Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Sorry, but there doesn't have to be a reason. Notice how pleadingly childish it appears when someone just has to have a reason.

Usually when children say "Why?", they deserve an answer. Very often, it isn't supplied.

 

[hammegk]

Correct.

No doubt about it; "emergent property" is more scientific (sounding ) than "goddidit".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Mmmm, we know of acusal events. Or at least we know of events to which we cannot deduce a cause.

Hans

Yes. The relevance of which should not be understated.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There is no such thing as a necesary being, it is logical nonsense.

Eh? It's a central theme in several branches of philosophy, specifically metaphysics and philosophy of religion. You may argue that such an entity does not exist, but please don't claim it's logical nonsense. The reverse is true. It is logically the last place many people end up in, having been forced from every other position.

What you are saying here simply isn't true.

You can't define things into existence, existence is not a property that you can specify an object as having.

I'm not doing that. That was Kant's objection to the ontological argument. For a start, Kant's objection is widely accepted to be a mistake. For seconds, I am currently defending the cosmological argument, not the ontological argument.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sam,

If you chop my head off, me stops existing.

Regarding the question about numbers existing non-spatio-temporally, I am defending mathematical platonism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You use old, very old arguments all the time....

That's not true. I sometimes use arguments which are very new. But I do also often use arguments that are very old. Some of them are truly ancient. That doesn't make them wrong.

and I have not seen that you recon that (well, only force, when I call your attention about it). For example, this thing about existence... Sankara said it already.

Please don't confuse me with Lifegazer. I am not claiming that I have come up with some idea that wasn't already suggested in some form by the ancient Chinese and Indians or by Continental philosophy much more recently. I have posted very little on this board which was truly original.

Why do I care? because you seem to recon about some philosophers as the foundations of what you say, for example Kant. So why not Sankara?

BDZ, I am more than happy to call myself a Hindu. My own religious-philosophical view are considerably more closely related to Hinduism than to Buddhism. Sankara was a Hindu philosopher. So yes, why not Sankara?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Only if they haven't really thought about it. Theism only pushes the problem back a notch, it doesn't get rid of it. The question becomes "Why is there a God?".

Not really. Universes are contingent. Gods are neccesary. i.e. Universes can stop existing, Gods cannot.

It does not have a satisfactory answer. In fact there can be no reason for God if you think about it.

Exactly. If God exists, God neccesarily exists and cannot stop existing.

It also multiplies the problems - you now have "Why did God create the universe?".

Franko answered this question on this board a long time ago. Because existence is better than non-existence.

Theists always like to boast that, unlike atheists, they have meaning and purpose to their lives.

This one doesn't. My life is utterly meaningless. I am the most extreme nihilist you are ever likely to encounter. Why do you think I go on and on about ZERO?

They never actually explain what that meaning and purpose is.

There is none. I have no solution to this problem.

Just because there is a God does not mean that there is a reason for the universe.

I don't agree. God is a reason for the Universe. It does not follow there is a reason for YOU and ME. I have no idea what I am supposed to do with the rest of my life.

But at least with the blank sheet of atheism you are free to make your own meanings, even if there was no reason for your existence.

I am also free to make my own meanings, given the contents of the rest of this post.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That's not true. I sometimes use arguments which are very new. But I do also often use arguments that are very old. Some of them are truly ancient. That doesn't make them wrong.

Well of course not! If anything, Im impressed that western philosophy has taken that long in finding the arguments that were proposed by some old easterns.

Please don't confuse me with Lifegazer. I am not claiming that I have come up with some idea that wasn't already suggested in some form by the ancient Chinese and Indians or by Continental philosophy much more recently. I have posted very little on this board which was truly original.

Fair enough. And no, the comparation is impossible. You know what you talk about. For what is worth, I agree with you most of the time.

BDZ, I am more than happy to call myself a Hindu. My own religious-philosophical view are considerably more closely related to Hinduism than to Buddhism. Sankara was a Hindu philosopher. So yes, why not Sankara?

Sankara is considered the founder of Kevala Advaita philosophy, as an Advaitin myself, I find his arguments as a remarkable achievement, specially because he died young. BTW, I agree in that Buddhism (as a religious movement) is different from Hinduism in general, but still Advaita Vedanta is closely related to a small branch of Buddhism: Zen.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Universes are contingent.

On what?


Regards

 

[UndercoverElephant]

On what?


Regards

Exactly.

The following link is very highly recommended to anyone genuinely interested in this.

http://www.ditext.com/russell/debate.html

 

[chriswl]

Eh? It's a central theme in several branches of philosophy, specifically metaphysics and philosophy of religion. You may argue that such an entity does not exist, but please don't claim it's logical nonsense.

No, the idea of a "necesary being" is logical nonsense. The whole question of why there is something rather than nothing is motivated by the fact that the existence of the universe is clearly not necesary. You can't just take the question and remove the question mark (let's assume there was something who's existence, somehow, was necesary) and then claim you have got some sort of an answer.

For seconds, I am currently defending the cosmological argument, not the ontological argument.

These are all arguments borrowed from theology, for goodness sake. Of course they are idiotic. They are designed to arm the faithful with rhetorical devices to counter skeptical arguments and thus save their souls. I'm amazed that you take them seriously. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Theists always like to boast that, unlike atheists, they have meaning and purpose to their lives.

They never actually explain what that meaning and purpose is.

And even when they try, it still doesn't sound like a purpose.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Usually when children say "Why?", they deserve an answer. Very often, it isn't supplied.

Sometimes that is because there is no answer: "Why did Fluffy have to die?"

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No doubt about it; "emergent property" is more scientific (sounding ) than "goddidit".

At least it doesn't sound as silly as saying something like "There are no such things as emergent properties." Then you have to list every property of every thing and claim they are basic properties. Yikes!

~~ Paul

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Sometimes that is because there is no answer: "Why did Fluffy have to die?"

~~ Paul

You realize you can put the "Paul" part in your signature right? I believe that's the original intention of the signature portion of message boards in fact.

That aside, there's an explanation for that, but it is a dry scientific one. Basically something along the lines of "unfortunatly Fluffy's body was broken down to the point where it could no longer sustain itself". It may not be very spiritual, and could be phrased more elaquantly, but it is an answer that is sufficient.

 

[hammegk]

At least it doesn't sound as silly as saying something like "There are no such things as emergent properties." Then you have to list every property of every thing and claim they are basic properties. Yikes!

~~ Paul

Yikes is right. Was it hard slogging to twist my comment to imply that bit of nonsense, or was it easy for you?

 

[Tricky]

Yikes is right. Was it hard slogging to twist my comment to imply that bit of nonsense, or was it easy for you?

When a post is void of content, one feels free to add their own.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You realize you can put the "Paul" part in your signature right? I believe that's the original intention of the signature portion of message boards in fact.

But it wouldn't convey the same feeling of signing each message personally. Also, it would be below the horizontal line. Freaky.

That aside, there's an explanation for that, but it is a dry scientific one. Basically something along the lines of "unfortunatly Fluffy's body was broken down to the point where it could no longer sustain itself". It may not be very spiritual, and could be phrased more elaquantly, but it is an answer that is sufficient.

Well, it's the answer that has to do, but I don't think it addresses the child's real question. The child's real question has no answer.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yikes is right. Was it hard slogging to twist my comment to imply that bit of nonsense, or was it easy for you?

I had no idea what you meant, and, just as last time we went through this, you wont' explain it. In any event, since "goddidit" is no explanation at all, I thought you might be saying that "emergent property" is no explanation, either.

~~ Paul

 

[Soapy Sam]

Sam,

If you chop my head off, me stops existing.

I concur. As does any process "you" was supporting at the time. Angst for example. (Ah, but I forget- you do not believe in neural processes.) This appears to me analogous to the question of where does the flame go when the candle goes out. A process has stopped. That's all.
Regarding the question about numbers existing non-spatio-temporally, I am defending mathematical platonism:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/

I see no need to suppose mathematical entities exist other than as mental processes. To me, number is solely a measure of quantity.* Three sticks exist. Three brass balls exist. Three is an abstract concept the balls and sticks share. Concepts are mental processes. "Three " has no existence; it cannot be found anywhere. (Though labels referring to it abound ).
*The mathematicians here know me as a heretic ignoramus and tolerate my foibles as harmless idiocy.

Hammegk- ALL properties are emergent. Some are more emergent than others. We would probably both agree a planet has inertia whether it has inhabitants or not, but we might differ over (say) whether a falling tree on same makes a noise , as some would say that noises are artifacts of nervous systems. And was the tree beautiful? Was the sound (if there was any sound) harmonious? All these are emergent properties. Would invoking god somehow explain their existence do you think? I have a blind spot there, I'm afraid.