.

Put colloquially, if nothing exists, not even "rules," then there would be no rule ensuring that nothing exists

You don't have to "ensure" that nothing "exists." Nothing is non-existence. It's the non-thing that should be expected, so it doesn't have to be explained. That's why the classical philosophical question is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" not "Why does nothing exist?"

Nothing doesn't "exist." It means "doesn't exist."

That's just semantics, though. If things don't exist, then that things aren't existing would still be a case that things aren't existing: but that fact is a "thing" (there is limitation: ostensibly, things not existing could not be things existing, but that means at least one thing still exists even when we supposed no things did: limitation itself, and identity, and everything that entails).

You couldn't suppose a hypothetical where "limitation didn't exist" because you would immediately see that proposing its possible absence would only entail its presence still. It is incorrigible.

Things are discovered at particular places at times, by particular people, working within particular suppositions. For instance, despite all the briliant people in China and India, neither country discovered science. Why not, if people all come to the same conclusions?

It's only now, after the discovery, that the Chinese and Indians (or Africans, or South Americans) have science. And they have it by using the same methods and suppositions discovered by Westerners.

So if discoveries have to be universal in order to be confirmable, then science cannot be confirmed. And I'm sure you don't think that...well, reasonably sure.

Huh? Every culture on earth has done science. I can only suppose that you're only counting "science" as the explicitly defined scientific method in the European Renaissance? I wouldn't share such a view if that's what you mean. While true that the Scientific Revolution saw the mechanization and itemization of scientific thinking, that doesn't mean that what people were doing in their attempts to understand the universe beforehand were strictly "not science."

Atheism is one wish-based claim. That's true. But it has corollaries. Being so minimal on its own, it can't get by without certain kinds of other suppositions, among which are things like Materialism or Physicalism. Because if there are metaphysical entities in the universe, be they ghosts or angels or souls or even such things as genuine identities and consciousnesses, then Atheism gets really, really shaky. There's no reason to disbelieve anymore, unless you can convince people that the whole idea of a transcendent God is contrary to science or something. So you have to define science down to Materialism or Physicalism to obtain that. By banning metaphysics by fiat, right at the start, supppositionally, the Atheist can continue to claim that others are "irrational" and "unscientific." He can get it no other way, so far as I can see.

So I'm asking how an Atheist can avoid committing to such ontologies. And you point to yourself, and say, "I"m one." But you've said nothing about how you manage to pull that off, rationally speaking. But I'm listening.

1) Skepticism of theism is not agnosticism, not as coined by Huxley. Huxley considered the problem insoluble such that an agnostic would say "I can't know," not merely "I don't know," and there are many skeptics of theism that don't hold the problem insoluble. But this is just semantics.

2) Nothing about atheism, whether we mean a hard atheism or weak atheism, necessitates a materialist or physicalist ontology.

3) I'm not sure that you're using the word "metaphysical" right. Metaphysics doesn't mean "spooky things like ghosts and gods and souls." It means things like ontology, properties, causality, probability, and modality. Metaphysics fits on a shelf somewhere next to epistemology, ethics, and logic as a major "category" of philosophical thought.

In any case, nothing stops an atheist from believing in ghosts or souls or whatever as long as they don't believe in gods, as that is its one defining parameter. But one doesn't have to believe in ghosts and souls to not be an ontological physicalist/materialist.

4) "Atheist" as a term is tricky because people have different modes of atheism towards different gods. For instance, I am a hard atheist towards a god that's defined as "The God of an interpretation of the Bible where the Earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old and which literally drowned the entire planet in a global flood in the cosmically recent past." I do propose that such a god doesn't exist; it's a positive claim to make, but it's a claim that I can back up with evidence: so it's hard/strong atheism. However a god that's defined vaguely as "A God which is omnipotent, omniscient, and created the universe" doesn't have enough to latch onto in order to outright say that it's false, so I'm a weak atheist towards such a God: I simply doubt that it exists rather than asserting that it does not exist.

So, one difficulty with "atheism" as a term is that it doesn't make this distinction with people. People aren't generally only a hard atheist or a weak atheist, it often depends on which concept of gods you want to ask them about.

[Dubious]

I'll clarify that string theory doesn't necessitate a multiverse

True that it does not "necessitate" a multiverse but it does allow for its existence. Inflation is what causes it to come into being. No argument, it's still all theoretical and speculative but the ideas upon which string theory and its executor, inflation may cause a multiverse to exist does not appear to be unreasonable in the sense of being purely metaphysical as you stated.

Cosmologically, from what I gather, the multiverse concept is not really a theory at all. It's a prediction derived from other theories unrelated to that conceptualization. This gives it at least a slight boost in credence beyond the merely metaphysical or independently theoretical.

It's often misattributed to Bohr that "anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics," and I don't know who actually said it, but the saying is apt

It may be apt for as long as metaphysics doesn't turn itself into actual physics.

Anyway, time may tell eventually assuming we have enough time left.

[Astro Cat]

I'll clarify that string theory doesn't necessitate a multiverse

True that it does not "necessitate" a multiverse but it does allow for its existence. Inflation is what causes it to come into being. No argument, it's still all theoretical and speculative but the ideas upon which string theory and its executor, inflation may cause a multiverse to exist does not appear to be unreasonable in the sense of being purely metaphysical as you stated.

Cosmologically, from what I gather, the multiverse concept is not really a theory at all. It's a prediction derived from other theories unrelated to that conceptualization. This gives it at least a slight boost in credence beyond the merely metaphysical or independently theoretical.

It's often misattributed to Bohr that "anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics," and I don't know who actually said it, but the saying is apt

It may be apt for as long as metaphysics doesn't turn itself into actual physics.

Anyway, time may tell eventually assuming we have enough time left.

It's true that it's a prediction derived from other theories. You can't really have inflation without a multiverse, and inflation is very strongly supported.

[Immanuel Can]

In this case, the nonexistence of limitation is an impossible premise

Only given existence.

Ex post facto reasoning. It doesn't explain why the universe exists: it only describes a condition that pertains, once it does. Limitation doesn't "cause" existence. It's a condition under which the existence of finite, physical things takes place and manifests.

limitation does exist because it has to exist.

Circular. And obviously so. Limitation has to "exist" for things to "exist," and since they "exist" there has to be limitation. It goes around and around, like a dog chasing its tail. But it explains precisely nothing about what makes things exist.

Put colloquially, if nothing exists, not even "rules," then there would be no rule ensuring that nothing exists

You don't have to "ensure" that nothing "exists." Nothing is non-existence. It's the non-thing that should be expected, so it doesn't have to be explained. That's why the classical philosophical question is, "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" not "Why does nothing exist?"

Nothing doesn't "exist." It means "doesn't exist."

That's just semantics, though.

Absolutely not. It's the core meaning of "nothing." If it's any other concept, you're talking about "something."

But we can unpack it semantically. "Nothing" is "no-thing." The concept means the absence of any "things" in a given place. Thus, to wonder how "nothing" can "exist" is to ask a nonsense question.

Things are discovered at particular places at times, by particular people, working within particular suppositions. For instance, despite all the briliant people in China and India, neither country discovered science. Why not, if people all come to the same conclusions?

It's only now, after the discovery, that the Chinese and Indians (or Africans, or South Americans) have science. And they have it by using the same methods and suppositions discovered by Westerners.

So if discoveries have to be universal in order to be confirmable, then science cannot be confirmed. And I'm sure you don't think that...well, reasonably sure.

Huh? Every culture on earth has done science. I can only suppose that you're only counting "science" as the explicitly defined scientific method in the European Renaissance?

No, not the Renaissance. After Bacon, after there was such a thing as "the scientific method," which is the real birth of "science" as we now understand it.

I wouldn't share such a view if that's what you mean. While true that the Scientific Revolution saw the mechanization and itemization of scientific thinking, that doesn't mean that what people were doing in their attempts to understand the universe beforehand were strictly "not science."

Actually, it does. None of it was systematic, or processed "scientifically." Now, they could still have "inventions," or "chemicals," or "buildings," or other things such as that: but there was no discipline governing any of it. There was no way to rule out the "scientific" from the merely "traditional," or "superstitious," even, or the merely "technical" or "mechanical."

That the Scientific Revolution immediately followed on Bacon's theories was no accident. The scientific method showed immediate, spectacular results in harnessing the physical world. That never happend in China or India or Africa. Their later "revolutions" awaited the day when they began to adopt the Western methods of processing science. All their traditionalism, creativity, imagination, and making of things didn't amount to such a thing.

1) Skepticism of theism is not agnosticism,

Yeah, it is...analytically and definitionally. And since it's "just semantics," you won't mind conceding that.

As for Huxley, he was an avowed Atheist. But like so many smart men, he saw the folly of Atheism that could instantly defeat it -- it's lack of evidence warranting its claim -- and he sought to save it by agnosticizing part of the definition. This, however, is just a routine and transparent evasion of the problem: and it turns out to be self-defeating. For if Atheism means no more than "I don't know," it fails on the very thing the Atheist wants most out of it, namely, that it should grant him opportunity to argue that Theism is actually wrong. It turns his Atheism into a rather pathetic, wimpy, rearguard sort of claim, one that amounts to, "I don't believe, but I have no reason or evidence why you shouldn't."

So Huxley and his ilk, we can easily dispatch.

2) Nothing about atheism, whether we mean a hard atheism or weak atheism, necessitates a materialist or physicalist ontology.

Nothing explicit, it's true. But as a corollary, it's inescapable. Unless you can show otherwise, of course...

3) I'm not sure that you're using the word "metaphysical" right. Metaphysics doesn't mean "spooky things like ghosts and gods and souls." It means things like ontology, properties, causality, probability, and modality. Metaphysics fits on a shelf somewhere next to epistemology, ethics, and logic as a major "category" of philosophical thought.

I'm using it generally. I merely mean that anything undefined and unlimited by the strictly, crassly physical instantly becomes a problem for an Atheist. For his whole argument depends on asserting that the physical, the "scientific,"as he calls it, exhausts the totality of the "real." If it does not, and if there are real entities that strict Physicalism or Materialism cannot describe in their terms, then the possibility of other bases of real existence is opened up again...and he cannot have that, and be able to assert his cherished statement that Theism is "contrary to reason."

In any case, nothing stops an atheist from believing in ghosts or souls

It does if he wants to keep his Atheism.

You can see this play out today in the realm of the mind-brain controversy.

4) "Atheist" as a term is tricky because people have different modes of atheism towards different gods.

No, that's true but merely trivial. It's a secondary problem, one that only happens after Atheism has already been dismissed.

That is, the "Which god?" question only even can be asked if one has already granted that there is, or could be, A god. So if you assume that, Atheism's already been killed. It can no longer say people are unreasonable for believing in God.

The truth is that Atheism cannot include the existence of any gods. It wouldn't be Atheism if you were to say that Zeus was unreal, but Apollo was real, or Thor was, or Ahura Mazda was, but Allah not. One god -- of any description -- is enough to blow Atheism away. After that, we're dealing with some form of Theism...polytheism, monotheism, pantheism, panentheism...something like that. And the debate you mention in 4) can then appear. But what we certainly have, at that point, is not Atheism anymore.

If there are no gods (Atheism), you can't ask "What kind is He?"

[Harbal]

I merely mean that anything undefined and unlimited by the strictly, crassly physical instantly becomes a problem for an Atheist. For his whole argument depends on asserting that the physical, the "scientific,"as he calls it, exhausts the totality of the "real."

Why do you keep insisting that atheists have an urgument? Some might have one, but being an atheist does not come with any ogligation to justify it. If there are people known as theists, who believe in the existence of God, why should simply not being one of them require an explanation? If I believed in pixies and you didn't feel inclined to join me in that belief, would you feel you owed me an explanation?

[Immanuel Can]

I merely mean that anything undefined and unlimited by the strictly, crassly physical instantly becomes a problem for an Atheist. For his whole argument depends on asserting that the physical, the "scientific,"as he calls it, exhausts the totality of the "real."

Why do you keep insisting that atheists have an urgument?

Because they always urgue.

If an Atheist only says, "I don't believe in God," then that's tame. It threatens nothing, and has no impact for Theists. It just means one person is, at least temporily, ignorant of any evidence. So if that's Atheism, it's completely unimportant.

But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either." That second bit is far more ambitious, and at least potentially much more threatening to Theism...but unfortunately for the Atheist, it means they need to offer an argument.

And, of course, they have none that will justify that claim. So they're stuck merely saying, "I don't want there to be a God." Very tame indeed.

[Harbal]

In order to believe in God, I would need to believe in magic. We have nature, where everything works in accordance with predictable principles. We never see heavier than air objects falling upwards, away from the ground. If someone asserts that there is a being who can override these natural laws, that being would be what we call a magician. You can try to dignify this being by calling it God, and substitute a loftier sounding word for magic, but it would still amount to the same thing. I do not consider a disbelief in magic as needing any justification.

Because they always urgue.

Only when they are told that something is dependent on, or necessitates, the existence of God. I don't bring up the none existence of God in an argument unless someone has first asserted that God does exist. It would never occur to me to express any thoughts relating to God unless someone else raises the subject first. I do not normally initiate conversations that include God, or even the none existence of God.

But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either.

I'm an atheist and I don't say that, so you are wrong about it always being the case that atheists say it. I have no opinion on whether you should believe in God, but when you imply that I am a fool for not believing in him I am going to retaliate.

but unfortunately for the Atheist, it means they need to offer an argument.

The claim that God exists is not a trivial one, the onus to demonstrate the truth of it is on the one who makes it.

And, of course, they have none that will justify that claim. So they're stuck merely saying, "I don't want there to be a God." Very tame indeed.

It takes a high degree of arrogance to say that someone needs to provide justification before he is allowed to disagree with you. And I don't particularly not want there to be a God. I don't mind if there is one or not. But, as I have said before, the God of the Bible is a ridiculous notion, and I certainly wouldn't want that to be true, and no one could reasonably be required to justify not believing any of it. Believing it to be true just because you want it to be true is also quite tame, or do I mean lame?

[henry quirk]

If someone asserts that there is a being who can override these natural laws, that being would be what we call a magician.

Has anyone, in-thread, asserted this?

I don't think it's a given, becuz The Creator created, He can -- willy nilly -- play around with the Creation.

Sure, the novelist can take his manuscript and change every 10th word to fnord, but his work loses coherency. Seems to me: it's no different for Him.

Just sayin'.

[uwot]

If an Atheist only says, "I don't believe in God," then that's tame. It threatens nothing, and has no impact for Theists. It just means one person is, at least temporily, ignorant of any evidence.

No Mr Can, it could mean many different things, but let's take one possibility. I understand the arguments for god as well as you. Those arguments are the objective evidence for god. We can infer from the fact that you find them compelling, but I don't, that they are not conclusive.

So if that's Atheism, it's completely unimportant.

Well what it means is that since the objective evidence for god is not conclusive, then your reason for believing in god is subjective. This might be because you happen to like the idea of god, or you believe that god has chosen to speak to you in a way that he doesn't speak to me. This in turn raises two further possibilities; either your god is unfair, or you are deluded.

[Harbal]

If someone asserts that there is a being who can override these natural laws, that being would be what we call a magician.

Has anyone, in-thread, asserted this?

Nobody has to assert anything in order for it to be claimed that an assertion has been made. IC has already set the precedent for this principle, and I am merely availing myself of it.

[Immanuel Can]

In order to believe in God, I would need to believe in magic.

I don't see why. "Magic" is mere tricksterism. We're talking about something far more basic: we're talking about the proper interpretation of the ontology of the universe.

We have nature, where everything works in accordance with predictable principles.

But, according to Naturalist or Materialist or Physicalist thought, that's astronomically unlikely to have happened. So either we somehow managed to win the most improbable lottery in the universe, or those suppositional bases, so essential to Atheism, are missing something.

Because they always urgue.

Only when they are told that something is dependent on, or necessitates, the existence of God.

Not at all.

In general, they seem to do it recreationally. They're very happy to inform you, upon the mere mention of God, that they don't believe what you believe, and to inform you in such a way as is intended to imply you're foolish to do otherwise. They just hate it when you can push back. That makes them really, really mad...which it shouldn't, really, if they had any actual confidence.

I don't bring up the none existence of God in an argument unless someone has first asserted that God does exist. It would never occur to me to express any thoughts relating to God unless someone else raises the subject first. I do not normally initiate conversations that include God, or even the none existence of God.

You're the exceptional Atheist, then...not the rule.

But Atheists always want to say more. They want to say, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either.

I'm an atheist and I don't say that,

Oh, good.

So you're fine with me believing in God? And everyone else, too? Just not you?

but unfortunately for the Atheist, it means they need to offer an argument.

The claim that God exists is not a trivial one, the onus to demonstrate the truth of it is on the one who makes it.

Or on the one who denies it. For it seems quite obvious to most people that the default is on belief in God, not disbelief.

But let's just say that both have something worth proving.

And, of course, they have none that will justify that claim. So they're stuck merely saying, "I don't want there to be a God." Very tame indeed.

It takes a high degree of arrogance to say that someone needs to provide justification before he is allowed to disagree with you.

He's not. He can disagree with no reasons, if he wants. Anybody can.

He can even say, "I don't believe..." and leave it hanging there. (No problem. Very tame, as I say.)

You can also safely ignore him. His disbelief has no implications for you.

[henry quirk]

Nobody has to assert anything in order for it to be claimed that an assertion has been made.

Ah, I see.

[Harbal]

In order to believe in God, I would need to believe in magic.

I don't see why. "Magic" is mere tricksterism.

No, magic is supernatural intervention. Tricksterism is just a simulation of magic, usually done on the stage for entertainment. You make claims of actual magic being performed.

But, according to Naturalist or Materialist or Physicalist thought,

I am not responsible for what these people think.

In general, they seem to do it recreationally. They're very happy to inform you, upon the mere mention of God, that they don't believe what you believe, and to inform you in such a way as is intended to imply you're foolish to do otherwise. They just hate it when you can push back. That makes them really, really mad...which it shouldn't, really, if they had any actual confidence.

What place has this in an argument? It is proof of nothing. You are just thinking it up and writing it down; it carries no weight whatsoever.

So you're fine with me believing in God? And everyone else, too? Just not you?

It wouldn't bother me too much if it were the case, but it is far from being the case. Of the regular posters on this forum, I certainly get the impression that significantly more than your 4% are atheists.

The thing is, IC, if you felt you were on such solid ground, you would not find it necessary to resort to dishonesty and trickery to bolster up your arguments, and those two things are something you have quite a reputation for here. You can't even refrain from deploying them in a discussion about morality, which totally pulls the rug out from under you.

[Harbal]

Nobody has to assert anything in order for it to be claimed that an assertion has been made.

Ah, I see.

Those is the rules, henry, don't shoot the messenger.