The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality
February 24, 2012 at 9:02 pm
This thread is relating to the need for an atheist explanation of free choice, and conciousness from a scientifically materialist perspective. The nature of scientific materialism is that we are all bound by the laws of the universe. These laws aim to explain the quantum, atomic, molecular, physical, planetary, universal etc. methods that govern the universe as a whole.
While a full, complete explanation of these laws are yet to be fully understood by mankind in this present period of time, the well established theories and practices of a scientific method will one day lead to a complete understanding of these laws. Rationally when a full understanding of these laws has been obtained from the scientific method, we theoretically will be able to explain the nature of the universe from a materialist perspective.
But here is where I see the problem, that if there are absolute scientific laws that govern the universe, then necessarily the universe will be predetermined from its inception at the big bang. The universal scientific laws, that exist independently of human knowledge but will one day be understood by human kind, negate the very nature of free choice and the nature of conciseness in general.
If the universe has been predetermined by the laws of the universe since the big bang then human choices have been predetermined as well. Therefore the basis of rationality, that humans can choose to be rational or irrational becomes obsolete, as does any form of internal or external reflections of the universe since they are also based on the choices made consciously from a mind of free will. This argument leads to a nihilistic interpretation of the universe in which we can not justify or relate to any nature of the universe including reflections or communications about the universe. Therefore I place the burden of proof for atheists to resolve this matter. Please discuss.
While a full, complete explanation of these laws are yet to be fully understood by mankind in this present period of time, the well established theories and practices of a scientific method will one day lead to a complete understanding of these laws. Rationally when a full understanding of these laws has been obtained from the scientific method, we theoretically will be able to explain the nature of the universe from a materialist perspective.
But here is where I see the problem, that if there are absolute scientific laws that govern the universe, then necessarily the universe will be predetermined from its inception at the big bang. The universal scientific laws, that exist independently of human knowledge but will one day be understood by human kind, negate the very nature of free choice and the nature of conciseness in general.
If the universe has been predetermined by the laws of the universe since the big bang then human choices have been predetermined as well. Therefore the basis of rationality, that humans can choose to be rational or irrational becomes obsolete, as does any form of internal or external reflections of the universe since they are also based on the choices made consciously from a mind of free will. This argument leads to a nihilistic interpretation of the universe in which we can not justify or relate to any nature of the universe including reflections or communications about the universe. Therefore I place the burden of proof for atheists to resolve this matter. Please discuss.
