Koyaanisqatsi

First, this nonsense:

First fallacy. The term, "Random," in a scientific manner, does not mean what you are confusing it to mean in the vernacular sense.

Even if our "thoughts" (whatever they may be), were in fact "random," this would have no bearing on whether or not they "contain" truth or "correspond to reality."

Thoughts and beliefs and all things predicated upon given assumptions that in turn are predicated upon mere acceptence, are without merit and therefore void.

Ok, stop right there. If you do in fact affirm this premise, then you instantly negate deity, since deity is an irrational cause.

According to the standard you've just posited, there would be "no reason to think our thoughts contain truth" if a deity existed.

What is reality but the reactions of chemicals and "natural causes?"

Are you insinuating that there is something "unnatural" to thoughts? Something "unreal" in thinking, or are you simply obfuscating the irrational within the rational?

If I think that a house has turned into a lion's head, has the house actually turned into a lion's head?

Yes. To me. At that time. For all intents and purposes in my mind.

Does this mean that the house without me perceiving it as a lion's head turned into a lion's head?

No.

Does that make a difference in my own personal experience at that time?

No.

Does any of this mean anything outside of my experience? No. At least, not in the sense of effecting the house (aka, the objective universe).

As Einstein stopped short of, everything is relative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything is generative.

Homocentric thinking aside, the world is as it is and you and I are as we are; what that is has little to nothing to do with what anyone posits we are, absent the proof to back it up.

Capisca?

I don't know. What are the implications of anything and how are implications relevant?

Then this from my old friend Tercel (up for it?):

To admit one might be incorrect in one's assessment of the given in question is the defining quality of what is "scientific." Perhaps you're confusing it with theism?

Rational ones, yes. Carefully thought out ones, hopefully, chock full of analysis, debate and honest scrutiny of the evidence provided, right?

Oh, sorry. Didn't mean to bring rationality into this.

Lord knows, we should just accept what somebody else has to say without relevant questioning and be done with it, right?

I know, it's so....well...theistic of us, isn't it? That damned Adam...

Why would that "seem" strange at all? I'm curious about this. If we can't know "everything," then what? A god of some kind therefore exists? A god of some kind might exist?

If the latter, then what? There exists the possibility that a god exists?

How do you get from the possibility that a god might exist, to, a god exists?

Faith?

If so, what is the point of pointing out another's uncertainty when your own is admittedly and necessarily uncertain as well?

Ha ha, we're both uncertain?

Is that it?

If so, then you're not a theist, yes?

And if it is, aren't you agreeing to it and therefore, again, not a theist?

The "usual?" Where have you been hanging out?

I know. It's just as maddening as "God moves in mysterious ways," right? Oh, you already alluded to that. My mistake.

The difference being, of course, that one is an honest assessment and the other a positive claim.

Now, which one of those mandates a burden of proof again?

"Omnipotent" science, eh? Wow, you could be one of us....one of us...one of us...

As opposed to the theist position, which is that we are...? Oh, that's right, the theist position is that we are born ignorant, we live ignorant, and we die ignorant, never to be allowed insight, unless it is granted arbitrarily by the magical fairy god king who lives in the mystical place right after "he" punishes us all for being intelligent.

Cross purposes. Always argued. Theists.

Is that haiku?

I guess so. Nobody knows shit.

This leads to "knowing god" how?

One must be shitless to know a god? A requirement to know a "god" is that one must be totally ignorant about one's knowing of god?

That's a fancy boat.

Laugh, clown, laugh, because the truly funny part is that you think that an attempt at equating agnosticism and theism has any merit.

To be a theist is to positively assert the existence of a god, yes?

To be an agnostic is to simply state, "The evidence isn't in yet."

Are you that desperate to cling to such an obvious uncertainty and have you stopped beating your wife?

You mean like stating that a "brute fact" is "absurd?"

You mean you don't accept something to be true just because someone tells you it is true?

How atheist of you.

Right. Welcome to Atheism 101. No pencils, please. We hold no beliefs in pencils.

Oh, wait. What are you talking about again? Reality? Who told you to believe reality "just is" and what were their terms?

Did you ask?

Um...those "restrictions" are neither "restricted," nor "very very restricted." In fact, those aren't restrictions at all; they are affirmations, but why be pedantic when you're on a roll?

What exactly are "arbitrary layers of complexity" that might be considered "non-necessary?" Believe it or not, you've piqued my curiousity.

Well, it's probably due to the fact that no one around here likes "arbitrary brute facts" or even knows what the hell that contradictory declaration means.

Do you mean something like, "Fictional creatures from ancient mythology factually exist, believe that contradictory, non-necessary fact I have arbitrarily declared, or else?" Something like that?

Yeah, you're right. We should just make shit up to explain it.

Santa Clause is just so warm and fuzzy, right? Why the hell not. What has "truth" got to do with anything anyway? Let's all pretend!

Why not, right? Come on. Let's you and me pretend that the whole world is one big chocolate ice cream cone? Talk about arbitrary brute facts, right?

What? You don't want to pretend the whole world is just one big chocolate ice cream cone? Why not? Nobody knows shit, right, so why not pretend...?

Hello...?

And the intelligence, apparently. Enjoy your scoop!

Primal

Well I see what you mean in which case the term "nonrational" may be more appropriate. In any case I fail to see why a nonrational substance would have a problem giving rise to a rational mind.

HRG

Tercel,

isn't for you the existence of God and his decision to create exactly this universe (and not a different one) the brute fact par excellence ? And a very complex brute fact it is, too ......

BTW, we have good reasons for believing that there are lots of new brute facts arising every day. For instance, the direction that the decay products of a pion will take is a brute fact (they are isotropically distributed in the rest frame of the pion).

Regards,
HRG.

Clutch

Well, except that this is false.

There is no a priori reason to conclude that naturalism amounts to explanatory reductionism of any sort, never mind grand reduction to physics.

Clutch

Huh?

First, to say that the universe's existence is a brute fact is not to say that "everything that ever happened" has "no explanation". Indeed, it's consistent with saying that everything within the universe is susceptible to local explanation, perhaps even in accordance with as strong a principle as the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Second, there is simply no connection whatever between positing brute facts and believing something as a matter of faith. I know that this has become apologetics boilerplate, but reciting it does not make it anything nearer an actual argument.

Infinity Lover

Okay, my laymans guess...
There might be a random element to our brainactivity, but according to a specific network of synapses. That evolutionary approach mentioned by Thomas Metcalf also rings true to me.

Theli

Tronvillian...

I think it's a common mistake to assume that explainations exists independent of us.

Steven Carr

Are you proposing magic as an alternative?

If there is such a thing as a soul, how does it obtain access to truth?

As far as I can see, only magic appears to be the only explanation ever offered as an alternative to naturalism.

Let us examine though the implications of believing in supernatural entities, such as demons , who are capable of deceiving us and highly motivated to do so.

Are people claiming that we can only rely on our senses and thought if we have a world view which contains supernatural demons , which deceive our senses and thoughts?

Why should atheists reply to an argument which is so self-contradictory?

hinduwoman

This does not follow. The universe might be random, but human beings are conscious entities, so at least some portion of their thoughts are conscious and do correspond to the reality as we perceive it.
Atheism does not deny there is order, only that this order was consciously created by an intelligent Being.

bd-from-kg

Tercel:

At the risk of beating a dead horse... :

No. Admitting that you don’t know the reason for something is quintessentially scientific. Insisting on having an answer no matter what is quintessentially religious.

No. It’s a methodolgoy for finding out what we can about the universe and how it works. There’s no assumption that we can find out everything.

Absolutely. The objection to “God of the gaps” that gaps in our knowledge are used as excuses to sneak in one’s favorite hypothesis. The correct response to gaps in our knowledge is to have a corresponding gap in one’s beliefs.

No, the idea is that when we don’t know something, we should simply admit that we don’t know it. And hooray for us for being willing to admit it. I realize that this is a hard concept for you religious folks to grasp.

Ah, so the idea of a self-existent entity is absurd. I’m glad that we agree on something.

I think that you may be misunderstanding tronvillain here. He may be saying that there is no reason for the universe’s existence. On the other hand, he may mean that there’s presumably a reason, but there may be no way for us to discover it. The first position may be ultimately irrational, but the second is clearly completely reasonable. There’s no reason to think that we puny humans have acces to all facts.

Logic is not a “brute fact”. The “laws of logic” are simply definitions of the terms involved. And they aren’t “written in stone”; anyone can define the terms differently if he pleases. In fact, there are other “logics”, which of course consist of different definitions of the basic terms. Perhaps you could give us a different example of something that you think could be a “brute fact”?

Perhaps someday you’ll see the beauty and elegant simplicity of believing only what you have good evidence for and modestly admitting ignorance about everything else.