How I rationalize my atheism

[Kharisym]

For anyone curious, these are my notes of things to look deeper into based on y'alls feedback:

2.c
That is not entirely correct.
Gödel's theorems apply only to systems powerful enough to make statements about themself.
Gödel shows that such a system is necessarily incomplete - not that it is inconsistent

X
We don't know anything about extraverse so any force is possible.
which is tautology: Tautology (logic) - Wikipedia
Because you can say the reverse with same result, ex. we don't know origin of force (god or nature) so extraverse is possible (since god is not excluded)

??
Your first premise requires one to accept it as truth in order for premises that follow to be true as well,
otherwise if not, premises that follow can be false, this is why I said it's similar (not necessarily same) as "The fallacy of appeal to authority"

2
Your "Groundwork" portion needs to be shortened and more clear, I would exclude logic portion because these things should be self-explanatory.

??
Review Occam's razor and verify its application. Specify that its about establishing the most default position and prove the default position is the correct belief in the absence of any other knowledge

 

[blü 2]

That's an existing argument that atheists make constantly in theistic debates. I do actually agree with you, but the argument you give serves a separate purpose contending with experiences within our universe and fails to establish a logical underpinning for the default position. In this way, it can fall short when confronted with a hands off creator who snapped the universe into being and then buggered off to invent himself a cosmic hooker to play with instead.

You say I've been scooped? Dang!

More generally I'd make these points ─

If our sentient being (whether called God or not) is credited with making the universe with the intention of bringing H sap sap into being then that being's sheer inefficiency is unparalleled ─ perhaps 20 septillion stars, and however many planets that entails, and no sign of H sap sap, on even one of those planets, till the last 1/50,000th or less of the roughly 14 bn years the universe has been around.

While if our sentient being did not make the universe with the intention of bringing H sap sap into being then the theological element is reduced to insignificance, and the idea of a personal God is off the menu.

(I'm actually an igtheist ─ I have no idea what real thing is meant to be denoted by the word "God" such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was God or not. In the realms of imagination even the unicorn fares better than that.)

 

[Brian2]

The tl;dr of my argument is to show that 1) We currently cannot know anything about what's outside our universe, which 2) renders anything we can say about what's outside our universe an exercise in pure logic, therefore 3) Occams razor is applicable as a tool for defining what the most likely state would be barring all other things equal (and all things are equal in a system of complete unknowns, as established by 1).

Occam's Razor is good in eliminating certain things that may be true and could and is used by science and by you and could also be used by me.
Science has it's presuppositions already and so eliminates the supernatural possibilities.
If you go down the road of science then I would say you are using a presupposition you have about the supernatural.
So I would say that you are truly "rationalising" your atheism,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or wanting to "justify" it, and are not showing that atheism is logically true.

 

[firedragon]

In premise 2, "We can apply logic to the extraverse" I try to support the idea that logic is *not* bound by the nature of our universe, and is applicable to any system whether another universe or the 'stuff' a universe resides within.

Okay I understand what you say.

In your post, you had come to the conclusion based on a premise that all mechanisms are equally possible etc. How did you come to that premise? Your application of some kind of universality taking your "extraverse" and the universe was only to logic, not "all mechanisms". Thus, how did that arrive?

Also, how could force and nothing be lumped into natural? It seems like you had taken a methodological approach. But any methodological approach taken in a premise is only limited to that methodological premise. So you can never apply that outside that methodological approach. Do you understand this?

The so called boundary of the universe is a physical boundary in your conception, and any kind of conception, if there is any. I understand what you say, but that cannot be applied to an idea about God or anything metaphysical. Metaphysical doesn't really mean Metaverse, or your own phrase "extraverse". It seems to me like you are making the universe as we know to be "inside" an "extraverse". Like a bubble inside a water tank as an example. That is not relevant to a metaphysical being or topic.

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

This is a huge leap using the Ockhams Razor. Ockhams razor is not there to make conjecture like that. If you think from the flip side, it is much more complex to think that such complexity came naturally rather than intelligence. If you believe it was just randomness, it is much more unfathomable or impossible in comparison to intelligence.

This is a leap of faith in your part.

Good post though. I enjoyed it.

 

[blü 2]

Science has it's presuppositions already and so eliminates the supernatural possibilities.
If you go down the road of science then I would say you are using a presupposition you have about the supernatural.

I don't see how science's inattention to the supernatural can be said to be based on "presuppositions".

There's simply nothing out there in reality that answers the description. Not a single instance of magic, or miracles, or ghosts, or souls, authenticated to modern standards ─ nothing. Please correct me if that's wrong.

Indeed, the very word "supernatural" means "outside of nature" ie "outside of reality" ─ so that the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as a set of concepts / things imagined in individual brains, no?

That being so, would it not be fairer to say that the reality of the supernatural is the "presupposition"?

 

[Ponder This]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

It seems that your reasoning centers around the notion of intelligence.
You differentiate God as intelligent and Force as not intelligent.
All of your statements build to the point where you state that intelligence is unnecessary.

What is intelligence?

 

[Trailblazer]

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

I did not have time to read all of that and I usually don't have much interest in rationalizations for belief and nonbelief.

I am a believer who does not believe that atheists have to rationalize atheism since it is just as logical to believe God does not exist as it is to believe that God does exist, since there is no proof that God exists or that God does not exist...

Besides that, there could be a God and also a natural cause for the origin of the universe as one does not contradict the other.

 

[Heyo]

In premise 2, "We can apply logic to the extraverse" I try to support the idea that logic is *not* bound by the nature of our universe, and is applicable to any system whether another universe or the 'stuff' a universe resides within.

That's an interesting task. I have thought about that myself and have not come to a conclusion. As a cop out you can say that logic is not contingent upon the universe and even if there was a parallel universe where logic doesn't apply, we couldn't say anything about it as it's illogical.
At least that's true for Aristotelian logic which doesn't recognize time. The moment you have temporal causality, you recognize a physical trait of our universe, namely a one dimensional time that never flows backwards.
Imagine a universe with multiple time dimensions, just like we have multiple space dimensions. Can't do it? Neither can I. But that would really mess up logic.

 

[paradox]

Though people keep saying "universe from nothing", they are trying to make a paradigm shift by inventing a new "nothing".

Nothing is not nothing anymore.

Krauss' "nothing" is material nothing, but there is also philosophical nothing which includes non material things and anything one could say or imagine.
Although I don't like his theory since virtual particles are not nothing but something.

The true meaning of nothing though can be useful to describe place outside the universe.

 

[firedragon]

Krauss' "nothing" is material nothing

Not really. His nothing is something.

but there is also philosophical nothing which includes non material things and anything one could say or imagine.

I don't know about a philosophical nothing that includes any kind of thing.

 

[paradox]

Not really. His nothing is something.

yes, he fails to exclude virtual particles, which is not really "nothing", and also laws of physics.

I don't know about a philosophical nothing that includes any kind of thing.

I did say it doesn't include anything.

 

[blü 2]

Krauss' "nothing" is material nothing, but there is also philosophical nothing which includes non material things and anything one could say or imagine.
Although I don't like his theory since virtual particles are not nothing but something.

The true meaning of nothing though can be useful to describe place outside the universe.

I'd suggest that the true meaning of nothing was exactly that ─ nothing. No matter, no energy, hence no dimensions of space or time ─ nothing, nowhere, ever.

(When I realized from the reviews that Krauss didn't address this, I didn't buy his book.)

 

[firedragon]

I did say it doesn't include anything.

Ah. Then I have misunderstood you. Apologies.

 

[paradox]

Ah. Then I have misunderstood you. Apologies.

That's why I think "nothing" in it's real meaning could be much more useful for the OP if applied to "extraverse",
since it would exclude everything including god. (God is not nothing)

For anyone to defeat his theory, one would have to prove abode of god to exist within universe.

I'd suggest that the true meaning of nothing was exactly that ─ nothing. No matter, no energy, hence no dimensions of space or time ─ nothing, nowhere, ever.
(When I realized from the reviews that Krauss didn't address this, I didn't buy his book.)

Yes, for same reason I don't like his theory either.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but there is also philosophical nothing which includes non material things ..

I believe this is the real nothing, not just philosophical. Actually, there is no clear-cut line between material and non-material things (like Uraniaum 235 and energy).

 

[firedragon]

That's why I think "nothing" in it's real meaning could be much more useful for the OP if applied to "extraverse",
since it would exclude everything including god. (God is not nothing)

For anyone to defeat his theory, one would have to prove abode of god to exist within universe.


Yes, for same reason I don't like his theory either.

How would you consider this post? #64

 

[paradox]

I believe this is the real nothing, not just philosophical. Actually, there is no clear-cut line between material and non-material things (like Uraniaum 235 and energy).

"nothing" literary means "not a thing", things are material, thus concepts and imagination which are not material are not a thing and thus do not need to be excluded from "nothing"
philosophical "nothing" on another side excludes everything, including concepts and imaginations.

 

[paradox]

How would you consider this post? #64

I agree in full.
Extraverse in his sense isn't metaphysical, it's rather a real and falls into real.
for this reason extraverse needs to be NULL or "nothing" as he him self says in the OP is one possibility.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not talking of a nothing which includes imaginations and concepts. I am talking of a 'nothing' which can change into 'something'.
Sure, science has not found that 'nothing' but RigVeda mentions it.

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

 

[firedragon]

I agree in full.
Extraverse in his sense isn't metaphysical, it's rather a real and falls into real.
for this reason extraverse needs to be NULL or "nothing" as he him self says in the OP it's possibility.

Yes. I agree.

That would depend on what one refers to as "the universe". This is a metaphysical topic. In theology, the traditional or the "Only Traditional" idea of the universe is that it's everything that exists in the natural world.

Thus when it's everything, there is nothing outside of it in the physical world. The sentence "there is nothing" does not mean "existence of nothing" if you know what I mean. That means there is nothing called "outside the universe".