Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hope everyone is doing well today. So I have a thought on the list of impossible things we have to believe to be an athiest vs be a thiest. Let's for the sake of this exercise say that an impossible thing is something that cannot be reproduced or observed in any way today and actually looks "impossible" to the best of our understanding.

A theist believes in one impossible thing:
God

An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

I am a Theist so I am biased. I understand any worldview takes faith, mine included. I just think it would be hard to not strongly consider Theism if you take all this in.

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

I believe the above is patently false. Some (maybe even most) atheists believe some, most, or all of the above. Others do not.

By definition, atheists simply lack belief that a god or gods exist. They may believe in other magical things like alchemy, astrology, spirits, a magical afterlife, and a million other things. Likewise, they may not even believe matter exists at all. The categorical label atheist tell us almost nothing about what the labeled person believes, but rather just lets as know one single belief the person doesn't happen to have.

A nihilist would generally be an atheist, for example.

Due to the inaccuracy of the premise, the question lacks meaning and is thus unanswerable.

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm Hope everyone is doing well today. So I have a thought on the list of impossible things we have to believe to be an athiest vs be a thiest. Let's for the sake of this exercise say that an impossible thing is something that cannot be reproduced or observed in any way today and actually looks "impossible" to the best of our understanding.

A theist believes in one impossible thing:
God

An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

I am a Theist so I am biased. I understand any worldview takes faith, mine included. I just think it would be hard to not strongly consider Theism if you take all this in.

Well to my mind what it "takes" to be a theist and atheist today is very different from what it took back when gods were invented.

Back in antiquity, there was little to no science, therefore when early man looked at his environment and wondered "why does water fall from the sky?" logical answers (to him) would include: "I have no idea" and "a god makes it happen" (really two ways of saying the same thing). Since psychologically the latter is more comforting... Shazam! a god is born of necessity.

Fast forward to today. Religions and their gods are the norm and are ubiquitous. It takes literally nothing to be religious since the majority are brought up in religion as children (without a choice in the matter). What "takes" something is the decision to be atheistic in a theistic society. The three most common drivers of this are likely laziness (I ain't got time for all that mess) or rebellion (I'm not going to do what my parents preach) or science. But most commentary only addresses the role of science.

Scott wrote: ↑June 6th, 2019, 2:54 pmBy definition, atheists simply lack belief that a god or gods exist. They may believe in other magical things like alchemy, astrology, spirits, a magical afterlife, and a million other things. Likewise, they may not even believe matter exists at all. The categorical label atheist tell us almost nothing about what the labeled person believes, but rather just lets as know one single belief the person doesn't happen to have.

There's a distinction between (merely) negative atheism, which is the absence or lack of belief in the existence of divine beings, and positive atheism (antitheism), which is the belief in the nonexistence of divine beings.

What makes things more complicated is that it's not clear what "divine" means. Anything can be called divine. The concept of divinity alone doesn't tell us anything about the nature of what is called divine. It's more like a functional or role concept telling us what divine beings do rather than what they are (like the concept of a king or president describing a role and status in society). So (positive) atheism (as such) and theism (as such) are very thin isms that cannot properly be called worldviews unless several other isms or doctrines are added. For theism (as such) is nothing more than the belief that the number of divine beings is at least one, and (positive) atheism (as such) is nothing more than the belief that the number of divine beings is zero. (Positive) Atheists need be neither materialists nor naturalists.

Of course, theism is a genus with many species such as psychotheism, the view that there is at least one divine (immaterial) mind/soul/spirit, and, more specifically, monopsychotheism, the view that there is exactly one divine (immaterial) mind/soul/spirit. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are monopsychotheistic religions.

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm A theist believes in one impossible thing:
God

An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

This is false. A theist has to believe much more than this. A theist has to believe all the things you say an atheist believes PLUS the spontaneous generation of a maximally intelligent agency, all powerful and knowing FROM NOTHING.

As for atheism. It requires nothing. Since it is a negation of the absurd notion that intelligence comes first in the universe and seems to decline to capricious stupidity and casual cruelty, of the sort we would have to accept to believe in god.

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm Hope everyone is doing well today. So I have a thought on the list of impossible things we have to believe to be an athiest vs be a thiest. Let's for the sake of this exercise say that an impossible thing is something that cannot be reproduced or observed in any way today and actually looks "impossible" to the best of our understanding.

A theist believes in one impossible thing:
God

An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

I am a Theist so I am biased. I understand any worldview takes faith, mine included. I just think it would be hard to not strongly consider Theism if you take all this in.

Don't forget … besides theist and atheist there is also deist and agnostic.

There are more than just 2 pieces of the pie.

Scott said: "Likewise, they (atheists) may not even believe matter exists at all."

I don't follow that, if they don't believe that Spirit exists and they don't believe that Matter exists, what does that leave? Monads?

An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

Matter and space are the same thing - just that there's a greater concentration of energy in what we call "matter" than there is in "space". That is, it's all "stuff", in different densities.

The elements above iron in the periodic table are created are created in the final bang when gravity smacks into a supervova's central point. That's why they are less common.

Life and non-life is a similar situation to matter and space. Are viruses alive? Prions? Should we consider each of our cells to be a living organism, only captive, since much less sophisticated bacteria and archaea are credited with being true life forms?

What seems to worry some people is the emergence that occurs when certain thresholds of concentration are reached. That's what life is, a concentration, not of energy, but of organisation, of information. We are in the process of creating even more dense forms of organisation. Life appears to be a phase rather than an end point.

Can something like a deity exist? I think there is a great chance that one does *ducks for cover* - but not anything like that posited by the Abrahamics *ducks for cover again*.

The fact is that we don't know if this is the first universe/big bang or the billionth. We don't know if big bangs occur serially or in parallel. For all we know this could be the millionth universe. If the physical rules of previous universes are similar, then they would have been capable of supporting life for 1,000 billion years. Given what this universe has produced in 14 billion years, what might have evolved in that time? If they keep solving their existential problems until they can even survive the destruction of their galaxy, for instance, maybe they could, well, hang around and maybe even shape new big bangs?

Then again, this might be the first big bang and "God" is yet to evolve? Maybe God is currently just a baby? Events on earth would seem to support this :)

Then again, maybe this universe is a freak occurrence, destined to die and leave only endless nothingness forever?

We don't know, of course. While the most conservative and least speculative possibilities are very often found to be wrong (due to hitherto unknown complexities), that is what rigorous scientists or philosophisers must treat as "ground zero", the basis of future extrapolations.

Greta wrote: ↑June 8th, 2019, 1:56 amMatter and space are the same thing - just that there's a greater concentration of energy in what we call "matter" than there is in "space". That is, it's all "stuff", in different densities.

There is more than one possibility:

The relationship between space and matter:

1. identity: space = (spatially extended) matter
[Here, "matter" means "prime matter" or "aether". Matter in the form of massy particles can then be interpreted as a mass-density field with prime matter as its substrate.]

2. difference: space ≠ (spatially extended) matter.

2.1 attributionalism about space:
space is an attribute of (prime) matter, being its spatial dimension or extension.

2.2 substantialism about space:
space is a substance in its own right (so there's a physical substance dualism: the space-substance plus matter-substances):

2.2.1. material substances occupy regions of space (the space-substance):

There is space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance are penetrated by material substances. This means that the space-substance isn't "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. The space-substance is penetrable (by movable material substances) but immovable.

2.2.2 material substances occupy holes in space (the space-substance):

There isn't space where matter is, so parts of the space-substance only surround material substances. This means that the space-substance is "solid" in Locke's sense, i.e. impenetrable. However, when material substances move through it by displacing parts of it, it behaves like a fluid or liquid substance. (For example, when a stone is thrown into a lake, it sinks and moves through the water by displacing parts of it, with the stone not being penetrated but only surrounded by water.) The space-substance is impenetrable (by movable material substances) but movable.

2.3 supersubstantialism about space:
(apparent) material substances are (really) (bundles of) physical properties (quantities) of regions of space (the space-substance).
The space-substance is both impenetrable (by other substances) and immovable. The (apparent) motions of (apparent) material substances "are replaced by spatiotemporal trajectories of successive lightings-up of properties of spatiotemporal regions." (C. B. Martin)

[2.3 can be regarded as including 1: space = prime matter/aether and elementary particles (and all things composed of them) are bundles of physical properties (e.g. mass density) of parts of it. But the parts of the substantial aether aren't reducible to property-bundles, so there's still a difference!]

3. antisubstantialism or relationalism about space: space is a structure consisting of spatial relations between material substances (or events). Motion is change of distance relations between material substances.

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

They're both impossible, but spontaneous generation doesn't care what I eat, how I dress, whom I love or whether I sleep in on Sundays; it doesn't demand tithes or the teaching of BS in public schools.
If the creator stopped at creating, we couldn't tell him apart from a big bang, so I'd be okay with his existing.
It's the meddling I object to.

Greta wrote:Matter and space are the same thing - just that there's a greater concentration of energy in what we call "matter" than there is in "space". That is, it's all "stuff", in different densities.

Consul wrote:There is more than one possibility

Is it also possible that space is pure "nothingness"? And matter is all that exists? And could it be that those properties that we typically associate with space (e.g. 3D+time) are actually properties of matter?

binyamin7 wrote:In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

What's more likely:
1) the spontaneous generation of a creator to then magically create matter out of nothing, or
2) the spontaneous generation of matter?,

-OR-

3) a creator that has "always existed" to then magically create matter out of nothing, or
4) matter that has simply "always existed"?

#4 seems the most likely to me (...and is the only solution that does not defy logic).

binyamin7 wrote:A theist believes in one impossible thing:
God

Not so. A theist believes one impossible thing did many impossible things.

RJG wrote: ↑June 9th, 2019, 8:40 am

Consul wrote:There is more than one possibility

Is it also possible that space is pure "nothingness"?

My list presupposes spatial realism, i.e. that space is something rather than nothing; but, indeed, there is also spatial antirealism/nihilism—what Dainton calls "the void conception" of space. However, spatial nihilism is highly problematic and implausible:

"For many of us these days, a conception of space that has considerable intuitive appeal runs thus: space is an infinite expanse of featureless emptiness within which physical bodies are located and move. It is not surprising that we are drawn to this idea, for we are brought up to think of the Earth as a planet revolving around the Sun, which is just one star out of billions, strewn through the vastness of galactic and intergalactic space. The so- called “outer space” that separates the planets, stars and galaxies is, we are told, a hard vacuum, empty save for the odd molecule, perhaps one per cubic metre. An initial characterization of this view of space might run along these lines:

The Void Conception: Space in itself is nothing at all; it has no intrinsic features of its own, it is mere absence. Objects can be separated by different spatial distances – London is closer to Paris than it is to New York – and we know this because of the different amounts of time it takes to travel or transmit signals between them; we cannot directly measure magnitudes of space, since space is itself featureless void."
(p. 145)

"But now suppose that the void conception of space were true. If space is simply nothing why should our possibilities for movement be so tightly constrained? If space is pure void, not only would we be free to wander in the additional directions made available by a fourth dimension, but there would be nothing to prevent our wandering in the limitless different directions made available by 5-, 6-, 12-, 101-, and n-dimensional spaces, which are just as possible, mathematically speaking, as 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional spaces. The big bang would not have created a sphere of energy expanding in just three spatial dimensions: it would have been an explosion into n - dimensions, and as energy condensed into matter, the resulting objects would themselves have anything up to n-dimensions. Clearly, our universe is nothing like this. Every macroscopic object in the known universe not only seems three-dimensional, but its possibilities for movement are similarly restricted. But if space is simply nothingness, this would not be the case, or at least, there is no obvious reason why it should be the case.
Of course, the fact of our confinement to three dimensions is not at all evident to us; we naturally suppose that the familiar three dimensions are the only possible dimensions, and so we naturally suppose that nothingness itself can have only three dimensions. But once our eyes are opened to the logical possibility of four-, five- and higher dimensional spaces, the fact of our confinement has to be faced, and any satisfactory theory of space has to explain these unseen constraints in some way."
(p. 418)

"Connection in question:
You are in a dark room. You know that you are not alone, and you want to locate the other person without making any noise. One way to do it would be to wander about with arms outstretched until physical contact is achieved, but you don’t want to run the risk of stumbling over pieces of furniture. Happily, you are equipped with a torch. You shine the torch in different directions, and soon locate your companion. Facts of this sort – that objects can move and collide with other objects, that objects are connected by paths through space along which light can travel – are so familiar that we find them utterly unpuzzling; it is just the way things are. However, this sort of fact would be puzzling if the void conception were true. For one thing, as we have just seen, there would be many more possible directions in which objects could be located than we usually suppose, so it might take you a long time to point your torch in the right direction. But the problem runs deeper: if space is mere absence, the very possibility of spatial connection becomes problematic, and with it the notion of spatial distance, since the only way we have of measuring expanses of void is in terms of the time taken to travel between spatially separated objects. To bring this point clearly to the fore, I will again make use of a thought-experiment.

We find it natural to suppose that we live in a single all-embracing spatial framework: at any given time, any object, of any kind, no matter where it is located, is some definite spatial distance away from every other object. The idea that space is necessarily unified in this way can be undermined by describing an imaginary scenario in which it would be reasonable to believe that one was living in a two-space universe; that is a universe consisting of two collections of spatial locations, S1 and S2, such that every member of S1 lies at some distance from every other member of S1, and likewise for the members of S2, yet no member of S1 lies at any distance from any member of S2, and vice versa. Probably the best-known scenario of this type is Quinton’s Lakeside village story (1962). What follows is based on a variant devised by Newton-Smith (…).

The world “Pleasantville” is the sole planet orbiting a solitary star located in other wise empty space. Pleasantville is a near-perfect sphere. It is always warm and sunny, but otherwise it is much like the present-day Earth. The inhabitants of Pleasantville discover that eating a certain root causes them to vanish, only to reappear some time later. When a root-eater reappears, they invariably bring back tales of another world, “Harshland”, a cube-shaped planet orbiting a solitary star located in otherwise empty space, which is always cold and inhospitable. On vanishing from Pleasantville, root-eaters finds themselves on the surface of Harshland, where they amuse themselves as best they can until their return. People who eat the root together are “transported” to Harshland as a group. People who eat the root at different places on Pleasantville end up at different places on Harshland. The various descriptions of the features of Harshland and the events that take place there brought back by different root-eaters invariably agree.

Different interpretations of this scenario are possible. It could be argued that the root induces intermittent existence accompanied by collective delusions, but given the intersubjective agreement on the character of Harshland, the hypothesis that the latter is as real and objective a world as Pleasantville seems more reasonable (and certainly just as reasonable). Another option would be to maintain that Harshland occupies some remote region of Pleasantville space, and that the root induces near-instantaneous spatial relocation. But there are no stars to be seen in the night skies of either planet. The Pleasantville folk once travelled far and wide through their universe, but never detected any trace of any star other than their own; they gave up looking when they discovered that light in their universe travels instantaneously, so if there were any other stars in their universe, they would be visible. Since the Harshland star is nowhere to be seen, the hypothesis that Pleasantville and Harshland each exist within a separate space is certainly a reasonable one.

In response, it could be maintained that the two planets exist in different three-dimensional spaces embedded in a common four-dimensional space (analogous to the way that any number of two-dimensional spaces can be “stacked” like parallel sheets of paper in a three-dimensional space). But, as Newton- Smith points out, unless we are provided with some reason for thinking this to be the case, the hypothesis has nothing to recommend it. If Pleasantville scientists possessed a well confirmed physical theory that explained why it was impossible to travel from one of these three-dimensional spaces to the other, and could provide data on the relative locations of these spaces in the encompassing four-dimensional space, then matters would be different; but, as it happens (we can suppose), no such theory is forthcoming. Yet another option would be to claim that, on disappearing from Pleasantville, the root-eaters remained within the same space, but travelled either forwards or backwards in time, to the remote temporal location of Harshland. But the facts count against this: the scientists of Pleasantville are able to roughly estimate the age of both their planet and their universe. When the age of Harshland is measured by the same procedures, a similar result is found. The idea that Harshland is located within the Pleasantville universe, but at some distant point in the past or future, can thus be ruled out; the time travel hypothesis seems quite ad hoc. The one-time/two-space hypothesis is the simplest available.

This story shows that our experience could be such as to warrant the postulation of two distinct spaces, which is an interesting result in its own right, but I introduced the scenario simply to undermine the complacent assumption that all objects are necessarily spatially related. There could be two objects that are not connected by any spatial path. Bearing this point in mind, let us return to the void conception.

To simplify, let us suppose that extended material objects are intuitive solids; that is, their matter completely fills their spatial volume – they are not composed of particles separated by space. Now consider this proposal:

The idea that the universe could consist of material objects dispersed through a void at different distances from one another is simply incoherent, or at least it is a seriously misleading way of describing a state of affairs that is better characterized in terms of many worlds. For consider, each solid object constitutes a three-dimensional space in its own right. Take any two points in an object O1. There is a continuous spatial path through the matter in O1 that connects these points. Likewise for any two points in a distant and distinct object O2. But is there any spatial path between any point in O1 and any point in O2? There is not: since (by hypothesis) these objects are separated from one another by an expanse of void, there is absolutely nothing between them, or that links them, so the objects are entirely unconnected. Any two material objects are properly viewed as distinct and independent spatial worlds in their own right. Since there are no spatial paths or distances between two distinct objects, it is impossible for one object ever to collide with another. If an object breaks into two parts, these parts would not drift gradually away from one another, they would each immediately come to constitute isolated worlds in their own right.

Once we accept the possibility of multiple unconnected spaces, this proposal is by no means absurd. Anyone who says that the only connection between two spatially separated objects is an expanse of void does seem vulnerable to the objection that a connection of this sort is no connection at all, and hence that there is no reason at all to suppose that the objects in question inhabit the same space; and if they don’t inhabit the same space, each object constitutes a space (or universe) of its own.

Once again, we know perfectly well that objects in our world do inhabit a common space: objects can collide with one another, light and other signals can pass from one object to another, and so on. What should now be clear is that this is by no means a trivial matter. There could easily be a collection of objects that are neither connected nor connectable in these ways.

So we have a further requirement that a satisfactory account of space must meet. In addition to providing an explanation of the constraints on spatially related things, such an account must provide some explanation of the distinctive ways that such things are connected. This is something the void conception signally fails to deliver."
(pp. 149-51)

(Dainton, Barry. Time and Space. 2nd ed. Durham: Acumen, 2010.)

RJG wrote: ↑June 9th, 2019, 8:40 amIs it also possible that…matter is all that exists? And could it be that those properties that we typically associate with space (e.g. 3D+time) are actually properties of matter?

The latter is what I call attributionalism: "Space is an attribute of (prime) matter, being its spatial dimension or extension."

Including time: There is only spatially and temporally extended (prime) matter, with space qua spatial extension and time qua temporal extension (duration) being properties of it (and parts of it).

Binyamin7
In your mind does the statistical chances of some sort of Creator really seem less likely than the Spontaneous generation of all matter?

Surprising that so many here have missed the mark. God as a meaningful, functional concept has nothing whatever to do with the issue of what matter is. I would think it clear by now that such questions simply go on and on begging and begging questions. God is only about ethics and value in the world. A creator?? You mean in the biblical sense? What?!?
Questions about spontaneous generation of matter over creation and the like are just distractions, categorial errors. the term 'God' is a placeholder for a moral affirmation of our existence; it is a rejection moral nihilism, and a metaphysical redemption of human "being here". If you are a theist in any meaningful sense, it simply means you think happiness and suffering have their meaning grounded in something absolute.
It's not as if we can't ask question about matter and the like, but these are all ultimately questions about value and ethics.

Scott wrote: ↑June 6th, 2019, 2:54 pm

Binyamin7 wrote: ↑June 2nd, 2019, 12:55 pm An Atheist believes in these things:
-Spontaneous generation of matter
-Spontaneous generation of time
-Spontaneous generation of space
-Getting all the elements through fusion without being able to fuse past iron
-Life developing from non-living matter
-Increasing genetic information from one generation to the next

I believe the above is patently false. Some (maybe even most) atheists believe some, most, or all of the above. Others do not.

By definition, atheists simply lack belief that a god or gods exist. They may believe in other magical things like alchemy, astrology, spirits, a magical afterlife, and a million other things. Likewise, they may not even believe matter exists at all. The categorical label atheist tell us almost nothing about what the labeled person believes, but rather just lets as know one single belief the person doesn't happen to have.

A nihilist would generally be an atheist, for example.

Due to the inaccuracy of the premise, the question lacks meaning and is thus unanswerable.

A nihilist would normally be an athiest AND more than likely believe in the things I listed above. That was a strange "example" you implied being a nihilist was somehow contrary to the origins beliefs I put forward- when in fact the belief would flow logically from an origins belief set such as I described.

So you would rather set up false dichotomies than have any kind of dialogue- fine. Please find another thread then.