h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With the universe defined as "everything there is" that would seem to be a logical conclusion.

Noggin

I did not say it was a default setting. I AM AN ATHEIST!!!

I said that the suggestion of people believing in gods mean that there are people who don't think there are any.

It is an interesting issue though - at what point does a child's right to a proper education (or freedom from indoctrination) override a parent's 'right' to choose their child's educational environment.

Well a 'proper education' is whatever the parent believes fit.

That's how we get all these divisions in religions to a degree.

Or possibly:

The workings of the universe do not indicate the prescence of a god, therefore we can consider god surplus to requirements, and seeing as the more complicated a theory is, the more likely it is to be wrong...

Or in my case just the workings of a mundane universe do not seem consistent with the concept of the divine.

I mean mundane in a limited sense, it is still quite interesting enough without the supernatural.

'With the universe defined as "everything there is" that would seem to be a logical conclusion.'

Fair enough, but that requires the premise to be true of 'everything there is', not just what is observable. The proposition, 'There is an x' cannot be found to be true or false by empirical means if it is not necessarily the case that x, if it exists, is within the realm even of the indirectly observable. Therefore the premise cannot be shown empirically (or by a priori means, as far as I am aware) to be true (or false); therefore one can't know that the inference is sound.

How about with the universe defined as 'everything that humans can, divine intervention aside, directly or indirectly detect'? (That's the universe that science, indeed any form of empiricism, is equipped to deal with.)

I was expecting you to pick up on the ambiguity of 'The workings of the universe involve...'. Presumably you've taken existence to be a form of involvement in the workings of the universe. However, we don't actually know how much universe there is.

Maybe logic and debating rules should be taught in schools.

'The workings of the universe do not indicate the prescence of a god, therefore we can consider god surplus to requirements'

I am aware of nothing the existence of which depends on its explanatory capacity. You can use Occam's Razor on God qua explanatory postulate -- the idea of a deity is not required to explain the workings of the universe; therefore we need not assume the existence of a deity when seeking to explain the workings of the universe -- but you can't move from not having a reason to assume that something exists to its not existing.

'the more complicated a theory is, the more likely it is to be wrong...'

One can argue about what it is for something to be complicated, but this looks to me like an argument for God and against the increasingly complicated theories of physics. Newton's theory is simpler than Einstein's; unfortunately it works only on limited scales and is based on two apparently false metaphysical assumptions that Einstein rejected.

'Or in my case just the workings of a mundane universe do not seem consistent with the concept of the divine.'

The 'mundane' is a subjective notion; there are some who claim to perceive divine wonder and special revelation in all things. Pantheists believe that everything _is_ divine. Besides, an omnipotent being can create an often mundane world if it so chooses, and this looks like much less of a problem than the Problem of Evil.

<>
It depends on the child! I questioned everything, and other some other sibs accepted everything! Looking at all our children (8 from 14-28 years) most have considered what their parents said, and accepted or rejected depending on their own views...

As it should be.

The arguement of mundane only works on a personal level, other people may disagree over what's mundane, but I'm simply trying to demonstrate how some can actively disbelieve gods altogether.

And I suppose it is more or less impossible to reduce any concept beyond the possibility that it might exist in an unknown and unknowable way with more or less no recognisable properties. To me that is a point where I assume non-existence, and in any subject where people took things less seriously, where I would start laughing . Jesus is coming for me...noooooooo...

Although I am somewhat interested in what I've heard Malthowich describe as the "spark of the divine," seeing as this is something that apparantly only other people experience. I want to have a go on that temporal lobe epilepsy machine for a start.

I take your point about varying interpretations of complexity. I suppose I take certain parts of modern phyiscs for granted, although understanding that they are ultimately an approximation, because I have seen them work. Thus it does not seem such a great leap that the rest of the universe might be scientifically explainable, although I'm sure it never will to our complete satisfaction.

Whereas the problem of evil seems to me much more like a word game, as does free will.

>>I am aware of nothing the existence of which depends on its explanatory capacity<<

How about an explanation?

Just a couple of quickies before



I'd disagree - though I'm taking "is observable" to mean capable of observation (in the widest sense), and observation to include the act of interpretation (seeing as), and assuming logical consistency therein.



You mean the GUT (or TOE if you prefer), a single equation and zero entropy (minimally simple) initial conditions? Which constitute the most simple formulation of what's necessary to account for the actual complexity of the universe? I think I just mentioned it elsewhere, but a reading of the first chapter of Spinoza's Ethics is a *must* for all students of metaphysics.

Noggin

In what sense does an explanation exist?

'You mean the GUT (or TOE if you prefer), a single equation and zero entropy (minimally simple) initial conditions?'

No (and I observed that the definition of complexity could be disputed).

'I'd disagree - though I'm taking "is observable" to mean capable of observation (in the widest sense), and observation to include the act of interpretation (seeing as), and assuming logical consistency therein.'

You defined the universe as 'everything there is'. It is not necessarily the case that everything that there is is observable; things may not even get as far as giving rise to interpretation.

To put it another way: you seem to take 'the universe' to consist of, possibly to be equivalent to, the set of things (that exist), of which the set of empirically observable things is a proper subset. Empirical observation can establish that x is a member of the set of observable things, making it a member of the set of things. Empirical observation can sometimes establish that circumstances are incompatible with y's being a member of the set of things; if y necessarily has the properties of luminescence equivalent to that of a 90W bulb, and of being in my garage, then darkness in my garage enables one to conclude the nonexistence of y, and its non-membership of the set of things.

So, here's a scientific question, open to anyone: what empirically observable feature(s), or absence of feature(s), of the universe (i.e. 'everything there is', but bear in mind that science can only deal with what can be determined by examination of empirical data) would necessarily differ between a universe containing a deity (presumably consistent with the usual Christian theological understanding of God: omnipotent, omniscient, etc. -- but feel free to apply this to any other ) and a universe not containing a deity?

Or should we possibly do this on the 'God: Fact or Fiction?' thread?

'And I suppose it is more or less impossible to reduce any concept beyond the possibility that it might exist in an unknown and unknowable way with more or less no recognisable properties. To me that is a point where I assume non-existence, and in any subject where people took things less seriously, where I would start laughing.'

What's questionable is saying: I do not and cannot know that x exists; I do not and cannot know that x does not exist; therefore I do not know whether x does not exist; therefore x may or may not exist; therefore x does not exist.

The last bit doesn't really follow: 'I am an agnostic; therefore I am an atheist.'

I agree with you, RFJS_ (darn cut-and-paste doesn't work on this public 'puter...)

Thanks!

>>In what sense does an explanation exist?<<

In this sense:

(Ex)(explanation=x)

nb E=existential qualifier; through some enormous procedural lacuna, it's not available for posts.

...or quantifier, even.

Correction to Post 554: for 'proper subset' please just read 'subset'. (This correction means that the set of observable things can have the same members as, and therefore be identical to, the set of things, as will be the case if all things are, in fact, observable.)