First of all, apologies to a couple of folks for not getting their comments posted. I've been away from this blog for quite some time, and it seems the spam filter's been a little overzealous. I'll try to check back more often. On to business...
Over at Evolution, News and Views, Michael Egnor has offered up a quiz to find out what atheists actually believe. I thought I'd tackle them one or two at a time. Here goes-
1. Why is there anything?
This is probably the most common challenge put forth by theists for the existence of a god, but for the life of me I just don't see the profundity here. When we consider this bedrock existential question, it seems to me that we're left with only two conceptual possibilities. Either there's always been something, or there's always been nothing.
Actually, I suppose I should mention the third possibility, that something actually emerged from nothing, and that for no reason at all, since otherwise the reason would have preceded the nothing, making that reason a something, thereby precluding the existence (or non-existence, if you will) of the aforementioned nothing. Follow? If this is the case, we're left with a reality where hypothetical nothings somehow produce babies out of non-existent bathwater; a neat trick, but neither here nor there regarding the relevance of Egnor's original query. Let's dismiss this third hypothetical and move on.
Ok, so we're left with two choices here. Before the Beginning, there is either something, or nothing. Call the possbilities 50/50. Since we're here, obviously eternal 'here-ness' wins out, yes? So, the answer to the question 'Why is there anything?' turns out to be the simplest one imaginable- 'Because there is!'. No, it's even simpler than that, since the 'cause' in 'because' implies a sense of causation that by logical necessity cannot precede existence since, by definition, it defines the relationship of rather arbitrarily drawn segments OF that existence bound by the laws inherent in what has come to be known as 'space/time'...whatever the hell THAT means! So, let's knock off the 'because' and settle for 'There Is'. As opposed, naturally, to the statement 'There Is Not', which only seems applicable in a relative way, as in "There IS NOT a banana in my refrigerator at the present time', but seems wholly inadequate in the face of the ubiquitous 'There Is' that assaults our senses on a daily basis in its diverse and sundry manifestations.
What caused the universe?
There are two ways to approach this question. In the grand, metacosmological sense, where the terms 'universe' and 'all hypothetical modes of existence' are interchangeable, we've already answered that question i.e. since causation cannot precede the template of its own operational matrix, NOTHING caused the universe. It simply exists, for no reason at all.
However, if we're relegating the problem to local universal conditions, I'd say the question is still up for grabs. However, rest assured that this culmination of what's become known as the 'big bang' in recent decades, is simply an emergence from some preexisting, pre-universal (small 'u') set of conditions. We might be talking about multi-universes, meta-universes, or simply primordial cosmic soup consisting of vacuum energy or virtual particles. Who knows? It's an interesting question where speculation runs rampant at times, but I'm not sure that 'God's Magic' is a particularly interesting rabbit hole to be throwing our resources down, especially considering the dubious nature of that belief system's (generically speaking) source material.
Why is there regularity(Law)in nature?
This is like asking "Why does a bunny hop like a bunny?" (Hm, seems to be a bit of a rabbit theme emerging here). What's so baffling about something acting exactly like what it is? Why is it dark outside when it's dark outside? Why does a rubber ball bounce when you bounce it? Anything is defined by the attributes and constraints that make up that thing. And let's say that the temperature of absolute zero actually fluctuated two or three degrees every leapyear. So what? I mean, the question regarding the mechanics of the situation might certainly prove to be interesting, most certainly overturning our understanding of the way things work physics-wise. But I don't think the 'why' of Mr. Egnor's question is meant to address the more prosaic causal problems. Nope, this is one of those big WHY questions, which ultimately makes it a nonsensical question i.e. 'Why is something exactly what it is, instead of something else?'.
Well, I managed to address three questions today. Now it's time to hop off to work and earn my carrots, so that's all for today, Alice!
0 comments:
Post a Comment