Unanswerable Questions

xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Unanswerable Questions

Sometimes when I debate a theist, I will question the nature of God - why is he this way, why does he feel this way, how does he exist, etc.  Usually the other person ends up stating something like "Well, he just is!", at which point I start feeling smug and victorious and whatnot.  Until now.

What I realize is that this is an acceptable answer, and if theists were smart enough to turn these tactics against us, we would have to give a similar answer.  The reason is that some things are the way they are without any reason behind them.  An example: a theist might ask how the universe came from the big bang.  I would then give him some version of the big bang, how all matter in the universe came from this.  The theist could then ask why the big bang happened, and again I would give him some other theory, be it brane theory or some quantum thingy or whatnot.  He may ask me why the universe is like that, and I might be able to give him an answer, with enogh information.  But at some point, I must simply accept the fact that the universe is the way it is, without any reasons - a troubling thought for some, but not for me.  

 So I ask, what do you think about this?  Am I on the right track?  Or am I simply being foolish?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


lester ballard
Posts: 63
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Most believers are not

Most believers are not committed to honest dialogue; they're too emotionally grounded in their belief system.

Our perception and inquiry is limited, as is our language.  We filter a whole lot out just to make sense of things.  A favorite quote:

What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.        --Wittgenstein


Not_Your_Therapist
atheist
Not_Your_Therapist's picture
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-06-28
User is offlineOffline
By "without any reason" do

By "without any reason" do you mean "without any purpose"?

 

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: So I

xamination wrote:

So I ask, what do you think about this? Am I on the right track?

The theist's error in the argument is in claiming a "god" created the universe when there is no evidence of any god. The theist is obligated to explain how he/she knows this.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


JB_Montag
JB_Montag's picture
Posts: 68
Joined: 2006-07-27
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe they are

I don't believe they are the same thing. 

 Imagine if someone said Frodo Baggins caused the American Civil War. When pressed how, they simply reply " I don't know, he just did ". Where as you may say, cultural differences in the North and South caused it.

You are using falsifiable eveidence to make a case at least. We know cultural differences exist. They still haven't shown Frodo even exists, and cannot therefore be used as a cause for anything.

The paper read yesterday, the earth exploded, nobody noticed the passing of this hapless planet.


JB_Montag
JB_Montag's picture
Posts: 68
Joined: 2006-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Mt. Doom is located just

Oh, Mt. Doom is located just outside Atlanta. Sherman was part of the fellowship. I always argue from FrodoLaughing

The paper read yesterday, the earth exploded, nobody noticed the passing of this hapless planet.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm not saying that the

I'm not saying that the theist is correct in his beliefs - I'm just saying that just because he reaches a point where he cannot explain his God may not mean that his belief is untrue or foolish - that "it just is" is a valid answer.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: What I realize is

Quote:
What I realize is that this is an acceptable answer, and if theists were smart enough to turn these tactics against us, we would have to give a similar answer.

Only if we are making the same mistake of using words that are not defined properly.

Even something like "reason" or "meaning" can refer to wildly different concepts, and it's a mistake to allow theists, or anyone else, to interchange them at will.

 

Quote:
But at some point, I must simply accept the fact that the universe is the way it is, without any reasons - a troubling thought for some, but not for me.

Here's another mistake.  There is a reason.  You don't know it.   It's a very big difference.  "God did it" is a convoluted way of saying, "I have no idea how it happened, so I made up a word that describes my complete ignorance."

Atheists, by and large, are just smart enough to avoid the trap of making up things when they are ignorant.

"Meaning" assumes intelligence, and therefore begs the question.

"Reason" implies a cause, which may or may not involve intellect.  Cause and effect are intrinsically tied to time, which is intrinsically tied to space, and matter/energy.  We don't know the "cause" of this interconnectedness, but that doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly good reason for it.  That "cause" also has a perfectly good reason for being what it is.

If you mean to say there is an endless string of questions to be asked, and no possible way to answer all of them, then you are correct.  If, at any point, someone tries to insert an "answer" without following the proper chain of empirical discovery, you are entirely correct in labeling that answer a glossy coating for ignorance.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


thormos
thormos's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
You know there is an easy

There is an easy and honest answer to any unanswerable question:

"I dont know."

There you have it. much more honest than "it just is".

"Everyone knows that God drives a Plymouth: "And He drove Adam And Eve from the Garden of Eden in His Fury."
And that Moses liked British cars: "The roar of Moses' Triumph was heard throughout the hills."
On the other hand, Jesus humbly drove a Honda but didn't brag about it, because in his own words: "I did not speak of my own Accord." "


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: I'm not

xamination wrote:
I'm not saying that the theist is correct in his beliefs - I'm just saying that just because he reaches a point where he cannot explain his God may not mean that his belief is untrue or foolish - that "it just is" is a valid answer.

The danger in that is stopping the search for answers. If things just are the how or even the real answer becomes less important.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Let me try to give you a

Let me try to give you a question that will explain what I mean; however, its going to be hard to put into words, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

Why does the universe exist?  I don't mean the Big Bang or anything like that, I want to know why anything exists?   Why does existance exist, if that makes sense?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Let me

xamination wrote:

Let me try to give you a question that will explain what I mean; however, its going to be hard to put into words, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

Why does the universe exist?  I don't mean the Big Bang or anything like that, I want to know why anything exists?   Why does existance exist, if that makes sense?

Just be honest.  At some point the correct answer is "I don't know" and there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean god did it, it just means we need to keep thinking about it and gathering evidence.  Progress is good!

 In answer to this question though, I would say "I don't know.  However, as a counter question, why would there be nothing rather than something?  By what authority do you decree that something is less likely than nothing?"


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: xamination wrote:

Quote:
xamination wrote:

Let me try to give you a question that will explain what I mean; however, its going to be hard to put into words, but I'm going to give it a go anyway.

Why does the universe exist?  I don't mean the Big Bang or anything like that, I want to know why anything exists?   Why does existance exist, if that makes sense?

Just be honest.  At some point the correct answer is "I don't know" and there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't mean god did it, it just means we need to keep thinking about it and gathering evidence.  Progress is good!

 In answer to this question though, I would say "I don't know.  However, as a counter question, why would there be nothing rather than something?  By what authority do you decree that something is less likely than nothing?"

No No No, I'm not saying God did it.  Don't confuse me with a theist.

You said that you would answer "I don't know"  In regards to the same question, do you think that there really is an acceptable answer?  I'm saying that you cannot reason existance - that some questions do not have reasonable answers, no matter how hard we look.

As for your counter question, I would ask "Why are existance and non-existance the only options?"

Ouch.Yell  I think I just got a brain cramp there.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm saying that you

Quote:
I'm saying that you cannot reason existance

I was trying to get you to recognize the double definition in this.  When a theist says, "a reason for existence," they mean a purpose.  Purpose and reason are different.

There is a reason that the universe exists.  There is no reason to assume a purpose.  A theist must first demonstrate intelligent design (sic!) before they can assert that there needs to be a purpose.

As for the reason, there's a reason there was um... what's it called... negative vacuum fluctuation.  Whatever that reason was, there was a reason for that to have happened.  No matter how far back we can ever go, there will be something before that, and the answer will always be, "I don't know."  If you happen to be a cosmologist, your answer will be, "I don't know.  I'm working on it, ok?"

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
AHA... I think I know how

AHA... I think I know how to explain it.

When the last human dies, there will be questions that we have not answered.  There will be some that were beyond our technical capabilities to answer at the time we went extinct.

However, there are answers to the questions.  Whether they will be answered, or can be at present -- these are different questions entirely.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one who

Am I the only one who thinks it is rather arrogant for humans (especially theists) to expect answers for everything?

Why must everything be answered in a lifetime? It is a good thing to be inquisitive but to EXPECT answers leads to roads where people begin answer tough queries with easy answers (god did it). That is not how desperate we should be, we should be more willing to say, "I don't know, but I would love to try to find out". 


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Ugh, this is harder getting

Ugh, this is harder getting across in text than I thought...

Hamby, I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.  Broaden your view for a bit, if you will.  Look at the universe as a whole - not just its appearence, but all its laws and rules and nuances that make it what it is.  Now, in respect to the whole universe, why is it the way it is?  More importantly, is it a question that can ever be answered?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Am I the only one

Quote:

Am I the only one who thinks it is rather arrogant for humans (especially theists) to expect answers for everything?

Why must everything be answered in a lifetime? It is a good thing to be inquisitive but to EXPECT answers leads to roads where people begin answer tough queries with easy answers (god did it). That is not how desperate we should be, we should be more willing to say, "I don't know, but I would love to try to find out".

 For the first part:  Not really.  Our thirst for knowledge is a gift that has gotten us where we are today.

My point is that most people here expect there to be answers for everything - not that we will know them, but that they exist somewhere.  I think that sometimes there is no real answer, but that is not the prevailing idea here. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Hamby, I understand

Quote:
Hamby, I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.  Broaden your view for a bit, if you will.  Look at the universe as a whole - not just its appearence, but all its laws and rules and nuances that make it what it is.  Now, in respect to the whole universe, why is it the way it is?  More importantly, is it a question that can ever be answered?

I'm not trying to be mean.  I just don't understand what you don't understand.  It seems pretty simple.

In respect to the whole universe, I don't know why it is the way it is.

Is it a question that can ever be answered?   Yes.  Is it a question that ever will be answered?  I don't know.  Humans will live a finite amount of time, and then the earth will be destroyed.  No matter whether we can escape earth or not, humans will become extinct.  When they do, there will be questions they have not answered.  This is certain.  What is not certain is which questions will not be answered.  For everything that is, there is a reason why it is, if the question is properly asked.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
How could you explain

How could you explain how/why the whole universe is, when the universe is all there is? 

Put simply, you believe there is reason for everything, I disagree.  However, assuming you are correct, what is the reason there is a reason for everything?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
I think there are 2 parts

I think there are 2 parts in this issue.

First, if we try to understand the universe (science):

Q:"How did we get here?"

A:"Evolution"

....... 

Q:"How did the univese form?"

A:"Big bang theory"

Q:"How did the Big Bang / singularity form?"

we get to a point where we have to say: 

A:"I don't know. There are some theories but there is no clear evidence and scientists are working on it."

And this is the honest answer any atheist should use.

 

There is a separate second part of the issue for philosophical (theological) questions like:

"Why is there a universe?"

"What is the purpose of the universe?"

but you can simply ask

"Why is there gravity?" or

"Why is the sky blue?"

 My impression is that the answer always is "Nobody knows.". Thou many theologians and philosophers make a living out of this type of questions, I have a suspicion that these questions are simply meaningless language constructs with no base in reality.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hitting the brick wall in a

Hitting the brick wall in a discussion with a theist brings out the best and the worst on an even basis.

Answering "I don't know. Let's find out together." works both ways.

One person will look for an answer and another will pray for it.

Guess which one has a better chance of finding it? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There is a separate

Quote:

There is a separate second part of the issue for philosophical (theological) questions like:

"Why is there a universe?"

"What is the purpose of the universe?"

but you can simply ask

"Why is there gravity?" or

"Why is the sky blue?"

 My impression is that the answer always is "Nobody knows.". Thou many theologians and philosophers make a living out of this type of questions, I have a suspicion that these questions are simply meaningless language constructs with no base in reality.

With the exception of that last question, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at.  I do think the third can be answered eventualy, and I find the second to be pointless, but when we find the most basic and underlying rules and pieces that make up the universe, what we will have are unquestionable parts of nature.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
I was thinking of the

I was thinking of the questions

"Why is there gravity?" or "Why is the sky blue?"

not in the scientific sense (natural processes that explain the observation), but a philosophical sense where the question asks for reasons (motivation / intention) behind the natural phenomenon.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
I understand.  But those

I understand.  But those questions do have answers.  These answers need reasons as well, and so on and so on.  However, this cannot continue infinately - these underlying conditions of the universe are just that: conditions.  No reason, no point, yet make up everything there is.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
This is very similar to the

This is very similar to the discussion I was having recently where a theist was trying desparately to make language a justification for god. Because a thing can be shown to exist conceptually, he argued, then the conceptual becomes a justification for the empirical.

It's crap, of course.

The conceptual is just that -- bits of language forming abstracts in our heads that are really little more than the flow of electrons.

Why are there no married bachelors? Because that's the way we conceptualize "married" and "bachelor." There is no further justification needed, because both of these things are just symbols through which we interpret reality.

"Why does gravity exist?" seems really straight forward, but it's much more complicated than that. Everything in the physical universe, be it matter or energy, or time-space, is dependent in a natural way on something else, which shapes it into what it is. In the end, it's possible that the whole thing is a giant circle -- everything is because everything else is. While this may not seem to answer the question of "why," it's not because the answer is inadequate, but rather that the abstracts in the mind of the questioner don't conform to a meaningful reality.

Another, bass-ackwards way of looking at it is this: You can say, "It is the way it is because it's not some other way."

Or, "If it were another way, it wouldn't be the way it is."

These may seem simple, but philosophically, axioms "are" simply because they cannot "be" anything else.

[edit:]A=A. Why? Because asking the question forces the answer. proves the answer.

Retortion.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
The Stumble Button on my

The Stumble Button on my toolbar has saved me - I just found an article that explains what I'm trying to get at.  I do not like how they turn it into an arguement for God, but it asks the questions I'm trying to.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/do_science_and_rationality_support_atheism/ 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Crike. I'm leaving my

Crike. I'm leaving my edits up so you can see how tricky language is. "Proves" is the wrong word, too, because that implies deduction, and axioms are not deduction. They are before deduction.

The point is that you can ask "why" an axiom is all day long, and we can go through every logical facet of existence, and in the end, what it's going to come down to is that axioms "just are."

It's not the same as a theist saying god "just is." Even though the words are the same, the concepts behind them are vastly different. Why is A=A? Because there is no alternative. Why? Because all other alternatives are conceptually incoherent. Why? Because A=A is the only way concepts could exist. Why? (ad nauseum)

God, on the other hand, is not an axiom. It is purported to be an external reality which must, then, be dependent on other external realities to qualify as a reality. As such, it falls above the level of axiom and must be defended. Why? Because we can demonstrate that it cannot be defended through retortion. Why is that the way it is? Because only axioms can be defended through retortion. Why? Because if it were another way, it would be different.

You see what I'm doing?

All of these questions are not really the questions you think they are. You exist in a world where everything is linear. Where effect follows cause. You cannot see or feel or touch that which is beyond your observation, and your observation is linear. Nevertheless, reality is not linear in every sense. What you perceive is not the way things really are. Your body is mostly nothing. You are overwhelmingly non-existent. The "meaning" of your existence is dependent on your perspective -- your concept. This concept only exists because of other concepts, which are not dependent on your recognition.

And yet, the things you perceive are real. You do exist. The table is solid. There is a spoon.

But, the universe is simply nothing, interspersed with things we call subatomic particles (simply because we must call them something), and from the correct perspective, there is nothing else.

But, there is no spoon.

*****

Ok, that's enough of that. What I'm trying to show you is that you can go in philosophical circles until you die of boredom, and you won't get "answers" to your "questions" because your questions are symbols for things that don't represent reality, except through the very limited perception that allowed their formation.

Realization that naturalism is simply the conceptual analysis of the level of existence that we perceive goes a long way towards understanding that unanswerable questions are simply broken concepts, much in the way that the word "supernatural" is broken. The question itself is incoherent because its meaning is locked in a particular symbol that cannot address what it cannot be used to represent.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Stumble Button

Quote:

The Stumble Button on my toolbar has saved me - I just found an article that explains what I'm trying to get at. I do not like how they turn it into an arguement for God, but it asks the questions I'm trying to.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/do_science_and_rationality_support_atheism/

I've really got to go, so I can't read this now, but maybe I can address it without reading it. Let me try:

Where god justification is dependent on unanswerable questions, the basic errors are the fallacy of ignorance, and a form of stolen concept.

Think about it this way:

There is an unanswerable question. The answer is God.

Well, slap me in the mouth and call me Mathilda, but it's not hard to see the error in this, is it?

Furthermore, if we take all this garble-de-gook that I've been spewing and determine that reality is what we make it, we're making the fundamental error of "stealing the concept" from our reality, namely that there is a spoon, and applying it to the reality which we cannot address.

But -- this is also an error, for language is perspective, and in the reality where there is no spoon, we cannot speak of the spoon. It does not exist.

Within this reality, there is a spoon, and it doesn't matter how much you try to will it out of existence, it exists.

Fallacy of ignorance is always going to involve putting an unexplainable answer in a question without an answer.

The other thing to remember is that everything must be answered within the confines of its own existence. We cannot function outside of induction and deduction. It is incoherent to speak of doing otherwise. If a thing is "outside of reality" it is nonexistent. The term is broken.

Language and symbols are limited. This much is true, but whenever a theist tries to use language and symbols to say ANYTHING about something which cannot be expressed in language and symbols, he is contradicting himself.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, I appreciate you for

Hamby, I appreciate you for sticking with me - I really do. Again, I'm going to break it down to the very basics.

1. Everything in the universe is based on a few basic variables.

2. The existance of these variables have no cause - they just are the way they are.

3. This is giving me headaches.

4. On top of this, when I question a theist about the nature of God, when he inevitably is unable to answer why God is the way he is, how can I claim this as a significant point against theism?

Please, remember, I'm no theist. This stuff is just bothering me immensely.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
I think, in any coherent

I think, in any coherent view of the universe (if you don't find it meaningless to talk about things outside our space-time) you have to start with "something" eternal and uncaused.

The atheist should say we don't know, and may be impossible to know what that "something" is.

The theist position which adds some properties to this "something" and calls it God can only be argued agains if those extra properties are irrational or illogical or against the evidence we have.

A deist will be careful and make those properties consistent and beyond the reach of evidence, so there is nothing to debate with.

 

I hope that helps to ease the headaches. 

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.