Atheism vs Theism

  • 50 Replies
  • 10407 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2009, 06:48:07 PM »
Whenever rational reasons to believe in God are brought up, they often fall back on "But God contradicts the laws of physics!" when in fact the very existence of the universe contradicts the laws of the physics, and when atheists are forced to recognize that, you know what they do?

I consider myself a strong atheist, and I can see why one might mistake my justification as a form of this argument, but it really isn't. All I've said is that, according to the laws of physics, it is unlikely that a god exists, and because one is not directly observable there is no way we can conclude that he does (which would override any statistical improbability). The laws of physics also say that it is unlikely that the Universe itself would spring into being from nothing (which is only true in some hypotheses of its origin, and I consider this to be a weak point in those hypotheses), but because we can directly observe it that becomes irrelevant; it is still grossly more unlikely for a being capable of creating the Universe with the intent of harbouring life to exist than it is that life arose naturally within a far simpler Universe.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #31 on: September 20, 2009, 05:23:41 AM »


Atheism is wrong-headed because it leans towards non-belief based on lack of evidence.
***Edit: I think I misinterpreted the quoted sentence but I'll leave the following paragraph in because everything else follows on from it anyway, but I see now that this paragraph does not necessarily follow from what I have quoted above***

I'm sorry, and I don't want to come across as ranting (though I normally do either way), but in no way at all can a non-acceptance of a claim ever be described in that way. It is in fact the opposite to what you think. An atheist actively requires and seeks evidence and if what they find does not stand up to scrutiny then they have no choice but to reach the point of non-acceptance. If the evidence is good, or a rational and logically sound argument can be made, then a claim may be accepted. Otherwise, non-acceptance is the correct stance and only logical stance. What other reason would you accept a claim for?

Quote
Theism, rather than philosophically trying to settle the question of God's existence, attributes features to God that we have no reason to think exist, unless we believe the holy book describing them, and such holy books are uniformly contradictory and illogical.  Theism demands that one choose a specific deity and take its existence and attributes on faith.  This leads to many fallacies, including those used by atheists to prove that God must not exist based on the assumption of a particular individual or group of religions, for example the notion that the existence of evil does not make sense if God is omnipotent and benevolent (from a non-theistic standpoint, who's to say he's either, or that evil even has any ultimate meaning?).  This leads to many irritating strawmen in discussions about the existence of God, from both sides.  In fact, many atheists seem to base their tendency to lean toward the nonexistence of God at least partly on a distaste for organized religion, and while I'm no fan of organized religion myself I don't think that's a logical stance to take.

Theism covers all areas in which a person accepts a claim about a god or gods. If a person accepts any claim about any god or gods then that person should be able to explain why. I'd like to ask you how one would go about philosophically trying to settle the question of the existence of something if that something is not defined? How can anyone prove the existence of anything if they first do not define what it is they are trying to prove the existence of? What god would you possibly be able to discuss that had exactly zero attributes assigned to it?

No atheist in their right mind would go about trying to prove that a god or gods do not exist. What you may see as "proofs" from atheists are actually rebuttals to theistic claims. It's very easy to take any theistic claim from any form of theism and rebut it. That is what you do when someone makes a claim that appears unusual or not in line with reality which means the same applies for all types of claim not just those about gods. If I claimed I could fly, the first thing you would ask for is for me to prove it to you. If I could not prove it, you would not then have to go further and prove I could not fly. Why would you even try? All you need do is rebut every piece of "evidence" I give until I have nothing left. In a court of law the defendant does not need to "prove their innocence" they simply have to show that the evidence for their guilt is not good enough. "Guilty or Not guilty", the judge asks. Burden of proof is ALWAYS with the person making the claim. If you find an atheist trying to prove there are no gods, tell them they don't have to and furthermore they never will!

I'm sure there are atheists that came to be so for bad reasons such as a distaste for religions. Does that make it an incorrect stance? I certainly abhor organised religion but that is not why I am an atheist. I am one because I have never in my life been presented with one single piece of convincing evidence or argument for the existence of a god or gods. That's it, plain and simple and I would wager that most atheists fall into that category and not the one you suggested. I don't claim that there are absolutely no gods. But like I said, gods are like faeries, unicorns, dragons and leprechauns to me; myths (except not nearly as entertaining).

There are straw man arguments made by both sides it's true but your opinions about atheism are based on exactly the same thing. I can't stress enough the importance of the difference between making a claim and not accepting a claim.


Quote
In a fight between atheism and theism, atheism wins hands down.  It's not even a contest.  But a fight between atheism and deism?  That's not nearly so clear-cut.  There is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of a supernatural progenitor.  The problem is that it's all circumstantial.  That's okay, though, because the evidence that supposedly goes against the existence of God is entirely circumstantial too.

I'm not sure I see the difference between those two showdowns. Theists claim an interfering god which is maybe slightly easier to rebut because they make a lot more claims about their gods and they also claim their gods are doing things right now and not just in the past. Okay fair enough but the deist is still making a claim none-the-less about the existence of something. Deists claim that at some point there was a being or some kind of intelligence that existed and it was responsible for the creation of the known universe. How did they come to believe this? How do they know ANYTHING about this being? Can any deist give any evidence for their claim? The answer is no, therefore in your two philosophical fights, atheism is still the only logical conclusion and it is reached with similar ease in both cases. Again there is no "evidence against the existence of God", there is only the dismantling of evidence FOR the existence of God. On a side-note I've always found it intriguing that deism became very popular around the time that science came of age and the god of the gaps was quickly running out of gaps large enough to fit into. Deism, in my opinion, is even more ridiculous than regular theism. At least a theist can call on personal experiences as proof to themselves. What can a deist do except cling on to something for no good reason? I find deism also results from a misunderstanding of scientific claims about the origin of the universe. Ask any scientist in the field and they will answer "we don't know but we're trying to find out". What more do you want?


Quote
Without solid proof, neither side really wins.  So it's just as logical to lean towards God's existing as it is to lean towards God's not existing.  The most rational stance to take is that of the pure agnostic.  And however they might rationalize their opinions those who designate themselves "weak atheists" are not pure agnostics, because when the discussion comes up, they are always pointing out reasons to not believe in God, rather than reasons to believe in God, which from their point of view aren't viable.  So even though they claim open-mindedness, they close their minds to the possibility that there is reason to believe in God, and are therefore every bit as biased towards non-belief as theists are biased towards belief.  You'll see this bias pop up all the time from supposed "weak atheists" on these forums.  Whenever rational reasons to believe in God are brought up, they often fall back on "But God contradicts the laws of physics!" when in fact the very existence of the universe contradicts the laws of the physics, and when atheists are forced to recognize that, you know what they do?  They either ignore it because they don't understand it, or they start citing fanciful hypotheticals about how the universe can exist without breaking the laws of physics.  Hilarity ensues.

I hope you can see that it's not nearly as logical to lean towards belief as it is to non-belief (remember that "non-belief" is not a claim to the contrary it just the non-acceptance of a claim). What you're implying is that the likelihood of a god vs. no god is 50/50. It's not. Everything we observe leads us to believe that there are no gods. Of course we cannot observe the beginning of the universe or what was there before (if anything was) but for that reason we should say "I don't know" not "oh there must have been some kind of intelligent creator type thing that we can't prove exists and whose origin we haven't even begun to explain either". Come on now which is more logical, please?

Agnosticism still falls under atheism. An agnostic atheist is still an atheist. If they weren't an atheist they would be a believer; a theist. Agnostic is such a useless and misleading label and I wish people wouldn't use it unless they understand what it really means. Most people think of agnosticism like this:

"Well...I'm not really sure if there's a god or not so I don't really want to say I'm an atheist (note they do not understand what atheism is), and I don't want to say I'm a theist (not they do not know what theism really is; belief in a god, not knowing there's a god) so I'll just call myself agnostic because I just don't know/haven't made my mind up"

I might be wrong but that's how all the agnostics I've met have thought. Agnostic is a state of not knowing. Well I think it's been established already that nobody really "knows" things 100%. We can know things so close to 100% that it doesn't matter and in everyday discourse I think it's acceptable to use the word "know". I'm not a pedant at all. In discussions about gods though I think it's very important not to use the word because of the nature of the topic. Most god claims, including deism, define the god or gods in some kind of supernatural, or transcendental way outside of space and time...etc. If that is the case, and the god does not manifest in nature (because it's outside nature; supernatural) then it is indistinguishable from nothing. It's much like the FE arguments make out we live on a flat Earth but it is indistinguishable from a round one. Well then what are we to do? Say we don't know? No we look at the evidence for a round Earth and ask if FE can explain 100% of it satisfactorily. If not then we reject the more complicated and more incomplete hypothesis. We do not say we are agnostic about the shape of the Earth. Now from a purely scientific point of view we cannot be 100% sure the Earth is round but we can be so close to 100% that it barely matters.

Agnosticism is a weak and confused stance and even though people are free to label themselves as they will, I wish agnostics would recognise they are still atheists and being an atheist does not require "knowing" anything about the existence of god except that the evidence for it is not good enough.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 05:49:47 AM by Kasroa Is Gone »

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #32 on: September 20, 2009, 05:28:12 AM »
Wow I just critted everyone with a massive wall of text for massive damage.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #33 on: September 20, 2009, 06:25:44 AM »
Ou-ch! From all of it I'd like to pick out

Quote
Theism covers all areas in which a person accepts a claim about a god or gods

I take it you mean that Deism doesn't fall into this category because no hard claims about the deities are accepted as fact? Or do you mean deism is theistic?

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #34 on: September 20, 2009, 07:44:37 AM »
Ou-ch! From all of it I'd like to pick out

Quote
Theism covers all areas in which a person accepts a claim about a god or gods

I take it you mean that Deism doesn't fall into this category because no hard claims about the deities are accepted as fact? Or do you mean deism is theistic?

I think I could have worded that better. What I should have said was that theism covers all areas in which a person holds a belief that a god or gods exists, or in some cases, existed once. So yes I would say deism falls under theism but that's just how I see it. Some would say they are distinct but I'm not sure it matters too much. They both involve belief in a god and that's where I start from.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #35 on: September 20, 2009, 11:09:18 AM »
Skepticism doesn't make a claim, nor does it need its own evidence.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being skeptical.  Atheism is a bit too radical a form of skepticism to me, though.  It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters and since we don't know for sure that that's the case it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.  While we shouldn't take it for granted that there is a supernatural world walled off from the natural world, to assume that there's not a supernatural world closes ones mind to some possibilities that really should be taken into consideration before a real decision can be made.

Quote
Quote
There is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of a supernatural progenitor.  The problem is that it's all circumstantial.
???

The existence of the universe itself is evidence that something intelligent created it.  For more information see The God Delusion, p 141 ff.  I'm not going to quote it directly but the gist is that there are six fundamental constants that are believed to be present throughout the universe.  If even one of these constants were slightly altered sentient life would not be possible.  The fact that the universe itself is so finely tuned to allow beings capable of observing it is evidence that there was a purpose to such fine tuning, and therefore some kind of intelligent force behind it.

Dawkins goes on to describe the fanciful hypotheses that I spoke of.  I mean, honestly, if the only way such fine tuning makes logical sense is either blind chance (which from a probabilistic standpoint actually makes the existence of God likely) or infinite universes going back infinitely in time, without real evidence, you might as well just say there's a God.  Occam's Razor favors it.

Quote
Skepticism can only work on claims. You can't advocate an idea by being skeptical. A weak atheist is also skeptical of strong atheists' claims.

And yet time and again I see people describing themselves as weak atheists advocating the non-existence of God rather than the existence of God.  All atheists lean more towards God's not existing than his existing.  I am arguing that that's illogical.

Quote
Like I mentioned above, if I had any self standing evidence of god, I would gladly accept it. I simply have not come across such evidence. I don't see where you got the idea that we're close-minded unless you have a specific member in mind that I'm not aware of.
Quote
First, what rational reasons are there to believe in god? I'm genuinely curious.

The existence of the universe itself, as outlined above.  Also our ability to observe the universe, and the amazing complexity of our consciousness.  In my opinion just the fact that the overall evolution of the universe, from the beginning until the recent present, has led to beings capable of observing it, speculating about it, and learning its secrets is evidence of an overall purpose to our existence; and a purpose to our existence ultimately leads to the notion of an intelligent designer.

You don't consider these rational because they're not scientific.  It's simply my opinion that not being scientific doesn't lead to not being rational.  I don't know; it's just a matter of logic to me.  Science looks for "how".  When you start throwing "why" in there it opens up a whole new window of possible overall understanding.  Assuming that science is the only possible source of real (or standing, I guess, if that's what you mean) evidence is short-sighted.

Notice I'm not calling it proof.  Neither side will ever have proof.  But I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider it evidence supporting a theory.

There is a lot of speculation here on this forum about how things would be if there was a God, and sometimes these discussions get very interesting, and they often have a lot of participants who are atheists.  But I think these are merely intellectual exercises and it's understood the participants don't even entertain what they're saying as serious.  And it further seems there's always the odd atheists who chime in about how meaningless the debate is because there's no evidence supporting the subject's existence.

Quote
Second, where has an atheist claimed god violates laws of physics? I thought it was a consensus among atheists and theists/deists here that god is outside of reality and physics.

See Robosteve.  There is this odd notion that something creating itself violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  This got entertaining when he offered up as a possibility for the ultimate origin of the universe a black hole creating itself.

But I guess the favorite argument among atheists is that God is statistically unlikely (as brought up by Robosteve).  If you look at it purely scientifically, well, this is still a fairly ridiculous argument to make.  We only have one example of the ultimate origin of the universe to work from.  Statistics simply don't apply, on either side (note that this also means that I don't see "irreducible complexity" as a valid argument for the existence of intelligent design).

Quote
Third, how does the universe violate the laws of physics? There's a lot we don't know about

Every action is a reaction of a previous action.  There is a moment in the past when an action occurred without a previous action triggering it.  Until that even makes sense scientifically, it remains outside the realm of science.  Physics suggests such an event is impossible.  It is therefore a supernatural event.

Quote
Lastly, this is paragraph a discussion of "the beginning" and not actually god himself. Theists, deists, and atheists can all believe in stuff like the big bang.

Well, of course.  But what triggered the big bang?  At some point in time something happened that wasn't a result of something else happening.  From a scientific standpoint that simply doesn't make sense.  Until it makes sense scientifically it remains a supernatural event.

Quote
The only difference I can see highlighted by your post between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the atheists are skeptical.

Actually pure agnostics are skeptical of any position.  They see the question as unanswerable, period.  If you require proof, like real, tangible proof, then this is the only sensible position to take.

Weak atheists are technically agnostic, but they still allow probabilities to influence their opinion, and in most cases they at least see God as improbable.  Look at Richard Dawkins and his army of Dawkinites for examples.

I see no reason why one can't be a "weak" deist, so to speak, and also agnostic.  That's more or less how I see my position.  I think that just about everybody leans one way or the other, and it's clear to me that the vast majority of "weak" atheists lean toward non-belief.  If you can be agnostic and lean toward non-belief, you can also be agnostic and lean toward belief.

Robosteve and Kasroa, I feel I've already addressed your points responding to Singularity.  If you feel you say something I haven't covered let me know.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #36 on: September 20, 2009, 12:56:59 PM »
Skepticism doesn't make a claim, nor does it need its own evidence.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being skeptical.  Atheism is a bit too radical a form of skepticism to me, though.  It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters and since we don't know for sure that that's the case it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.  While we shouldn't take it for granted that there is a supernatural world walled off from the natural world, to assume that there's not a supernatural world closes ones mind to some possibilities that really should be taken into consideration before a real decision can be made.
I'm not sure how atheism is radical scepticism. What's radical about not accepting a claim because it has no evidence?  Think about all the things you've ever not believed, you use the same method of assessment for all of them. Never is it radical to simply say "I don't believe that because no proof or rational argument has been given". It's almost like you think we should just believe any claim just because it's popular or originated a long time ago.

Okay let me address this problem of supernatural realms and transcendental beings. First of all if something manifests in any way at all in our universe (including creating it) then it is not supernatural and therefore should be detectable by scientific investigation. If it is not detectable by scientific investigation then it is indistinguishable from "nothing" and is not worth discussing because nothing at all can be known about it.

No god claim I have come across involves the god or gods NEVER manifesting in some way or interfering in some way with our universe. Why would anyone bother imagining or promoting such a god. It's like me saying "there's a god who lives in a supernatural realm outside of our space and time and who never manifests or interferes in our universe". Do you not see that the god I have imagined existing is completely indistinguishable from it not existing at all? I have not made any progress of any kind by imagining this god. In fact I have simply raised more questions such as "how do I know or come to believe that this god exists?" and "how can I prove it exists if it never manifests in our universe?" Unless you're a proponent of something else like the ontological argument (and I seriously hope not!) then a dead end has been reached. I cannot expect anyone to discuss this god with me!

You can imagine supernatural worlds all you want but put it to good use and write a novel about it. That's where these kinds of things belong until someone can show there is a supernatural realm. Hopefully you can see now though that nobody could ever show that because if they did then the realm is no longer supernatural, it is natural. It's a common misconception that rejection of these sorts of things is close-minded. Not so at all, and quite the opposite in fact. It is close-minded to accept claims without good reason. I'll say it again: non-acceptance of a claim is not a claim in itself.

Quote
Quote
Quote
There is in fact plenty of evidence for the existence of a supernatural progenitor.  The problem is that it's all circumstantial.
???


Quote
The existence of the universe itself is evidence that something intelligent created it.  For more information see The God Delusion, p 141 ff.  I'm not going to quote it directly but the gist is that there are six fundamental constants that are believed to be present throughout the universe.  If even one of these constants were slightly altered sentient life would not be possible.  The fact that the universe itself is so finely tuned to allow beings capable of observing it is evidence that there was a purpose to such fine tuning, and therefore some kind of intelligent force behind it.

Dawkins goes on to describe the fanciful hypotheses that I spoke of.  I mean, honestly, if the only way such fine tuning makes logical sense is either blind chance (which from a probabilistic standpoint actually makes the existence of God likely) or infinite universes going back infinitely in time, without real evidence, you might as well just say there's a God.  Occam's Razor favors it.

The existence of a universe is proof that a universe exists, nothing more, nothing less.

I have read the God Delusion and I often hear people misunderstanding what Dawkins has said. Dawkins has often said that the only thing that could be taken as an argument in favour of a god is the fine tuning argument. He says could because it could also be taken as nothing. In reality all the fine-tuning argument says is that if things were different then things would be different.

I could be wrong but are you implying that the purpose of the universe is for our existence? How could anyone know this? Our existence proves nothing except that we exist. Our universe appears fine-tuned because if it were different then it would not exist. But so what? I assume you accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact. Creationists use the same argument against that. They say "look how finely tuned animals and plants are, they must have been designed". And we say "look how well adapted animals and plants are, they must have evolved".   Add actual evidence for evolution and creationism becomes vacuous.

You're looking at our universe from the point of view that it had some goal. Like there was some purpose and then our universe magically appeared against all odds and managed to fulfil that purpose. It matters not what the odds of our particular universe appearing were. It did appear and we are in it. Just like humans were not the goal of evolution, we were not the purpose of the big bang and the evolution of the universe. Just like our planet was not the purpose of the sun forming. All these fine-tuning arguments are quite frankly laughable if you take a moment to think about what they're actually saying.

Quote
Quote
Skepticism can only work on claims. You can't advocate an idea by being skeptical. A weak atheist is also skeptical of strong atheists' claims.

And yet time and again I see people describing themselves as weak atheists advocating the non-existence of God rather than the existence of God.  All atheists lean more towards God's not existing than his existing.  I am arguing that that's illogical.
Please see my response in my previous post.

Quote
Quote
Like I mentioned above, if I had any self standing evidence of god, I would gladly accept it. I simply have not come across such evidence. I don't see where you got the idea that we're close-minded unless you have a specific member in mind that I'm not aware of.
Quote
First, what rational reasons are there to believe in god? I'm genuinely curious.

The existence of the universe itself, as outlined above.  Also our ability to observe the universe, and the amazing complexity of our consciousness.  In my opinion just the fact that the overall evolution of the universe, from the beginning until the recent present, has led to beings capable of observing it, speculating about it, and learning its secrets is evidence of an overall purpose to our existence; and a purpose to our existence ultimately leads to the notion of an intelligent designer.

You don't consider these rational because they're not scientific.  It's simply my opinion that not being scientific doesn't lead to not being rational.  I don't know; it's just a matter of logic to me.  Science looks for "how".  When you start throwing "why" in there it opens up a whole new window of possible overall understanding.  Assuming that science is the only possible source of real (or standing, I guess, if that's what you mean) evidence is short-sighted.

Notice I'm not calling it proof.  Neither side will ever have proof.  But I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider it evidence supporting a theory.

There is a lot of speculation here on this forum about how things would be if there was a God, and sometimes these discussions get very interesting, and they often have a lot of participants who are atheists.  But I think these are merely intellectual exercises and it's understood the participants don't even entertain what they're saying as serious.  And it further seems there's always the odd atheists who chime in about how meaningless the debate is because there's no evidence supporting the subject's existence.

Ability to observe and complexity? Really? How about the complexity of the creator who managed to design all of this from nothing? How complex must he be? And he came about by chance? If he does exist and he created our universe then he must have evolved in some other universe and unfortunately we have an infinite regression. The existence of human beings cannot possibly be used as some kind of proof of a god. We know how we evolved, at one point we numbered some 2000 individuals and faced extinction. We could easily not have survived!  If we had become extinct like 99% of all other species ever to exist, then the universe would still be here, going happily along without us.

It's your choice to throw "why" in but that does not mean that it is necessary to answer it. My question is why ask "why" in the first place? We each chose our own meaning to our lives but that does not mean there is an intrinsic meaning. All our meanings are subjective and personal and that's fine but don't get carried away and place a meaning on the existence of the universe. Is it logical to assume it has a meaning? Not in my opinion. Why would it?

Not being scientific certainly does lead to not being rational in my opinion. If you choose to investigate the world around you in a non-scientific way then you will end up simply imagining up rationalisations for observations. What good is that? Science is the single most reliable way to determine facts about our universe. It is not a thing though it is merely an extension of logic, reason and our own natural way of determining what is true and what is false. If you're shopping for fruit and testing for ripeness by squeezing it do you squeeze one and say "that's soft hence all these are soft"? No you squeeze more until you find a nice one. That IS science. You are following the scientific process whether you like it or not. Observation, evidence, logic and reason: They are human traits and even in animals we see it. It is not a magical invention to be wary of, it is how we should investigate the world because it is consistently reliable (when done correctly) and it is self-adjusting.

What other means of investigation is there? And how would we determine if it is a good means without using science to do so?! It's crazy to suggest that there are other ways of investigating our universe. Any new method would just be an extension of science and science would self-adjust to incorporate it. It's very simple actually.

Also science is not a source of evidence; it is a way of investigating evidence.



Quote
Quote
Second, where has an atheist claimed god violates laws of physics? I thought it was a consensus among atheists and theists/deists here that god is outside of reality and physics.

See Robosteve.  There is this odd notion that something creating itself violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  This got entertaining when he offered up as a possibility for the ultimate origin of the universe a black hole creating itself.

But I guess the favorite argument among atheists is that God is statistically unlikely (as brought up by Robosteve).  If you look at it purely scientifically, well, this is still a fairly ridiculous argument to make.  We only have one example of the ultimate origin of the universe to work from.  Statistics simply don't apply, on either side (note that this also means that I don't see "irreducible complexity" as a valid argument for the existence of intelligent design).


A god, perhaps the most complex being we can imagine, springing into existence, from nothing, by chance is probably the most unlikely event I can think of. It would be more likely for a cow to spontaneously transform into a tractor.
A few simple particles coming together in the right way to encourage the emergence of a great chasm dotted with such particles arranged in various ways with no plan, purpose or general aim is, I think, not that unlikely at all! In fact I think if all the ingredients are there then why is it so unlikely that a universe could arise? We live in one don't we? Do we see any gods around? No, which supports how unlikely they are?

And irreducible complexity actually would be a massive blow to evolution and in fact is one of the only things I can think of that would call evolution into question. Just as well nothing has ever been discovered that shows this mysterious property; just what you would expect if evolution were the case.





Quote
Quote
Third, how does the universe violate the laws of physics? There's a lot we don't know about

Every action is a reaction of a previous action.  There is a moment in the past when an action occurred without a previous action triggering it.  Until that even makes sense scientifically, it remains outside the realm of science.  Physics suggests such an event is impossible.  It is therefore a supernatural event.

Out of two possible occurrences happening without previous action you say the one that made the complex being is more likely than the one that made the random arrangement of matter?

Quote
Quote
Lastly, this is paragraph a discussion of "the beginning" and not actually god himself. Theists, deists, and atheists can all believe in stuff like the big bang.

Well, of course.  But what triggered the big bang?  At some point in time something happened that wasn't a result of something else happening.  From a scientific standpoint that simply doesn't make sense.  Until it makes sense scientifically it remains a supernatural event.

What created the big bang? Nobody knows for sure. Why, in the name of Zeus' beard, would one ever assume that it was "supernatural"? It created the universe, hence it is natural.

Quote
Quote
The only difference I can see highlighted by your post between agnosticism and agnostic atheism is that the atheists are skeptical.

Actually pure agnostics are skeptical of any position.  They see the question as unanswerable, period.  If you require proof, like real, tangible proof, then this is the only sensible position to take.

Weak atheists are technically agnostic, but they still allow probabilities to influence their opinion, and in most cases they at least see God as improbable.  Look at Richard Dawkins and his army of Dawkinites for examples.

I see no reason why one can't be a "weak" deist, so to speak, and also agnostic.  That's more or less how I see my position.  I think that just about everybody leans one way or the other, and it's clear to me that the vast majority of "weak" atheists lean toward non-belief.  If you can be agnostic and lean toward non-belief, you can also be agnostic and lean toward belief.

Robosteve and Kasroa, I feel I've already addressed your points responding to Singularity.  If you feel you say something I haven't covered let me know.

Pure agnostics simply say they do not know. Not knowing and not believing are different. See my previous response.
All atheists are well and truly in the "none-belief" camp they don't just lean towards it. None-belief says nothing about what you do believe and nothing about what you claim to know.

You're right it is possible to be an agnostic theist as I said in my other post. I'd like to meet one though and I'd like them to tell if they really understand what the label means. I'm sure I could convince them that they were really agnostic atheists.

 I would like it if you could address all the problems I pointed out in my other post post because there are many that you never addressed here. I know it was a massive post but on some of these things I think you're way off and I think I have successfully countered or corrected everything I responded to.


« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 01:07:54 PM by Kasroa Is Gone »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #37 on: September 20, 2009, 04:05:55 PM »
The existence of the universe itself is evidence that something intelligent created it.  For more information see The God Delusion, p 141 ff.  I'm not going to quote it directly but the gist is that there are six fundamental constants that are believed to be present throughout the universe.  If even one of these constants were slightly altered sentient life would not be possible.  The fact that the universe itself is so finely tuned to allow beings capable of observing it is evidence that there was a purpose to such fine tuning, and therefore some kind of intelligent force behind it.

Dawkins goes on to describe the fanciful hypotheses that I spoke of.  I mean, honestly, if the only way such fine tuning makes logical sense is either blind chance (which from a probabilistic standpoint actually makes the existence of God likely) or infinite universes going back infinitely in time, without real evidence, you might as well just say there's a God.  Occam's Razor favors it.

How does Occam's Razor favour the existence of a being with sufficient complexity to determine the optimal conditions for a life-supporting universe, let alone actually create one, over a collection of universes with essentially random starting conditions?

See Robosteve.  There is this odd notion that something creating itself violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  This got entertaining when he offered up as a possibility for the ultimate origin of the universe a black hole creating itself.

No, I said that a being creating itself violates information theory, because the information as to the structure of God (and yes, he must have a structure, because all his wisdom has to be stored somehow), and therefore the structure of the universe he's supposed to have created, doesn't come from anywhere. To be honest, I don't actually consider it particularly likely that the universe created itself either; I suggested it more as a hypothetical curiosity than anything else. My argument based on thermodynamics is essentially a rewording of Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument.

But I guess the favorite argument among atheists is that God is statistically unlikely (as brought up by Robosteve).  If you look at it purely scientifically, well, this is still a fairly ridiculous argument to make.  We only have one example of the ultimate origin of the universe to work from.  Statistics simply don't apply, on either side (note that this also means that I don't see "irreducible complexity" as a valid argument for the existence of intelligent design).

Quite simply, any supernatural being would need to contain at least all the information we see in the Universe, because it would have needed to create it. Put differently, you are proposing that not only does the Universe exist (which you have admitted yourself is very unlikely to come out of nowhere), but also that an entirely separate copy of all the information stored within the Universe also exists, along with the ability and resources to actually create the Universe itself! That is to say, you are proposing not a source of information, but a great deal more of it. That is what I mean when I say that it is statistically improbable that there is a god.

There is a moment in the past when an action occurred without a previous action triggering it.

Please justify this statement.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2009, 03:31:13 AM »
I see the 'finely tuned universe' argument has reared it's ugly head again. If the universe was specifically dsigned to support life then I would send it back saying it isn't fit for purpose. Life, as far as we know exists on one plantet but let's assume that every star system houses one 'Earth' like planet that raises the number of habitable planets into the trillions but even if that was the case then it's still poorly designed to support life.

It would be like a farmer having a thousand acres of land and the only thing growing in it is one runt of a pea pod struggling in the middle of the field.

If I were God and I wanted a universe capable of supporting abundant life I'd build a fluidic dimension with weak to the point of nonexistance gravity filled with electromagnetic bodies designed to churn the fluid and encourage biological reactions. Floating in the fluid would be great chunks of inert nonbiological matter which can be mined and turned into homes.

In essence I'd turn the whole universe into a giant Great Barrier Reef.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2009, 03:35:22 AM by Chris Spaghetti »

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2009, 08:13:47 PM »
I'm not sure how atheism is radical scepticism. What's radical about not accepting a claim because it has no evidence?  Think about all the things you've ever not believed, you use the same method of assessment for all of them. Never is it radical to simply say "I don't believe that because no proof or rational argument has been given". It's almost like you think we should just believe any claim just because it's popular or originated a long time ago.

Not at all.  In fact I went through a long period in my life when I was happy to just assume God doesn't exist and be done with it.  If I was arguing that we should just believe any claim just because "it's popular or originated a long time ago" I'd surely be advocating a specific religion, which I most assuredly am not.  I'm not advocating religion at all and personally have no use for it.  We simply differ in opinion; you think there's no rational argument in favor of the existence of God, and I strongly disagree.  Rational arguments are given; it's just that, being atheists, you don't see them as rational arguments.  I'm not claiming that anything I've observed proves the existence of God; I only claim that they offer enough evidence to leave a substantial amount of doubt.  Enough doubt in my opinion that I'd be committing intellectual dishonesty if I were to say "I don't believe there's a God."

Quote
Okay let me address this problem of supernatural realms and transcendental beings. First of all if something manifests in any way at all in our universe (including creating it) then it is not supernatural and therefore should be detectable by scientific investigation. If it is not detectable by scientific investigation then it is indistinguishable from "nothing" and is not worth discussing because nothing at all can be known about it.


I think we have detected it by scientific investigation.  We just maybe don't recognize it for what it is.  Of course he manifests himself in this universe.  At least part of him is built into this universe.  But I believe there's reason to think that he also exists outside of this universe, in a realm we don't currently have access to, at least by modern scientific means.  When we're able to access that realm it will be part of natural world, but as things stand we can't seem to access it, which makes it, for all inten

No god claim I have come across involves the god or gods NEVER manifesting in some way or interfering in some way with our universe. Why would anyone bother imagining or promoting such a god. It's like me saying "there's a god who lives in a supernatural realm outside of our space and time and who never manifests or interferes in our universe". Do you not see that the god I have imagined existing is completely indistinguishable from it not existing at all? I have not made any progress of any kind by imagining this god. In fact I have simply raised more questions such as "how do I know or come to believe that this god exists?" and "how can I prove it exists if it never manifests in our universe?" Unless you're a proponent of something else like the ontological argument (and I seriously hope not!) then a dead end has been reached. I cannot expect anyone to discuss this god with me!

You can imagine supernatural worlds all you want but put it to good use and write a novel about it. That's where these kinds of things belong until someone can show there is a supernatural realm. Hopefully you can see now though that nobody could ever show that because if they did then the realm is no longer supernatural, it is natural. It's a common misconception that rejection of these sorts of things is close-minded. Not so at all, and quite the opposite in fact.

I think we have detected it by scientific investigation.  We just maybe don't recognize it for what it is.  Of course he manifests himself in this universe.  At least part of him is built into this universe.  But I believe there's reason to think that he also exists outside of this universe, in a realm we don't currently have access to, at least by modern scientific means.  When we're able to access that realm it will be part of natural world, but as things stand we can't seem to access it, which makes it, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.  And since God is currently beyond our scientific reach he is also supernatural.  He can really only be discussed within a philosophical framework.

Perhaps I should have said metaphysical rather than supernatural.  I don't think we really disagree on most of what you bring up here.  

I do fully intend to write a novel about it once I have all the kinks of my personal philosophy worked out.

Quote
It is close-minded to accept claims without good reason.

Then it's all a matter of what you consider "good reason" then.  Seems rather subjective by nature to me.

Quote
I'll say it again: non-acceptance of a claim is not a claim in itself.

No, it's not; but you're trying very hard to demonstrate here that there's no good reason to believe in God.  That is a claim, and as long as you keep arguing, you keep making it.

Quote
I have read the God Delusion and I often hear people misunderstanding what Dawkins has said. Dawkins has often said that the only thing that could be taken as an argument in favour of a god is the fine tuning argument. He says could because it could also be taken as nothing. In reality all the fine-tuning argument says is that if things were different then things would be different.

I'm not misinterpreting what he says at all.  I fully understand what his intent in the passage is.  I only used his stating of the argument as a reference because it was the easiest thing I had on hand.  He goes on to attempt to dispute it.  His conclusion is incomplete, though.  The reason it's such a compelling argument in the first place is that if things were different, conscious life wouldn't exist at all.

Quote
I could be wrong but are you implying that the purpose of the universe is for our existence? How could anyone know this? Our existence proves nothing except that we exist. Our universe appears fine-tuned because if it were different then it would not exist. But so what? I assume you accept the theory of evolution as scientific fact. Creationists use the same argument against that. They say "look how finely tuned animals and plants are, they must have been designed". And we say "look how well adapted animals and plants are, they must have evolved".   Add actual evidence for evolution and creationism becomes vacuous.

The existence of conscious life, yes.  Not necessarily our existence.  No one could ever know this, hence the room for doubt and my status as an agnostic.  Our existence proves nothing except that we exist, but the nature of our existence gives compelling evidence that an intelligent creator is responsible for it.  Let's remember, proof and evidence are not the same thing.

Quote
You're looking at our universe from the point of view that it had some goal. Like there was some purpose and then our universe magically appeared against all odds and managed to fulfil that purpose. It matters not what the odds of our particular universe appearing were. It did appear and we are in it. Just like humans were not the goal of evolution, we were not the purpose of the big bang and the evolution of the universe. Just like our planet was not the purpose of the sun forming. All these fine-tuning arguments are quite frankly laughable if you take a moment to think about what they're actually saying.

Again, I'm not arguing that humans were God's intentional goal, but conscious life.  Beings capable of observing and appreciating his creation.  I'm not sure if you misunderstand me, but I'm not arguing that God is constantly putting his hands in our affairs or even in the universe at large, fine-tuning this or that to make sure things come out right.  I believe that he just set the controls in the very beginning, knowing what he wanted to accomplish and how to accomplish it, and has existed as part of the universe ever since.

Quote
Please see my response in my previous post.

Well, I obviously disagree with your previous post.  You say you believe God not existing is more logical than God existing.  I don't agree with that at all and feel I have articulated my reasoning well enough.  Got a real rebuttal?

Quote
Ability to observe and complexity? Really? How about the complexity of the creator who managed to design all of this from nothing? How complex must he be? And he came about by chance? If he does exist and he created our universe then he must have evolved in some other universe and unfortunately we have an infinite regression.

Well, I disagree about this as well.  God created himself, just as he created everything else.  It's the only logical conclusion one can draw, if there is a God.  And it was more an act of will than an act of chance.  The whole thrust of my opinion is that consciousness as we know it is just the most advanced yet expression of the tendency of the universe's components to react to each other.  I'm sure we're both agreed that consciousness isn't something that just happened; it's the result of a long process of evolution that started, really, with the birth of the universe.  So those earliest interactions of matter and energy can be regarded as a very primitive form of consciousness.  That primitive consciousness is the earliest manifestation in the universe of the mind of God.

Quote
The existence of human beings cannot possibly be used as some kind of proof of a god.

No, it can't.  I wonder if you're paying attention.

Quote
We know how we evolved, at one point we numbered some 2000 individuals and faced extinction. We could easily not have survived!  If we had become extinct like 99% of all other species ever to exist, then the universe would still be here, going happily along without us.

And another species, sooner or later, would almost certainly have taken our place.  If you believe conscious life is possible elsewhere in the universe you can't possibly argue with that.

Quote
It's your choice to throw "why" in but that does not mean that it is necessary to answer it. My question is why ask "why" in the first place? We each chose our own meaning to our lives but that does not mean there is an intrinsic meaning. All our meanings are subjective and personal and that's fine but don't get carried away and place a meaning on the existence of the universe. Is it logical to assume it has a meaning? Not in my opinion. Why would it?

As I've stated, it's not logical to assume anything without proof.

Quote
Not being scientific certainly does lead to not being rational in my opinion. If you choose to investigate the world around you in a non-scientific way then you will end up simply imagining up rationalisations for observations. What good is that? Science is the single most reliable way to determine facts about our universe. It is not a thing though it is merely an extension of logic, reason and our own natural way of determining what is true and what is false. If you're shopping for fruit and testing for ripeness by squeezing it do you squeeze one and say "that's soft hence all these are soft"? No you squeeze more until you find a nice one. That IS science. You are following the scientific process whether you like it or not. Observation, evidence, logic and reason: They are human traits and even in animals we see it. It is not a magical invention to be wary of, it is how we should investigate the world because it is consistently reliable (when done correctly) and it is self-adjusting.

Indeed, I've never argued that science isn't an extremely useful tool for understanding the universe.  But in the end it's nothing more than a product of the human mind.  I'm simply arguing that there are other things worth considering that just that which we can observe scientifically.  To suggest that science is the only path to understanding is narrow-minded.

Quote
What other means of investigation is there? And how would we determine if it is a good means without using science to do so?! It's crazy to suggest that there are other ways of investigating our universe. Any new method would just be an extension of science and science would self-adjust to incorporate it. It's very simple actually.

It is possible to make use of our faculties of reason and logic without invoking science.  Philosophers have been proving that for thousands of years.

Quote
Also science is not a source of evidence; it is a way of investigating evidence.

Right and the evidence I'm speaking of can't be investigated by science, at least as it exists now, hence my defining it as supernatural.

Quote
A god, perhaps the most complex being we can imagine, springing into existence, from nothing, by chance is probably the most unlikely event I can think of. It would be more likely for a cow to spontaneously transform into a tractor.

We don't know how complex he is, and we have no way of knowing if his existence is a matter of chance.

Quote
A few simple particles coming together in the right way to encourage the emergence of a great chasm dotted with such particles arranged in various ways with no plan, purpose or general aim is, I think, not that unlikely at all! In fact I think if all the ingredients are there then why is it so unlikely that a universe could arise? We live in one don't we? Do we see any gods around? No, which supports how unlikely they are?

The problem is that something had to start those particles moving to come together in the right way to... etc.  Sooner or later, moving backwards in time, you have something that happened completely on its own, with no event preceding it to cause it.  That seems unlikely to me.  In fact, it doesn't make sense.  That's why invoking the supernatural seems like the best explanation to me.

Quote
And irreducible complexity actually would be a massive blow to evolution and in fact is one of the only things I can think of that would call evolution into question. Just as well nothing has ever been discovered that shows this mysterious property; just what you would expect if evolution were the case.

Again, I fear you may have snoozed a bit while reading my post.  I state quite directly that I consider the irreducible complexity argument to be bunk.

Quote
Out of two possible occurrences happening without previous action you say the one that made the complex being is more likely than the one that made the random arrangement of matter?

Yes.

Quote
What created the big bang? Nobody knows for sure. Why, in the name of Zeus' beard, would one ever assume that it was "supernatural"? It created the universe, hence it is natural.

Well, because within the very framework on which science is based, it is impossible.  We would have to radically redefine "science" for it to even possibly make sense.

Quote
Pure agnostics simply say they do not know. Not knowing and not believing are different. See my previous response.
All atheists are well and truly in the "none-belief" camp they don't just lean towards it. None-belief says nothing about what you do believe and nothing about what you claim to know.

Quote
I would like it if you could address all the problems I pointed out in my other post post because there are many that you never addressed here. I know it was a massive post but on some of these things I think you're way off and I think I have successfully countered or corrected everything I responded to.

Well, I feel I have.  You main argument seems to be that you don't believe in God simply because you don't see any valid evidence for the existence of God.  I disagree.  I hope that covers it.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2009, 08:14:09 PM »

How does Occam's Razor favour the existence of a being with sufficient complexity to determine the optimal conditions for a life-supporting universe, let alone actually create one, over a collection of universes with essentially random starting conditions?

It makes the least assumptions.

Quote
No, I said that a being creating itself violates information theory, because the information as to the structure of God (and yes, he must have a structure, because all his wisdom has to be stored somehow), and therefore the structure of the universe he's supposed to have created, doesn't come from anywhere. To be honest, I don't actually consider it particularly likely that the universe created itself either; I suggested it more as a hypothetical curiosity than anything else. My argument based on thermodynamics is essentially a rewording of Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument.

Okay, fair enough.  It's that very violation of information theory and thermodynamics that makes God's existence supernatural from our perspective.

Quote
Quite simply, any supernatural being would need to contain at least all the information we see in the Universe, because it would have needed to create it. Put differently, you are proposing that not only does the Universe exist (which you have admitted yourself is very unlikely to come out of nowhere), but also that an entirely separate copy of all the information stored within the Universe also exists, along with the ability and resources to actually create the Universe itself! That is to say, you are proposing not a source of information, but a great deal more of it. That is what I mean when I say that it is statistically improbable that there is a god.

This sounds more like an argument that God is impossible, altogether.  His genesis can still be something perfectly natural that we simply don't understand.

Again, these are the reasons why it's necessary to set science aside and consider the question from other points of view if we are to gain any understanding of it.

Quote
There is a moment in the past when an action occurred without a previous action triggering it.

Please justify this statement.

Well, it's either that or turtles all the way down... I'm sorry, universes all the way back.  Again, if you need to invoke infinity you might as well invoke God.  Each makes about as much sense, each is understood about as well, and neither can be observed or proven.

I see the 'finely tuned universe' argument has reared it's ugly head again. If the universe was specifically dsigned to support life then I would send it back saying it isn't fit for purpose. Life, as far as we know exists on one plantet but let's assume that every star system houses one 'Earth' like planet that raises the number of habitable planets into the trillions but even if that was the case then it's still poorly designed to support life.

It would be like a farmer having a thousand acres of land and the only thing growing in it is one runt of a pea pod struggling in the middle of the field.

If I were God and I wanted a universe capable of supporting abundant life I'd build a fluidic dimension with weak to the point of nonexistance gravity filled with electromagnetic bodies designed to churn the fluid and encourage biological reactions. Floating in the fluid would be great chunks of inert nonbiological matter which can be mined and turned into homes.

In essence I'd turn the whole universe into a giant Great Barrier Reef.

Well, if I were God I wouldn't have bothered with life at all.  But what goes through my mind has nothing to do with what went through his mind.  One thing I think is fairly obvious based on the philosophy I've laid out is that I don't believe God is omnipotent; in fact our imperfections are an echo of his own.  This was probably the best he could do given the materials at hand.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2009, 09:01:32 PM »
I do fully intend to write a novel about it once I have all the kinks of my personal philosophy worked out.


Go for it and leave the kinks intact. 

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2009, 09:39:32 AM »
Okay I give up, it's not my responsibility to get people's understanding up from that far down and I don't have the endurance to do so.

Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2009, 09:41:57 AM »
Also I call into question the honesty of the arguments being made. Evasive and rhetorical responses I have no time for. If someone cannot even explain clearly, exactly what it is they believe why they believe it in simple language then that's where I exit the conversation.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2009, 02:42:05 PM »
Also I call into question the honesty of the arguments being made. Evasive and rhetorical responses I have no time for. If someone cannot even explain clearly, exactly what it is they believe why they believe it in simple language then that's where I exit the conversation.

What have I been unclear about?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2009, 09:39:14 AM »
Skepticism doesn't make a claim, nor does it need its own evidence.

Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being skeptical.  Atheism is a bit too radical a form of skepticism to me, though.  It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters and since we don't know for sure that that's the case it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.  While we shouldn't take it for granted that there is a supernatural world walled off from the natural world, to assume that there's not a supernatural world closes ones mind to some possibilities that really should be taken into consideration before a real decision can be made.
I bolded the parts that give me the impression you have the wrong idea about atheism. Assuming there is a realm beyond reality it most definitely matters to me. As for an assumption of no other

Quote
The existence of the universe itself is evidence that something intelligent created it.  For more information see The God Delusion, p 141 ff.  I'm not going to quote it directly but the gist is that there are six fundamental constants that are believed to be present throughout the universe.  If even one of these constants were slightly altered sentient life would not be possible.  The fact that the universe itself is so finely tuned to allow beings capable of observing it is evidence that there was a purpose to such fine tuning, and therefore some kind of intelligent force behind it.
This statement makes some assumptions and fallacies:
  • Life and comprehension is special/important, to be a goal of a creator and not an artifact of existence since some patterns are bound to emerge in even chaos. Assigning what we see to be important as a goal all along is just artificially inseminating the need for design.
  • Consciousness can't exist in any other form in a universe with different rules. As a spectator to reality, with no knowledge of the future of the universe, I could not have imagined consciousness would have emerged with those rules.
  • Ability to reflect on outcomes isn't self sustaining since it has to be satisfied as a prerequisite to being asked.  A world without people to ask the questions, would not see god as disproved.
  • Fine tuning or intricate design implies a designer.

Some of these are linked.

Quote
Dawkins goes on to describe the fanciful hypotheses that I spoke of.  I mean, honestly, if the only way such fine tuning makes logical sense is either blind chance (which from a probabilistic standpoint actually makes the existence of God likely) or infinite universes going back infinitely in time, without real evidence, you might as well just say there's a God.  Occam's Razor favors it.
I do not know what Dawkins believes, but atheists do not need an explanation of the beginning. The universe is complex, and using the notion of an all powerful all knowing invisible entity that zapped it into existence makes more assumptions and creates more questions than leaving the universe without a designer. It provides no explanation as to how god did anything, only that it was his will. Furthermore, god is equally complex if not more complex than the universe. Assuming god is the largest Occam's razor violation I can imagine as it more than doubles the complexity of the equation.

Quote
Quote
Skepticism can only work on claims. You can't advocate an idea by being skeptical. A weak atheist is also skeptical of strong atheists' claims.

And yet time and again I see people describing themselves as weak atheists advocating the non-existence of God rather than the existence of God.  All atheists lean more towards God's not existing than his existing.
That's because God is a positive claim. There is infinite amount of infinite things that do not exist. Being skeptical of nonexistence (without any reason to suspect existence), is impractical and lacks any contribution to knowledge.

Quote
The existence of the universe itself, as outlined above.  Also our ability to observe the universe, and the amazing complexity of our consciousness.
Neither the ability to observe nor complexity of a human, logically implies a designer. That is only intuitive.

Quote
learning its [The universe's] secrets is evidence of an overall purpose to our existence
Wtf? How so?

Quote
You don't consider these rational because they're not scientific.  It's simply my opinion that not being scientific doesn't lead to not being rational.  I don't know; it's just a matter of logic to me.  Science looks for "how".  When you start throwing "why" in there it opens up a whole new window of possible overall understanding.
Science investigates "why". Causality is actually one of my favorite scientific topics.

Quote
Assuming that science is the only possible source of real (or standing, I guess, if that's what you mean) evidence is short-sighted.
It is the only method that has demonstratively improved our knowledge and understanding of the everything to date. The word evidence has scientific meaning. If any other approach emerges that can be shown to actually contribute, I will gladly investigate.


Quote
But I guess the favorite argument among atheists is that God is statistically unlikely (as brought up by Robosteve).  If you look at it purely scientifically, well, this is still a fairly ridiculous argument to make.  We only have one example of the ultimate origin of the universe to work from.  Statistics simply don't apply, on either side (note that this also means that I don't see "irreducible complexity" as a valid argument for the existence of intelligent design).
What happened to Occam's Razor?

Quote
Third, how does the universe violate the laws of physics? There's a lot we don't know about

Every action is a reaction of a previous action.  There is a moment in the past when an action occurred without a previous action triggering it.  Until that even makes sense scientifically, it remains outside the realm of science.  Physics suggests such an event is impossible.  It is therefore a supernatural event.[/quote][/quote]
That is unknown. Our universe may just be an expanding pocket of spacetime in a larger fabric. I do not necessarily believe this but to say there was a beginning is another assumption.

Quote
Quote
Lastly, this is paragraph a discussion of "the beginning" and not actually god himself. Theists, deists, and atheists can all believe in stuff like the big bang.

Well, of course.  But what triggered the big bang?  At some point in time something happened that wasn't a result of something else happening.  From a scientific standpoint that simply doesn't make sense.  Until it makes sense scientifically it remains a supernatural event.
So a lack of understanding makes it supernatural?

That same logic made cavemen who didn't understand fire, invent fire gods who "willed" the fire into form. "Teh fire god's done it."
It's still not an explanation, just a cover to make it easier to ignore.

Quote
Actually pure agnostics are skeptical of any position. They see the question as unanswerable, period.  If you require proof, like real, tangible proof, then this is the only sensible position to take.
Proof will never exist for anything. Evidence is all we can ever have.
When you consider everything to be unknown, you can't function. It is practical to live under the understanding of certain likelihoods, even if you know that technically those things are not perfectly certain. All of human knowledge is probabilistic. If you require absolute proof, you discard that knowledge.

Quote
Weak atheists are technically agnostic, but they still allow probabilities to influence their opinion, and in most cases they at least see God as improbable.  
Atheist beliefs are personal probabilities. The agnostic atheist distinguishes fact as heavily evidenced, and belief as probables that are uncertain.
I operate under the belief that god does not exist even though I know he might, because I find it improbable.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 09:40:47 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #46 on: September 27, 2009, 12:19:20 PM »
It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters... it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.
I bolded the parts that give me the impression you have the wrong idea about atheism. Assuming there is a realm beyond reality it most definitely matters to me.

Okay, you tell me.  How does my impression of atheism, as expressed here, differ from actual atheism?

Quote
As for an assumption of no other

Quote
The existence of the universe itself is evidence that something intelligent created it.  For more information see The God Delusion, p 141 ff.  I'm not going to quote it directly but the gist is that there are six fundamental constants that are believed to be present throughout the universe.  If even one of these constants were slightly altered sentient life would not be possible.  The fact that the universe itself is so finely tuned to allow beings capable of observing it is evidence that there was a purpose to such fine tuning, and therefore some kind of intelligent force behind it.
This statement makes some assumptions and fallacies:
  • Life and comprehension is special/important, to be a goal of a creator and not an artifact of existence since some patterns are bound to emerge in even chaos. Assigning what we see to be important as a goal all along is just artificially inseminating the need for design.
  • Consciousness can't exist in any other form in a universe with different rules. As a spectator to reality, with no knowledge of the future of the universe, I could not have imagined consciousness would have emerged with those rules.
  • Ability to reflect on outcomes isn't self sustaining since it has to be satisfied as a prerequisite to being asked.  A world without people to ask the questions, would not see god as disproved.
  • Fine tuning or intricate design implies a designer.

Some of these are linked.

I think you read this wrong.  I don't make any assumptions here.

Quote
I do not know what Dawkins believes, but atheists do not need an explanation of the beginning.

Then I guess since deism does, by nature, concern itself with the beginning of the universe, atheists have no place commenting on it.

Quote
That's because God is a positive claim. There is infinite amount of infinite things that do not exist. Being skeptical of nonexistence (without any reason to suspect existence), is impractical and lacks any contribution to knowledge.

Sure, and as I pointed out, I feel there is reason to suspect God's existence.  Atheists don't feel there is any reason to suspect God's existence.  As I've already expressed in this thread, what one considers to be evidence is extremely subjective.  Atheists simply don't consider what I consider evidence to be evidence, because by and large they feel that scientific evidence is all that matters.  I disagree.

Quote
Quote
The existence of the universe itself, as outlined above.  Also our ability to observe the universe, and the amazing complexity of our consciousness.
Neither the ability to observe nor complexity of a human, logically implies a designer. That is only intuitive.

Let's keep in mind that I never claim that the complexity of our consciousness implies a designer.  My claim is that it is evidence of a designer, and a higher purpose to our existence.

Quote
Quote
learning its [The universe's] secrets is evidence of an overall purpose to our existence
Wtf? How so?

I can't remember the full quote here and would like to see the statement in its proper context before I comment on my reasoning behind making it.

Quote
Quote
Assuming that science is the only possible source of real (or standing, I guess, if that's what you mean) evidence is short-sighted.
It is the only method that has demonstratively improved our knowledge and understanding of the everything to date. The word evidence has scientific meaning. If any other approach emerges that can be shown to actually contribute, I will gladly investigate.

Quote
ev?i?dence  (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

This definition, from thefreedictionary.com, is the definition of "evidence" I am using in my argument.  I am guessing based on the first sentence of the quoted passage that you don't consider the work of the great philosophers, such as Kant or Descartes, to have improved our knowledge and understanding of the world.  I have to respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Quote
What happened to Occam's Razor?

I don't see how Occam's Razor applies here.

Quote
That is unknown. Our universe may just be an expanding pocket of spacetime in a larger fabric. I do not necessarily believe this but to say there was a beginning is another assumption.

As I articulated above, if you're going to invoke infinity, you might as well invoke God.

Quote
So a lack of understanding makes it supernatural?

That same logic made cavemen who didn't understand fire, invent fire gods who "willed" the fire into form. "Teh fire god's done it."
It's still not an explanation, just a cover to make it easier to ignore.

Are you arguing that the cavemen didn't view the existence of fire as something supernatural?  Do you have anything to back that claim up?  How can one make any claims on such a subject anyway, given that we weren't there to observe it?

Quote
Proof will never exist for anything. Evidence is all we can ever have.

Yes, and as an atheist, you are selective in what you consider evidence.

Quote
Atheist beliefs are personal probabilities. The agnostic atheist distinguishes fact as heavily evidenced, and belief as probables that are uncertain.
I operate under the belief that god does not exist even though I know he might, because I find it improbable.

Hey, as long as we agree that the question is a subjective one that can therefore not be answered by the scientific method I think we're square.
I operate under the belief that God does exist because even though I know he might not, I find it improbable.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #47 on: September 27, 2009, 03:54:23 PM »
It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters... it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.
I bolded the parts that give me the impression you have the wrong idea about atheism. Assuming there is a realm beyond reality it most definitely matters to me.

Okay, you tell me.  How does my impression of atheism, as expressed here, differ from actual atheism?

The natural world is all that can be proven to exist.  If something is outside of this realm, or 'supernatural', then by definition it cannot be proven, disproven, or otherwise demonstrated.  As such, supernatural things such as God cannot be said to exist or not exist, ever.  That is what I believe most atheists would say.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #48 on: September 27, 2009, 04:39:26 PM »
It bases itself on the assumption that the natural world is all that matters... it leads people to close themselves off to some perfectly logical conclusions that actually point more towards the existence of God than away from it.
I bolded the parts that give me the impression you have the wrong idea about atheism. Assuming there is a realm beyond reality it most definitely matters to me.

Okay, you tell me.  How does my impression of atheism, as expressed here, differ from actual atheism?

The natural world is all that can be proven to exist.  If something is outside of this realm, or 'supernatural', then by definition it cannot be proven, disproven, or otherwise demonstrated. 

Yeah, that was badly worded.  What I meant by "the natural world" was that part of reality that can be readily observed and whose attributes can be readily measured.  In other words, the part that can with our current capabilities be analyzed scientifically.  When I use the word "supernatural" in the context of this argument I don't mean "outside of the natural world", I mean "beyond our current capabilities to analyze scientifically".  I've already made that distinction in this thread (though perhaps not so succinctly).  Thus when I say that the creation of the universe was a supernatural event I'm referring to the fact that if you examine it scientifically it doesn't make a lick of sense that such a thing could be possible.  Thus, considering the question of the creation of the universe scientifically is useless.

As I've already pointed out, I believe God exists in the natural world.  In a nutshell I believe that consciousness is for all intents and purposes synonymous with God and that therefore the only way to analyze his existence is through our faculty of reason.  It's not a stretch to suggest from there that consciousness itself is a level of existence beyond what we observe in what we consider to be the natural world, still a part of the natural world, obviously, but not within our abilities to analyze scientifically.

Quote
As such, supernatural things such as God cannot be said to exist or not exist, ever.  That is what I believe most atheists would say.

So if God is technically a part of the natural world he can be said to exist or not exist, right?  It becomes appropriate to examine and analyze all the evidence available before reaching a conclusion.  It is thus irrational to claim that there's no reason to believe in God, so long as contrary evidence can be supplied, which is precisely what many atheists do.  That is what I mean when I say that atheists tend to be closed-minded.  All through this thread I've simply been making the statement that there is reason to believe in God, and that's what the atheists who have responded have tried to counter. 

So long as judgment of what constitutes valid evidence remains subjective the opinion that there's no reason to believe in God is impossible to objectively uphold.  So long as there is no objectively right or wrong answer, belief in God is equally as rational as non-belief in God.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Crudblud

  • 2427
  • Scone Advocate
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2009, 07:30:12 AM »
The gods talked about in major monotheistic religions don't make much sense to me. It is incredibly arrogant to believe that an all powerful, all knowing being has nothing better to do than to concern itself with one relatively insignificant race on one relatively insignificant planet.

Recently, I met up with an old Christian friend whom I have not seen in years, towards the end of our time together he asked me if I would pray to God and ask him to reveal himself to me. I told him that I would. So, later on, just before I sat down for my tea (as in; evening meal, in this case it was takeaway Chinese food) I made a genuine effort to speak with the Christian God, even going so far as to get my great great grandmother's Holy Bible from the shelf so that God, if he was there, would have no doubt as to who I was trying to talk to. It didn't work, even though my friend had told me that God loves me and would take any opportunity that he could get to communicate with me. So what gives? My friend told me that I probably did it incorrectly, at which point I told him that "if God refuses to communicate with me on my own terms, he isn't worth my time." I believe that, and I also believe that if there is a God, he does not believe that humans are worth his time.

After so many years of learning through what I have experienced and observed, I have concluded that God is merely a testament to the strength of the human spirit; if people really, desperately want to believe in him, then he will appear to them, it is no different from the way people stranded in the desert can make themselves see oases ahead of them. Some people need things like that to get them through the day, whether they are real or not.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Atheism vs Theism
« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2009, 05:23:02 PM »
The gods talked about in major monotheistic religions don't make much sense to me. It is incredibly arrogant to believe that an all powerful, all knowing being has nothing better to do than to concern itself with one relatively insignificant race on one relatively insignificant planet.

I fully agree.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?