I do still find it hard to make sense of an evil god, except as an enemy of the good god which is actually worshiped. What I can make sense of is a conception of the big bad world in its entirety as a metaphorical god, but then the relationship becomes ambivalent. Or there is the strange vision of God as presented in the book of Job, a glorious and powerful God who is beyond human notions of good and evil. — five G

I agree with you about participation in the cosmic plan. The only hitch is that maybe humans could resent and rebel against the plan of a god they considered evil. Or perhaps they obey out of fear of Hell or some other punishment. That makes the world a kind of prison, and casts God as the worst tyrant ever.

It's possible that I'm thinking from humanist prime directives that I just can't see around. For 'us,' a god must make sense, be rational, and seem virtuous by human standards in order to 'truly' be god and not just some powerful alien tyrant or inscrutable, cold machine.

Thoughts? — five G

Yes I think you, and I am too for that matter, are viewing it from a humanist perspective, which has grown out of the western judeo-christian tradition. Following Nietzsche, the concept of evil itself is an invention of this tradition. And the formula that fuses the good, reason and virtue together an invention of Socrates and Plato, and later coöpted by Christianity. Pre-socrates, Greek culture was Homeric, and the gods had little to do with reason, virtue or being morally good... the whole idea of equating the good with reason and virtue would probably have been completely alien to them. And so would the idea of good and evil as a dichotomy.

Maybe the common thread is the fear that life is not going anywhere. Don't people want an unambiguous sense of indestructible progress? — five G

Any unambiguous good would do. It’s quite hard to come by.

I’m kind of with you, but I’m also very reluctant to endorse anything associated with intelligent design. — Wayfarer

I'm not suggesting intelligent design is the only other choice for us.

All I'm saying is that chance offered as an alternative to a creator-god doesn't pass muster. Why? Well, chance in the context of creation simply means that there was X% probability for the universe to come into existence.

Firstly, chance is an aspect of a god-created universe too. There were many possible universes god could've created and also god could've decided not to create anything at all. Lump all these possibilities together with the fact that god allegedly created this universe and we have the right ingredients for chance - there was X% probability that god created the universe.

Secondly, god is an explanation for how the possibility of this universe as expressed in the X% probability became a reality. In other words, the actualization of a possible universe is what a creator-deity is supposed to have effected.

To claim that the universe was created by chance is nonsense because, as I mentioned earlier, all that's possible, probabilistically, is to say that there was an X% chance for the universe to have come into existence. Nowhere in this is the information that such and such caused the possibility of a universe to become a reality.

I don't think we can distunguish between meaning (purpose) and pursuing goals as an outside observer. If we program the humanoid to pursue their goals with all their live, with all their capabilities, I don't think as an outside observer we can distuinguish whether the humanoid really find the goal meaningful, or whether they're simply fulfilling their programmed task to pursue the goals.

It's like when successful enterpreneur call their hard work as passion. Maybe it is, or maybe they just have a tendency to work hard to pursue any goal they set onto. Or it's like someone who said family is the most important thing. We can only observe whether they really show sign of happiness/depression when enganging with family activities to know if they said the truth or not.

So in a way, as long as we program some goals for each of the humanoid to strive for, and program their internal system (mind/consciousness) to give reward in the form of happiness or satisfaction, I think we can program meaning. Though as an outside observer we can never know whether something meaningful for them or whether they simpy get an internal reward for pursuing their programmed goal.
Maybe we can if their internal monologue can be known. Then we program their internal monologue to give positive feedback while striving for certain goals.

Yes chance and probability are an expression of our epistemic uncertainty. In poker you put a probability or chance on you winning a hand because you lack information. If you had all the information, there would be no need for probabilities.

I think Wayfearer was originally using the term in another way though. By chance, as a fluke or an accident, means something like lack of design or intention... non-teleological. We never know for sure, but it seems like we came about by the process of evolution, which is a non-teleological process, i.e. "by chance".

Concerning the universe itself, yes, we just don't know. We don't even know if it sensible to talk about it being caused, since it's hard to see how causation even would apply outside of space and time.

Anyway, these discussion are all a bit besides the point I think. I don't think religions and Gods should be viewed literally or as accurate descriptions. They are myths or stories created to serve a certain purpose in societies. If you are looking to prove them or find evidence in the descriptive, you are already on the wrong track it seems to me.

To claim that the universe was created by chance is nonsense because, as I mentioned earlier, all that's possible, probabilistically, is to say that there was an X% chance for the universe to have come into existence. Nowhere in this is the information that such and such caused the possibility of a universe to become a reality. — TheMadFool

And I agree with you! In some ways, the ‘created vs chance’ is a false dichotomy.

Yes I think you, and I am too for that matter, are viewing it from a humanist perspective, which has grown out of the western judeo-christian tradition. — ChatteringMonkey

Right. It's my understanding that post-tribal universalism is historically entwined with a Christianity that was preached to the gentiles. I imagine pre-global societies understanding themselves as warrior organisms. A good citizen was a good cell, a good piece of the holy machine. Traditional societies like this just want proper repetition, to live up to the ancestors, the same anew. Well, we have to account for expansion (Assyrians come to mind, etc.) That pops the nostalgia bubble. But then Life 'is' expansion and exploitation. You mention Nietzsche, and he does seem like a key thinker on all of this. (footnotes to Nietzsche == foolosophy since? )

But we end up with global self-devouring humanism and runaway technological disruption. The tech promises and threatens. It could/should liberate us from drudgery, but it also threatens unprecedented domination. How about a department of precrime, brought to you by A.I.? Or a Big Brother who actually can watch everyone all of the time, a parody of God?

Any unambiguous good would do. It’s quite hard to come by. — Wayfarer

Right, or at least it's hard for a neurotic-critical-sophisticated mind to hold on to. Anyone in a state of genuine faith is saved by that faith while it lasts.

Does the self-lacerating conscience take itself for an idol?

But we end up with global self-devouring humanism and runaway technological disruption. The tech promises and threatens. It could/should liberate us from drudgery, but it also threatens unprecedented domination. — five G

There are lots of ways it can go horribly wrong, sure, but what I would want to question is if the upside is really there to begin with? Nietzsche, again, says that it's not really suffering itself that is the problem, but suffering without meaning. If that claim is true, then the idea of a humanism that values progress as a way to alleviate suffering is a flawed idea to begin with. Because it doesn't address the root of the issue. This is presumably only going to get worse as AI and automation can take over more and more roles in society, which was still a way people could feel part of that bigger whole and derive some meaning (although that certainly has it's problems too, I won't deny).

So yeah, this to me seems like the biggest challenge. And if we don't find a solution for that, it will cause a lot of problems, which will only be exacerbated by those technological advances. Technology is essentially neutral, it all depends on how you use it. And how we will use it, will depend on the state our civil societies will be in... which, you know, doesn't look to good at this particular moment :-).

This is presumably only going to get worse as AI and automation can take over more and more roles in society, which was still a way people could feel part of that bigger whole and derive some meaning (although that certainly has it's problems too, I won't deny). — ChatteringMonkey

Good point, and I also suspect that our dependence on screens is contributing to mass delusion. Our ape brains can't handle the tech. The lil' guy has no economic imperative toward info hygiene. The foundation is vanity and greed, with a fragile semi-neutral matrix that keeps us from ripping one another to shreds literally and not only in spirit. The whispers of Q make people happy, put some evil cabal in charge, provide ideal victims. The trafficked children are strong metaphors for the soul of man under late capitalism. To me a more realistic vision is that no one is steering the machine and that all are more or less complicit. This is the unmarketable position, fit only for anonymous graffiti. The figure of Socrates is only useful when integrated with a Cure and a Plan.

And how we will use it, will depend on the state our civil societies will be in... which, you know, doesn't look to good at this particular moment :-). — ChatteringMonkey

One difficulty here is that any nation that sacrifices economic or technological strength for mental health runs the risk of being overpowered by more reckless nations. The machine can't stop. I can imagine humanity wiping out 95% of the population in some disaster, and then a few centuries later it happens again. Transcendence/transgression is the demon that lifts us above the apes that came before. (Maybe I'm laying it on thick, but it does seem to be the largest drama we can think of, our own global-species drama.)

I think Wayfearer was originally using the term in another way though. By chance, as a fluke or an accident, means something like lack of design or intention... non-teleological. We never know for sure, but it seems like we came about by the process of evolution, which is a non-teleological process, i.e. "by chance" — ChatteringMonkey

And I agree with you! In some ways, the ‘created vs chance’ is a false dichotomy. — Wayfarer

To both of you

Well, "chance" is the wrong word if you want to talk about the absence of teleology because chance is an aspect of the teleological too.

First, our universe existed as one among many possibilities and so there was a probability associated with its existence and that's chance. This is true for both a god-created universe and one that's not; after all even for god, this universe was first a possibility in faer mind i.e. this universe was nothing more than a mere probability before god created it.

Second, this possibility (for our universe to exist) became a reality and for theists it's at this point god enters the picture, as the cause that made the possible real.

As you can see, from a theistic perspective god converted the chance that our universe could exist into the actual existence of the universe.

If now one proposes chance as an alternative to divine creation then something's off because

1. Chance is an aspect of a god-created universe too.

2. Chance doesn't explain how possibilities actualize as it has with our universe.

Well, "chance" is the wrong word if you want to talk about the absence of teleology because chance is an aspect of the teleological too. — TheMadFool

A word can have a different meaning in a different context.

A word can have a different meaning in a different context. — ChatteringMonkey

Which meaning of "chance" makes sense in the sentence "the universe came into existence by chance"?

A word can have a different meaning in a different context.
— ChatteringMonkey

Which meaning of "chance" makes sense in the sentence "the universe came into existence by chance"? — TheMadFool

The non-teleological one. He scored that goal by chance, means he didn't intent to score the goal... not that the goal was scored by some probability.

A word can have a different meaning in a different context.
— ChatteringMonkey

Which meaning of "chance" makes sense in the sentence "the universe came into existence by chance"?
— TheMadFool

The non-teleological one. He scored that goal by chance, means he didn't intent to score the goal... not that the goal was score by some probability. — ChatteringMonkey

Although, I'll grant you that it can also mean that that he did intent to score it, but that there was a very low probability to score. It's a bit ambiguous and so maybe not the best word here, I agree.

The non-teleological one. He scored that goal by chance, means he didn't intent to score the goal — ChatteringMonkey

Teleology isn't necessarily an attribute of a god-created universe. God is seen as the cause that made what is a possible universe (ours) a reality whether it be by design (teleology) or not. Aristotle's first cause argument for the existence of a god doesn't even imply that god, as the first cause, has to be a conscious, self-aware, being so we can forget about purpose (teleology). Since,a non-teleological universe is compatible with god, it doesn't make sense to differentiate chance and a creator-deity on that basis.

not that the goal was score by some probability. — ChatteringMonkey

Exactly my point. A goal can't be scored by chance. Similarly, a universe can't be created by chance.

Exactly my point. A goal can't be scored by chance. Similarly, a universe can't be created by chance. — TheMadFool

I don't know why you are so hung up on this particular point, it's just a figure of speech, not literally a probability. People do say that a goal was score by chance, by which they mean that it wasn't intended...

Teleology isn't necessarily an attribute of a god-created universe. God is seen as the cause that made what is a possible universe (ours) a reality whether it be by design (teleology) or not. Aristotle's first cause argument for the existence of a god doesn't even imply that god, as the first cause, has to be a conscious, self-aware, being so we can forget about purpose (teleology). Since,a non-teleological universe is compatible with god, it doesn't make sense to differentiate chance and a creator-deity on that basis. — TheMadFool

It's hard to have a teleological universe without God is the important part you are leaving out. Sure, you can have a non-teleological universe with God, but then that is usually not the kind of God we invent.

I don't why you are so hung up on this particular point, it's just a figure of speech, not literally a probability. People do say that a goal was score by chance, by which they mean that it wasn't intended... — ChatteringMonkey

What do you mean it's a "figure of speech"? Do you mean that when I say "the universe was created by chance" I mean something other than the literal meaning of that sentence and the words contained therein? I'm afraid that's not true. People actually mean that chance created the universe and chance here is being offered as a good enough alternative to a creator-god.

However, chance is simply a description of the relationship between possibilities and actuality. Chance isn't a cause and it, therefore, can't bring the universe into existence.

What do you mean it's a "figure of speech"? Do you mean that when I say "the universe was created by chance" I mean something other than the literal meaning of that sentence and the words contained therein? — TheMadFool

Yes, not literally but figuratively. Note that 'by chance' is not the subject of the sentence in 'he scored that goal by chance'. It's not chance that score the goal, he did.... by chance.

I'm afraid that's not true. People actually mean that chance created the universe and chance here is being offered as a good enough alternative to a creator-god. — TheMadFool

I don't agree because as you said, that would be incoherent. And I think one shouldn't use the word 'created' either, because that already implies intention.

However, chance is simply a description of the relationship between possibilities and actuality. Chance isn't a cause and it, therefore, can't bring the universe into existence. — TheMadFool

@Wayfarer

Yes, not literally but figuratively. Note that 'by chance' is not the subject of the sentence in 'he scored that goal by chance'. It's not chance that score the goal, he did.... by chance — ChatteringMonkey

So, there has to be someone who causes the goal whether by chance or not. Similarly, there has to be something that causes the universe whether by chance or not. A valid competing explanation for a person who scores a goal by chance isn't chance itself, it''s something else. Similarly a valid alternative to god having created the universe isn't chance but something else. :chin:???

By the way,

Google definition of "chance": the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause

Again look at it in terms of history of ideas. Vastly simplified: 'teleology' is strongly associated with Aristotelianism. (There's an entry on it here.) In Aristotelian thought, everything was directed to a proper end; its 'final cause' was the reason that it existed. But Galileo rejected Aristotelian physics - and rightly so, as it was an archaic mode of thought that had never been validated by experiment or observation but mostly based on surmise and reasoning.

Galielean and Newtonian science, and the analysis of motion in terms of mass, velocity and so forth, which now seems second nature to us, was a complete break away from prior notions of physics. Likewise the whole grand structure of Ptolmaic cosmology, the crystal spheres and ethereal realms which were the literal heavens - the whole grand structure was swept asice by the Scientific Revolution and the advent of modernity.

Second point - Darwin himself was influenced by the 'Scottish enlightenment' - which figured such other luminaries as Adam Smith and David Hume. So he sought explanations solely in scientifically intelligible terms (which has been uncharitably attributed to 'physics envy' by some critics). The famous passage in Origin of Species on the metaphor of the Tangled Bank:

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being (1) Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; (2) Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a (3) Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to (4) Natural Selection, entailing (5) Divergence of Character and the (6) Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. — Charles Darwin

I added the numbers in the above, to illustrate that they were six. In this sense, it seems a very rigourous and scientifically sound theory whereby a small number of principles can be seen to give rise to the vast complexity of living species. (It is said that the phrase 'breathed by the Creator' was not in the first edition, but was added later to placate religious critics.)

But the point I'm making is that this was the kind of explanation that was and is seen to be congruent with natural science, in that it posits no 'guiding intelligence' or hidden power; the only 'power' is the primeval drive of all living things to continue to exist and to reproduce. And survival and reproduction are the only purposes that are conceived, and required, in this model. There's no underlying telos or 'elan vital' which animates (Aristotle's term) living beings.

That's the background against which the notion that life arose 'by chance' became influential. It was 'by chance' as distinct from an act of providential creation. And this argument is still going on, in the battles over evolutionary theory and its implications for mankind.

But I think it's important to consider that the kind of idea of purposelessness and meaninglessness that you find in a lot of 20th C existentialist literature was very much the product of the crashing down of the Medieval synthesis and the modern realisation of the 'appalling vastnesses of space' (Pascal's term). It really was a rude awakening. And we're still going through it.

Yes, not literally but figuratively. Note that 'by chance' is not the subject of the sentence in 'he scored that goal by chance'. It's not chance that score the goal, he did.... by chance
— ChatteringMonkey

By the way,

Google definition of "chance": the occurrence of events in the absence of any obvious intention or cause — TheMadFool

Yes, the definition and use is ambiguous like I said, intention and cause are two different things. But that is often the case with common language which isn't intended for these kinds of discussions. For science and philosophy you often have to clarify terms.

So, there has to be someone who causes the goal whether by chance or not. Similarly, there has to be something that causes the universe whether by chance or not. A valid competing explanation for a person who scores a goal by chance isn't chance itself, it''s something else. Similarly a valid alternative to god having created the universe isn't chance but something else. :chin:??? — TheMadFool

Well no, we can't just assume goal-scoring is analogous with universe-creating because you can formulate similar sentences about them. For one, we don't know if cause and effect even applies outside of the universe. And if causality would apply we don't know if there is intention behind the cause. To 'know' you would need some data to test your theory to. Since we lack data about the origin of the universe we are left with a range of possible origins that are possible in theory. Chances that any one guess will happen to be the right one seem rather low... in short we just don't know.

Point to note, Aristotle's first cause is simply a cause that got the ball rolling which led to the creation of the universe and that cause was god for him. As you already know, this first cause is a far cry from the modern conception of god as all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful the first and most important difference being the first cause needn't be a self-aware, conscious being interested in the welfare of humans or the planet earth and therein lies the rub. Telos isn't a necessary aspect of god viewed as nothing more than the first cause for it's not a being in the first place and so we can forget about teleology. Since non-teleology is compatible with god as the first cause, it can't be that chance is about absence of teleology because the distinction wouldn't make sense - both the first cause (Aristotle's god) and chance are non-teleological in nature.

Can chance be a cause? The definition that I provided in my last reply to you states that chance means "an absence of...cause" and this is probably the meaning employed in the statement, "the universe came to be (began to exist) by chance" i.e. it had no cause.

The matter boils down to two options that are laid out before us:

1. Accept that the universe has no cause (it arose by chance)

or

2. Accept that the universe has a cause (Call this 'i]first cause[/i] God or whatever you like)

Which of the two, 1 or 2, has good supporting evidence? You'll notice that never in the lives of the 107 billion people who've ever lived and never in the lives of the 7 billion who are alive on our beloved planet has there ever been an instance of a causeless phenomenon. In a nutshell we've never come across something that has no cause. So, an infinite regress of causes notwithstanding, evidence seems to point in the direction of the universe being caused by something. What's interesting here is the proof that the universe had a cause is a posteriori (all observed phenomena have causes) but the objection to it is a priori (infinite regress). Rationalism or Empiricism? Can we hope to find a middle ground or is that even a valid question? How about causal loops rather than linear causality. The universe could've been created by a being that intelligent life will create in the far, far future through numerous events describable as technological singularities resulting in an Artificial Intelligence with infinite computing power that reverses the runaway entropy back to the Big Bang singularity and the process simply repeats: Big Bang -> Intelligent life -> Technological singularities -> Infinite Intelligent AI (god) -> Reverse entropy after/during the heat death of the universe -> Big Bang. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

But of course, where and how did the causal loop begin?

Can chance be a cause? — TheMadFool

No I don't think so, chance pertains to how it was caused, not to what the cause was.

So, an infinite regress of causes notwithstanding, evidence seems to point in the direction of the universe being caused by something. What's interesting here is the proof that the universe had a cause is a posteriori (all observed phenomena have causes) but the objection to it is a priori (infinite regress). Rationalism or Empiricism? — TheMadFool

I think Hume showed that the assumption of Causality with a big C, as a metaphysical principle, is unwarranted. We expect things to be caused out of habit, but have no actual proof that everything is caused, all the time, as an unbroken causal chain back to God.... so it's a psychological truth rather than a metaphysical one. There is no need to stop infinite regress (with something like God), if you don't assume an unbroken chain of causation.... which was ultimately Humes intention, he was a sneaky atheist.

As to the rest of your post, I definitely fall on the empiricist side, so I think I can only repeat what I already said, we just don't know because of lack of any data... anything is possible.

I think Hume showed that the assumption of Causality with a big C, as a metaphysical principle, is unwarranted — ChatteringMonkey

So, the coronavirus that cause the ongoing pandemic is "out of habit"? That we can treat tuberculosis with the specific drugs that kill the causative bacterium is just an illusion?

So, the coronavirus that cause the ongoing pandemic is "out of habit"? That we can treat tuberculosis with the specific drugs that kill the causative bacterium is just an illusion? — TheMadFool

Evidence of something causing something, is no proof of everything being caused always.

Evidence of something causing something, is no proof of everything being caused always. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, at least Hume wasn't correct that causation is "out of habit".

Evidence of something causing something, is no proof of everything being caused always.
— ChatteringMonkey

Well, at least Hume wasn't correct that causation is "out of habit". — TheMadFool

Yeah I think he was, as far as we can be certain, but I don't know if I can do his argument justice here, it has been a while. I'd have to read it again...

No problem. G'day