E_muse

So here you are interpreting the opening statements of the SEC WEB to exclude 'existential explanations'.

However, you state that metaphysical naturalism would pursue mechanistic explanations. This is self evident from many of the posts on this thread.

Firstly, it must be stated that this is how you are interpreting the statements and the site itself makes no such distinction.

But you have decided that the question 'For what purpose does the universe exist?" is meaningless?

In the history of science, a belief in intelligent design in some way fuelled the desire for knowledge about the universe because it gave justification to the notion that the universe is in someway comprehensible.

What reason do I have not to?

The fact that certain questions 'need' to be answered is that they are informed by human needs, longings or good old curiosity.

The scientific method is pursued because it yields results that meet profound human needs. Philosophical questions are asked, I would suggest, out of the same motivation.

I would state that, what validates a question is that it indicates a point of need within humanity. For that reason, the question is meaningful to at least some people and worthy of consideration if they are being treated with any dignity.

As for the question, "For what purpose does the universe exist?", I would argue that it is meaningful in the following ways:

1. People ask the question, indicating that it has meaning to those who ask.
2. If people are treated with dignity, their questions are worthy of consideration.
3. One cannot disregard the question as meaningless, refuse to answer it as such and promote free-thought.
4. With regard to 3, I would say that the atheistic metaphysical naturalist is obliged to provide some answer (in fact you already have).
5. In the form of man, matter is asking the question. The fact that the question exists in the natural world as an offshoot of the arrangement of matter that is man, metaphysical naturalism must seek to explain it - and through he process of methodological naturalism as, as you have suggested, this is the only method available to validate it.

There are probably others.

However, I also wanted to comment on what you have said about metaphysical naturalism not answering existential questions.

Existential simply means, "Of, relating to, or dealing with existence." and "Based on experience; empirical."

It should be readily apparent from the above that metaphysical naturalism is an existential viewpoint. It is a worldview dealing with the nature of existence. It is seeking to make truth statements about the nature of existence and secondly, it bases these statements on experience and experimentation, hence the appeal to methodological naturalism.

Secondly, when the question is asked, "Does the universe have a purpose?" an answer is required. The presence of the quesion must be explained and also the reasons why it should be considered a meaningless question.

The atheistic metaphysical naturalist answers with 'no' to the above question. However, such a person also needs to state why the answer should be 'no' and why such an answer describes the real universe and best fits with human experience.

Obviously such an answer could be described as an 'existential explanation' because it is seeking to answer an existential question as well as to describe the nature of existence ... as does the opening page of this site.

Therefore, I would say that to state that metaphysical naturalism doesn't concern itself with existential explanations is clearly false. It is certainly false, even if it only seeks to answer 'no' to the question concerning the purpose of the universe. Again, by saying no, it is saying something about the nature of existence which is an existential consideration.

Lastly, you said that metaphysical naturalism is an a priori assumption and needs to be validated by the explanatory power of methodological naturalism.

How can methodological naturalism be employed to decide between the validity of certain questions as it concerns itself with physical causal relationships? Can it make any comment on why they exist in the first place and therefore be employed to rule out certain questions as meaningless? Surely it would need to do so because it is the chief method being suggested as a justification for metaphysical naturalism and it would seem correct to say that certain questions could not be ruled out according to an a priori assumption (which is how you've described metaphysical naturalism)?

Edited to correct typos.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Philosoft

Naturally, based on what I know of metaphysical naturalism.

<strong> Because it should be obvious based on what is definitively true about metaphysical naturalism.

<strong> Absolutely, until there is first an affirmative answer to the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?"

<strong> What does this have to do with what we know now?

<strong> [addition mine]

Wha?

Because, presumably, the site's authors mean one thing and not something else when they use the word in that context.

<strong> 'No' is a legitimate answer to 'Does the universe have a purpose,' you know.

<strong> Actually, with a mixture of speculation and fact, I'd say much of philosophy is the brain's conscious pattern-building, something it does so well on a sub-conscious level.

<strong> It still doesn't make a knowledge claim about the nature of the universe. The foundation of metaphysical naturalism reduces to a tautology, 'all that exists exists.'

<strong> Actually, metaphysical naturalism ('all that exists exists') is axiomatic. It's theisms that posit (presume, actually) an undefined state of existence and then claim that their presumption is evidence that metaphysical naturalism must counter. In fact, no such burden exists for metaphysical naturalism.

<strong> Correct. This, however, is not what you were asking before.

<strong> I don't understand what you mean by "explain" in this context but the question just above is not meaningless.

<strong> Ok. The answer is 'no' because there is 1) no evidence that the universe is purposeful; and 2) no evidence of a 'being' that could purposefully create a universe.

<strong> What kinds of questions?

<strong> No. That's what philosophy is for.

<strong> If you think about it, metaphysical naturalism's assumptions are really counters to supernaturalism's prior assumptions. It doesn't get much more axiomatic than 'all that exists exists."

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

If nothing else, if you are going to go on numbers you need to deal with Hinduism which isn't a huge amount smaller than Islam.

My mistake, I wasn’t thinking of Hinduism as theists. I was thinking of monotheists.

Why do you continue to confuse atheism with strong atheism? Are you aware that weak atheists exist? Are you intentionally confusing atheism with strong atheism?

No confusion, I think weak atheism is weak kneed, chicken liver BS. And I don’t see how anyone can believe in this websites credo and be a ‘weak’ atheist.

I am curious why you so easily dismiss the teleological argument?

I dismiss it because it is like winning the lottery and deducing the game was rigged for no other reason except for the fact that you won.

Then you miss the point. The odds of a lotto winner are in the millions. Yet millions play. The odds of blind chance producing a universe this finely poised between chaos and utter boredom are beyond comprehension. Now imagine you played the lotto with down to earth odds of 1 to a trillion but you were the only one who played and you were allowed one ticket. You get your one ticket and sure enough it wins. How could you dismiss the possibility the game was ‘fixed’?

Andrew I really enjoy your site. Is there a more catchy url for a main page so I can reccomend it to friends? Thanks.

Thanks. The home page is,
<a href="http://www.challenging-atheism.com" target="_blank">http://www.challenging-atheism.com</a>

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

Vorkosigan

... Secondly how can there be a decisive victory? Have you shown once and for all that the belief in a designer/creator of the universe is false? Have you provided smoking gun evidence that this natural material world is all that exists? The day this happens my board and the Sec Web would be about as busy as a discussion board debating if the world is flat or not.

Let's see...

First, I was referring to claims in BOTH informal and formal debate that had been refuted. For example, you constantly use "atheism" when you mean "metaphysical naturalism." Although this has been pointed out to you by several people, you continue to do it. Not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

Second, we don't need "smoking gun evidence" that the natural world is all there is. If you want to say that science is wrong and there is more, supply the evidence.

In any case, given that Young Earth Creationists ignore decisive evidence in favor of an old earth, it is clear that no amount of evidence or rational argument will move people with faith-commitments to unreality. The smoking gun evidence is out there, it has been out there for a century at least. Why do you think so few scientists subscribe to the more orthodox forms of religious faith, and why so many are atheists?

Vork: Metaphysical naturalism is one claim among thousands. So is your brand of "theism."

I think this is a poor example. Realistically do I really need to qualify the word theism on this board? Certainly no one else does including many atheists who write articles for this board. Do you think that when I use the word theism some folks might think I am referring to the belief the world was vomited by some god?

But Andrew, if you didn't want to include those beliefs, why did you choose terminology that did? This is what I was talking about before with refuted claims....you still write "Theism is____" as if there were some form of "theism" that all "theists" subscribed to. There is no such thing. All theisms are unique.

The three major ‘brands’ of theism are Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The rest put together are so small in comparison they don’t raise a blip on a radar screen.

Incorrect. If we are going by size, we must include Hindu, and Chinese Folk Religion, which are huge (around 750 million to a billion plus in the Chinese cultural area), plus the folk religions of many places in Africa and Asia. For example, far more people believe in Vietnamese folk beliefs than in Judaism. That is probably also true of large African tribal groups, like the Yoruba, Kikuyu or Zulu.

In any case, size is irrelevant. If you claim "Theism is ______," all I have to do is find one counterexample and you have been refuted. Despite numerous counterexamples that I have supplied, you continue to write as if it is safe to generalize across theisms.

Since you mean "christianity" why don't you just say it?

Bringing up other small forms of theism merely obscures the issue. Is this an example of a decisive victory?

Yes. Refutation constitutes decisive victory. If you say "Theists believe god created the world" and I can list numerous theisms in which people believed otherwise, your point fails. It has been refuted, by reference to Central American, Norse, Chinese, and African theisms. The fact that these might have fewer believers than Christian theism is not relevant to whether they qualify as "theisms."

Bede wanted to question your dismissal of fine-tuning arguments. I think Metacrock was asking things also but I would have to look.

I'll stop in again, then, but I only stopped by to interact with Metacrock.

I agree their hope for detecting intelligence is predicated on some assumptions. If they or others believed these assumptions to be unwarranted chances were the plug would be pulled on SETI. Lets do a simple thought experiment. If aliens developed the technology to listen to the universe as we do, do you think if they detected our emissions they would fail to recognize it as an intelligent source? I opine that your assumption that alien intelligence would be unrecognizable is unwarranted.

This experiment is worthless. How do you know what aliens would think? By definition, they are aliens. In any case, I don't have to do thought experiments, there are numerous cases of false alarms on the intelligent signal front. SETI has no methodology. It simply gambles that we'll be able to tell.

No you are mistaken. I am not arguing for a particular type of God....

...but just above you said that you were arguing for the god of the muslims, christians and jews!!

....The scope of the issue is whether the universe is apparent design or actual design. Or if the universe is a product of unguided mechanistic forces

Let me put it this way. Selection processes are guided by natural law. There are no "unguided" processes.

... or planned by design. On my own board I am not advocating or promoting any particular God or creed of belief.

Again, that is not what you said above.

Your argument at face value is theological in nature.

Perfectly correct. Christians worship an omnimax god.

Again you make unwarranted assumptions of what my line of thinking maybe on an issue rather than ask me. I have no idea if we are the sole living sentient creatures in the universe. It would be arrogant of me to assume we are.

Yet you presume to speak for all theists....and in the Christian Bible, the universe is created for us, you know.

On the other hand I don’t know. Whether God created an entire universe for us alone is a theological question, something worthwhile for those who believe in God to argue about. It is not a salient point for those who question God’s existence.

It is if it calls into question certain stories or beliefs about the origin of things.

Also the teleological argument notes that in order for they’re to be stars, galaxies and planets like ours the universe does have to be roughly this size.

No, it doesn't. It makes that claim because it has to. It just says: the universe is this way because it has to be. It applies to any universe, and cannot be tested or falsified.

...to form. I am curious why you so easily dismiss the teleological argument. Other atheists have looked at it as a genuine mystery and some worth puzzling over.

Because the teleleological argument is like puzzling over how fortunate it is the Seine runs right under those bridges in Paris. It gets everything backward. Many people puzzle over it, until they understand how selection processes under natural law work, and then it is no longer a mystery. It is the things in the universe that are fine-tuned, by natural laws and constraints, to fit the universe.

Again, you are arguing that the universe was created to fit the things in it. I am arguing that the things in the universe evolved to fit the natural laws of that universe. Your position is that the things in the universe existed in some form prior to the creation of the universe. When you think about it, that is awful odd....

And my worldview doesn’t come at the expense of yours. Methodological naturalism is successful at producing knowledge about things without reference to whether such objects are one’s of actual or apparent design.

That is very true. The problem is, it is also useful in determining whether things were designed or not. So far no evidence has emerged to show that living organisms were designed. That is why design has disappeared among working scientists.

For instance science would use the same techniques to figure out why a Stradivarius violin sounds so good as they would to find out how biological systems work. One is assumed to be actual design the other apparent design but the same techniques are employed and the same results expected!

But we know the violin is a Designed object. Whereas, application of scientific techniques to biological systems has shown that they evolved. Same techniques, different outcomes.

Methodological naturalism isn’t good at telling us if things are actual design because in the case of the universe and biology it assumes on philosophical grounds such is not.

Not true, Andrew. There are good reasons to assume that intentional design was not employed to build organisms. Many designs are so outstandingly stupid that only an ad hoc building like evolution could have put them together. Why did the designer use the body of a four-legged animal to build bipeds like kangaroos and humans? Why do chickens have genes for teeth? Why does the nautilus have an eye but no lens? Why are squid eyes better-engineered than human? Why are grass-eating animals, which have multiply-chambered stomachs, all have different numbers of chambers (surely on is more efficient than the others)? Why is there such incredible waste throughout nature -- organisms that release millions of spores, almost all of which die? And so on. Such "bad designs" are powerful evidence of ad hoc rather than planned forces at work.

Further, we can see genetic relationships between animals that show that rather than being sudden appearances, they are in fact related by common descent. This is not a new idea, having been around in one form or another since Linneaus at least, who himself proposed hybridization as the mechanism for change from the created Kind.

...can. If suddenly tomorrow all biologists decided species are created do you think they would abandon finding cure for cancer or aids? Would their techniques change? Why?

They certainly wouldn't give up a cure for cancer or AIDS. Although they might wonder why anybody would design a disease like cancer or AIDS that ensures a lingering and painful death, with much pain and suffering for the person and their family. AIDS is a fabulous piece of design, deliberately targeting the cells that would otherwise help destroy it. Look at leprosy, river blindness, AIDS, cancer, elephantiasis and other hideous, murderous diseases. You claim that those were Designed by a loving deity? I wouldn't give a street dog AIDS.

And no, biological techniques wouldn't change one whit. Do you understand why? Because creation is worthless as a scientific idea. It provides no explanations for phenomena, suggests no routes for research, explains no unexplained data, provides no useful principles for application to human problems, and provides no further understanding of nature. Biologists would still have to continue with the techniques they have.

Vorkosigan

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Goliath

Andrew Theist,


What a lovely, unsupported ad hominem. It fits you well, xian.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be possible for someone to post here who *doesn't* completely agree with the website's credo?

Sincerely,

Goliath

E_muse

Philosoft:

Just checking.

But the question exists, "Does the universe have purpose?", and you have suggested an answer. I have aruged that the metaphysical naturalist must answer and therefore your above claim seems to fall at the first hurdle.

I hope I've demonstrated that metaphysical naturalism in fact does make existential claims and does seek to answer existential questions. You categorically said that it didn't.

It is definitely true of metaphysical naturalism (according to its aligning to atheism), that it must answer 'no' to the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?". Presumably metaphysical naturalists also attempt to explain the reasons for this answer.

The theist gives an affirmative answer and has done so for a long time.

That metaphysical naturalism isn't essential to someone adopting a naturalistic methodology.

There is no reason to presume. They simply say that the natural world is in no need of an explanation. I take this to cover all forms of explanation unless otherwise stated.

If it means 'supernatural explanations' then I think it should say so.

However, you have taken it further and said that it does not deal with existential questions. I hope that I have demonstrated that it does.

Oh yes, I agree wholeheartedly. But from an atheistic metaphysical naturalist it is also an answer to an existential question (that needs to be padded out) demonstrating again that metaphysical naturalists do answer existential questions. Also, a definitive 'no' must be taken as an attempt at a truth statement concerning the universe. It could hardly be taken as leaving the question open could it?! Just to quote what you said earlier:

To answer 'no' and explain why the answer is 'no' is an existential explanation.

It also deals with a question that I think you go on to say is outside the remit of methodological naturalism - the principal validator of metaphysical naturalism.

Therefore, if an atheistic metaphysical naturalist says that the answer to the question under consideration is 'no' then the validation for that statement cannot be coming from methodological naturalism can it? Given that your assertions are true of this particular worldview.

It is interesting that you seem to divorce the functioning of the brain from the 'self' that is so obviously involved in the thinking process. To be conscious such pattern building most involve 'the person' surely?

Are you not involved in the arguements you are presenting? Don't you choose how to view your thoughts and experiences and understand them in relationship to one another?

I agree somewhat though.

It does if it gives a definite 'no' to the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?". In this instance it is making a very definite knowledge claim. It isn't even leaving the question open.

It is also an existential knowledge claim.

You earlier said that metaphysical naturalism didn't concern itself with existential explanations. However, the claim that the universe has no purpose is an existential claim.

And I hope you'd agree that we cannot accept tautologies for logistic reasons.

The statement says just about nothing. All it means is, that which has actual being has actual being.

But it is essentially a vaccuous statement - axiomatic or not. What we deem to have existence depends upon our experiences.

According to you it is also an a priori tautological statement.

If it (metaphysical naturalism, aligned closely to atheism by this site) says 'no' to the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?" a priori, it is claiming to have a complete knowledge of the universe in this regard without any supporting evidence. How is such a complete knowledge possible?

It would be legitimate to say that "I don't believe the universe has a purpose because I have been given no reason to do so." but that is different from accepting metaphysical naturalism a priori. It is accepting it on the basis of evidence .... or lack of it. However, it cannot view any evidence with an open mind because you've already said that it is accepted a priori.

Also, I don't presume an undefined sate of existence. I am prepared to believe that we live in a world where apparently supernatural events occur and are possible because so many people make claims to such things. I would hardly call this a persumption, especially as it is established on claims to seemingly supernatural events, some of which come from those close to me.

However, according to you, metaphysical naturalism is accepted a priori and therefore has no initial foundation. You've also said that it is fundamentally tautological.

You could appeal to methodological naturalism to defend metaphysical naturalism but the a priori nature of the belief system suggests that it cannot view any data objectively or with an open mind and the mode of understanding being invoked cannot answer questions such as, "Does the universe have a purpose?"

No, you raised it as the type of question (existential) that metaphysical naturalism doesn't seek to give an explanation to. But now you are agreeing that it should be answered.

I hope we've seen that it does address existential questions and gives definite answers that seem to presume a complete knowledge of the universe in this regard a priori. If your claim that metaphysical naturalism is an a priori worldview is correct that is.

The presence of the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?" must be explained in naturalistic terms.

It must be explained how blind forces, with no purpose in mind (to quote Dawkins) both creates matter and arranges it into a form that questions why it exists or whether it has purpose, something absent from both the process and the matter involved.

As you have claimed that the answer is already 'no' to this question, I think there is a burden on the atheistic metaphysical naturalist don't you, especially if the satement is taken a priori? I don't think invoking determinism would remove this problem either, partly because the initial state of the universe can be understood in terms of the uncertainy principle inherent in the quantum fluctuations of the quantum vaccum that are believed to have given rise to matter. Although this is not without its problems.

But, according to your claim, metaphysical naturalism has ruled out the possibility of such evidence a priori. This is based on your assertion that metaphysical naturalism is an a priori belief validated by methodological naturalism. And as I think you've pointed out, methodological naturalism cannot give answers to such a question. This would render the 'no' answer that you gave earlier as a totally a priori assertion claiming a complete knowledge of the universe in this regard on the basis of a lack of experiences of the alleged supernatural.

Firstly, is it rational to base a belief on a lack of experience and, if atheistic metaphysical naturalism has ruled out purpose a priori, how can it view the findings of methodological naturalism objectively and with an open mind and promote free thought?

See above.

Questions like, "Does the universe have a purpose?".... but I think we're now coming to that!

Addition mine.

This is where you say that methodological naturalism cannot determine whether or not the universe has purpose and which I have used in my replies above.

O.K, allow me to summarize what you have said thus far.

Firstly you have said that metaphysical naturalism is an a priori world view.

According to this site, the principle view of this belief system is that the natural world requires no explanation and that it is a closed, self-sufficient system.

To the question then, "Does the universe have a purpose?" you would say that the clear answer is no. I have a problem with this on two counts.

Firstly, metaphysical naturalism has been assumed a priori and so could never view the findings of methodological naturalism with an open mind. The history of science also shows that it sits comfortably within a theistic mindset.

Secondly, methodological naturalism is the principal validator of metaphysical naturalism. You said:

But you also said (with reference to metaphysical naturalism):

Of course, when you mention mechanistic explanations, we seem to be running rapidly into reductionism... but that may be another topic.

So, metaphysical naturalism is an a priori world view that rules out the possibility of the universe having purpose. However, the chief validation for metaphysical naturalism is found in methodological naturalism and you've just said that it cannot be invoked to adjudiate on such matters. However, even if it could, the a priori nature of metaphysical naturalism would prevent any findings from being viewed objectively.

But as I've already argued, I don't want to accept tautologies.

Also, I don't have prior assumptions regarding the supernatural. My experience tells me that those who believe in God have a greater breadth of experience than those who don't and experiences that cannot be readily explained away. I could say the same of myself. I would hardly call that presumptious.

Even if I had never experienced anything unusual I could still not rule out the possibility of the extrordinary simply on the basis of my lack of experience. That would hardly seems rational.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Vorkosigan

If it (metaphysical naturalim, aligned closely to atheism by this site) says 'no' to the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?" a priori, it is claiming to have a complete knowledge of the universe in this regard without any supporting evidence. How is such a complete knowledge possible?

"Complete knowledge" -- whatever that is -- is not necessary to answer the question. There is no evidence that the universe has a purpose. Ergo, as far as anyone knows, the universe has no purpose.

Vorkosigan

E_muse

Firstly, I am noting that metaphysical naturalism has been aligned with atheism on this particular website.

Philosoft has said that metaphysical naturalism is an a priori position primarily validated by methodological naturalism. He has also argued that this mode of understanding [methodological naturalism] cannot be used to adjudicate on matter such as, "Does the universe have a purpose?", these are matters for philosophy.

According to this line of reasoning, even if a purpose presented itself, it could not be identified by metaphysical naturalism because the particular world view has been accepted a priori and only accepts mechanistic explanations. This means that none of the findings of a methodological naturalistic approach could be viewed with an open mind, due to the a priori nature of the worldview being put forward. However, even if it were viewed with an open mind, methodological naturalism, cannot be used to decide on such matters and are of a philosophical nature.

Actually, your comment picks up on what I was referring to: As far as anyone knows, the universe has no purpose, suggesting that the prospect cannot be rejected completely. However, there are those who claim that it can.

However, once again, this is placing a positive belief on the lack of something .. or the lack of experience of something.

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Philosoft

The original question was, "What's the purpose of the universe?" That's the one I maintain doesn't need an answer.

<strong> "Does the universe have a purpose" is not an existential question, as we will see.

<strong> Right, which reduces the MN argument to "all that exists exists." Now show me how that's an existential claim.

<strong> Presumably some do. But they don't have to.


To the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?", E_muse suggests:
<strong> Problem is, the theist doesn't understand the implications of that answer.

<strong> I hear this a lot and it has yet to make sense. How is it you decide what's 'natural' if God can violate natural cause-and-effect at his leisure?

<strong> When you say, "I take this," don't you mean "I presume"? Anyway, you're wrong and this is a fine example of a mind-numbingly bad argument.

<strong> Well, I guess you're shit out of luck. You'll have to continue interpreting the statement in the most obviously wrong way.


I wrote: E_muse replied:<strong> No, sorry. Arguments from ignorance are right out. Simply positing the question does not make a 'no' answer a positive claim. It must be shown that there is at least a probability that the statement "The universe has a purpose" is valid. Otherwise, a 'no' answer leaves the answerer in an epistemic position identical to a state wherein the question was never posited.

<strong> Two different questions. 'No' is a self-sufficient answer to "Does the universe have a purpose" if there is a zero (or near-zero) probability that the universe does not have a purpose.

<strong> Correct. That's why the term 'metaphysical naturalism' exists. Neither is 'methodological naturalism' a worldview.

<strong> Where did you get this from? I'm not a dualist. The 'self' is an emergent propery.

<strong> The claim being made is, "We do not know of a purpose for the universe." Does it really make sense to call this a knowledge claim?

I wrote: E_muse replied:<strong> Maybe I wasn't clear. Metaphysical naturalism is founded on an axiom. It is up to you to show that there is a definition of 'exist' or 'universe' that allows for something that doesn't fit any existing definition of either term.

<strong> Surely not. We haven't experienced most of the universe. Are we not justified in presuming its existence?

<strong> Right. An axiom.


I hate overly long posts and I'm tired. I'll try to pick up where I left off later.

E_muse

Philosoft:

Aren't they closely linked. "What's the purpose of the universe?" and "Does the universe have a purpose?" are essentially asking the same question. The answer from the metaphysical naturalist would still be 'no' or 'none' wouldn't it? And wouldn't it still require some embellishment?

So are you saying that if someone asked this question you would simply ignore it because it doesn't need an answer? Or would you reply by saying that it doesn't need answering? Or would you reply by saying that it has no purpose?

A question needs answering simply on the basis that an honest enquirer is asking it.

But earlier on you said that such questions were existential and were dismissed by metaphysical naturalism for being such. What has lead to the shift in your thinking?

It does appear that you are shifting the goalposts here in order to try and remove the question. Having decided a priori that does not need answering it sounds like you're now trying to shift the question into a place where metaphysical naturalism doesn't have to deal with it, even by changing it from being an existential question to a non-existential one.

Earlier you said:

Here you assert that questions relating to the possibility of the universe having a purpose are existential and not covered by metaphysical naturalism. Now you're trying to argue that "Does the universe have purpose?" (essentially the same question as above) isn't existential in order to remove it from consideration. If you are so confident that the answer is 'no', why do you need to do this?

Let us look at that definition of existential again.

From dictionary.com:

Simply, an explanation can be considered existential if it is an explanation that relates to or deals with existence and/or experience.

The question, "Does the universe have a purpose?" is a question relating to the universe. It is questioning the nature of the universe - something that is known to exist. It is therefore an existential question.

If this is an irrational conclusion in any way, please demonstrate why, picking up on the points I have made.

How are the questions, "Does the universe have a purpose?" and "What purpose does the universe have?" not begging explanations -

- of the universe?
- relating to the universe?
- dealing with existence?

Because it is making a statement of, relating to or dealing with existence. Note: existential. And ... all that exists exists.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

Secondly, it is tautological and is therefore a vaccuous statement and true by definition. Again, from dictionary.com.

If the statement indulges needless repetition then we must apply Occam's Razor to remove the repetition. We could simply say "existence is" or something like that. Existence is what?

I ask you, would you accept theistic arguements that contained tautologies?

Thirdly, this axiom could hardly be described as the basis for metaphysical naturalism could it? Are you saying that only metaphysical naturalists would have this as their base axiom? The theist would completely agree with you. It is just that his/her umbrella of 'what exists' would incorporate more than yours and would include God.

Lastly, it says nothing about the nature of existence. On what basis can we decide whether or not something exists? Is it limited to what can be perceptually verified? Can we validly believe in things which we cannot see and for which we have little evidence? Is circumstancial evidence sufficient to establish the existence of something that lies beyond perceptual verification? The axiom you have given answers none of these questions and as such is not a fundamental axiom of metaphysical naturalism per se.

So if someone asks the question they can just not answer, or simply say 'no' without having to justify their claim ... is that what you are saying?

Firstly, remaining silent, or failing to provide an arguement proves nothing. For me it would either suggest that the person was incapable of answering the question or the need for silence highlights the vaccuousness of the starting tautology as given above.

This boils down to .. "I don't need to give an explanation for what I believe because my way of understanding reality is the only valid one."


Those implications are?

I was simply saying that a belief that the world is designed and therefore comprehensible could just as easily lead one to a methodological naturalistic approach.

When a violation of nature is claimed to occur I think it is apparent to everyone .. the metaphysical naturalist included. It is then either dismissed a priori because of this, or a naturalistic explanation is pursued. Either way, I think we know the types of events that we are talking about.

If metaphysical naturalists do not see claimed supernatural events as a threat to their world view, then why do many of them dismiss such claims a priori?

No, I'm saying that I have no rational basis for distinguishing between explanations if the original comment doesn't stipulate one. This is further emphasized by the fact that the same mission statement goes on to declare that it wishes to promote the avid pursuit of philosophy and science. This means that it wishes to promote the avid pursuit of making mechanistic and existential explanations concerning the universe (although I would suggest that there is some overlap). Your view of philosophy would suggest that you would concur with this.

You are trying to place the question, "Does the universe have a purpose?" into a realm where it is neither existential or mechanistic so that it no longer has to be dealt with. This would mean that it was neither a mechanistic or existential question. What category does it fall into then?

Wouldn't you agree that to promote the avid pursuit of science and philosophy is to promote the avid pursuit of all types of explanations concerning the universe? How can it do this and claim that the world is in no need of an explanation, even if that explanation answers in the negative to the question under consideration?

Your above comment is simply accusative and gives no reasoned outline as to why my arguement is bad. Please demonstrate 'how' I am wrong. I find it hard to accept this coming from someone who has already shifted a question from being existential to non-existential in order to maintain the view that it does not need to be dealt with, which you have already asserted is based upon the a priori assumptions of your world view that are in turn based upon a tautology that could not be taken as a fundamental axiom of your particular worldview. According to you, the only validation for your world view comes from methodological naturalism, and you have already stated that this cannot be used to adjudicate on the question at hand and is a matter of philosophy - which is something that must be avidly pursued according to the mission satement of this website. This leaves your assertion back where it started. An a priori belief based upon a tautological statement.

Theists wouldn't be allowed to get away with this type of arguementation on these boards would they Philosoft?

This site seeks to promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is. In order to do that it has to deal with the types of questions that will get thrown at it. Also, if it wishes to promote the avid pursuit of science and philosophy, can it do this, and at the same time state that certain questions do not require answering according to its a priori assumptions?

I'm sorry that your arguementation has degenerated to this. Again, this doesn't say why my conclusions are wrong, it is simply a vaccuous accusation with an expletive thrown in.

The natural world is in no need of an explanation and yet the site wants to promote philosophy that you've admitted deals with the types of questions it has rejected as unnecessary? Perhaps you could explain this, and while you're at it demonstrate why my position is 'obviously wrong' through better means than accusation.

So if I ask you if blue cabbages blossom on the surface of the sun and you say 'no' I cannot take this as a positive claim that you believe they do not? Neither can I take your 'no' as representing a truth statement concerning our solar system.

What you have also stated above means the following for me:

When I ask you if the universe has a purpose and you say 'no' I cannot take this answer as representing a statement of truth regarding the nature of existence or a positive claim about it either. Is that really what you're saying?

So Philosoft, according to your arguementation, if I ask you whether or not the universe has a purpose and you answer 'no', I cannot take this answer as being true, as you have now dismissed it as an attempted truth statement about the nature of the universe, neither can I take it as a positive claim. So how am I to interpret it? You seem to suggest that I take your 'no' as an admission of ignorance.

The statement, the universe has a purpose isn't being made. The question, "Does the univerese have a purpose?" is being asked and so you cannot equivocate the two. Both theism and atheism in their various forms must argue their case to the open minded enquirer .. that is, if they want to promote free thought.

This all sounds rather like special pleading and an attempt to divert the burden of proof onto the questioner in a veiled attempt to divert attention away from the vaccuousness of the axiom that underlies the worldview you are presenting.

How is 'no' self-sufficient as an answer if it is neither an attempted truth claim or any form of positive claim about the universe? If this is the case it must be interpreted as no answer at all!

Remember, you've said above that the answer 'no' isn't making any positive claims, neither is it attempting to make any truth statement about the universe.

And how can you calculate the probability of the universe having a purpose if methodological naturalism cannot be employed when considering such a question?

In terms of worldview I was referring to metaphysical naturalism.

However, my point is this. If metaphysical naturalism has ruled out purpose a priori and, as a worldview, it can only be validated by methodological naturalism (that cannot be used to adjudicate on such matters), then the dismissal of purpose is purely an a priori assumption.

Well, you simply referred to 'the brain'.

Well, I would have to ask you, if it isn't a statement concerning your knowledge, how are you divorcing the 'know' in the statement, 'do not know of a purpose', from knowledge.

You seem to suggest that I should take your 'no' as representing a lack of knowledge. You seem to be equivocating 'no' with 'we don't know'. I think there is a very big difference between these two statements. Since when has 'no' been used to mean 'I don't know' Philosoft?

When asked the question, why can't the metaphysical naturalist be honest and say, "I don't know", rather than mislead by saying, "no" and then offering no justification for the claim? Why doesn't he/she perhaps admit the other point regarding your claim about this worldview, "I don't think that the universe has any purpose because I have ruled out such a possibility in advance of any evidence that may be presented." (which is what a priori means)? Perhaps because he/she knows that nothing he/she had to say from that point on would be taken seriously I think!

And you've already said that this axiom is a tautology. Redefining it as an axiom doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Actually there is a significant difference between an axiom and a tautology. An axiom is self-evidently true, whereas a tautology is true by definition.

The term 'all that exists exists' doesn't define anything. It is vaccuous by virtue of the fact that it is tautological. It therefore cannot be aligned with the term 'universe' that does seek to define our knowledge of existence. It is simply saying, 'all that which has actual being has actual being'. Applying Occam's Razor to remove the repetition, this boils down to nothing more meaningful than 'all that has actual being is'.

Is what? It offers no help or defining terms to suggest on what basis we should consider something to have existence which means that it cannot be used as a founding axiom for any world view. Or I suppose it could be a founding axiom for any world view because people could still incorporate anything they like into the term 'existence' without contradiction. I still think that, for these reasons alone, it should be rejected.

Here you suggest that we are free to establish something as having 'actual being' on the basis of our own presumption. Is this really what you are saying?

Again, this conclusion could not have come from the initial tautological axiom as that makes no such positive statement regarding the basis on which we accept something as 'existing'. It could be used to support any world view.

Existence exists - after which you simply insert whatever you want to exist into the terms.

It is helpful if you can step back from your own world view and try to view it objectively (he he). For example, if you have a certain axiom that is presented for the basis of worldview (a), try and see if that axiom could be adopted by any other world view without contradiction.

If the answer is an affirmative 'yes' then you cannot claim the axiom for your particular world view.

For example, someone who believes that he/she is the only one who exists and that the natural world is only a construct of his/her own psyche could just as easily adopt the axiom, "All that exists exists" for their belief system, only in this case they would interpret 'All that exists' as simply being themselves.

The reason for this is that the underlying axiom doesn't actually say anything and certainly cannot be used as a defence for the particular worldview being presented.

An axiom is a self-evident recognised truth. A tautology is true by definition, regardless of whether or not the statements it contains are true. A tautology is also a logical fallacy.

I have suggested that your axiom offers no help in defining the nature of existence. It simply says 'existence is...'. Is what?

You have suggested already that, with regard to the universe, I can accept the reality of the uncharted universe on the basis of my own presumption. So are you establishing presumption as a reliable method for deciding whether or not something is real?

That's my point. You can argue whatever you like from the axiom you have put forward and it will never contradict it. Give it a try!

I look forward to your reply!

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>