# Atheism does not work... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571 "2006-12-02T04:31:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/201 "2006-12-10T11:23:17Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] I see my problem now. You are being very literal with _movement_. The unmoved mover wasn’t “moved” by its alleged intelligence. Its intelligence wasn’t “moved” by its alleged awareness of other movers. That’s all very convenient if you wish to hold onto the idea of an intelligent creator. But it also does nothing to support your vision of the initial state. It just assumes it. [/quote] No, it is consistent with the cause and effect nature of the universe. Without this conclusion, we are forced to assume something, I believe–i.e., we’ll find out something that proved the infinite regress is actually not an absurdity, for example. > [@](#): > > My apologies to you for my distraction. None required. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/202 "2006-12-10T11:24:59Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] What makes you think I’m not calm? That may have been what you _meant_ (although I’m not sure you’re not just trying to revise history), but it most certainly isn’t what you _said_. You could have avoided this whole argument by just explaining that in the first place, rather than copping an attitude and saying: “You seem to have missed the difference in verb tense in your rush to score a point.” _I_ didn’t screw up the tenses, YOU did. But in your zeal to “zing” me, you overlooked that. Then when I pointed that out to you, you switched to an ad hominem argument about my relative state of calmness, which is irrelevant. [/QUOTE] Yeah, you’re right. You do seem pretty calm. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/203 "2006-12-10T11:31:43Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] See that’s just it, I’m finding fault with the axioms. [/quote] Yep, I can understand that. Also makes it hard to connect on a thought that one “side” sees as self-evdident when the other doesn’t see it that way at all. > [@](#): > > Why can’t something be potentially X and actually X at once? For example, what does it mean to be potentially hot or actually hot? A comfortable temperature for me would be hot for a penguin. What’s hot for me may be perfectly acceptable to a microbe living in a hot spring. Wood would be potentially hot when unlit, hot when it’s aflame, given a definition of “hot.” “Comfortable temperature for sturmhauke” is also a condition, once defined, that can only be potential or actual. > [@](#): > > And what about this: “…for what is actually hot cannot at the same time be potentially hot, but is at the same time potentially cold.” What does that mean? Something that is hot cannot also be cold? Yes, that’s what it means, with regard specifically to the aspect that is being considered. IOW, your head can be hot and your feet can be cold. But your head can’t be hot and cold (to simplify). > [@](#): > > The concepts of “hot” and “cold” depend on your point of view. Does it mean that something that is now hot cannot become cold? That’s plainly false. Nope, it means that something now hot is potentially cold. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/204 "2006-12-10T11:33:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Even absent intelligent design, we don’t even need intelligence. A dog intends to dig up his bone. A non-intelligent creator could intend to make the universe, or make it accidentally. If we saw early design, we could say something about a designer. Since we don’t even if you buy the need for an external influence (which I don’t) you can’t say much about that influence. [/QUOTE] I suppose that’s true. I’ll have to think about it. An unmoved entity could have created the universe unintentionally, through an act that had a different intention behind it–is that what you mean? That could definitely be so. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/205 "2006-12-10T11:35:07Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Dogs are intelligent. [/QUOTE] I agree. They also act with intention. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/206 "2006-12-10T15:01:28Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Yes, I said that, but in the sense of the proof–cause and effect, the infinite regress and all that.I honestly don’t know how you’re concluding this. I think I explicitly stated the opposite. [/QUOTE] So you’re sticking to claiming that it takes faith to conceive of a causeless universe? Have you not understood my point? Basically, the cosmological argument rests on the assumption that everything in the universe has a cause. We have demonstrated to you that what we observe as causation in the universe cannot inform us of the “coming into existence” of the universe. In other words, even if you achieve complete induction and really observe that everything in the universe has a cause (nevermind those pesky quantum vacuum fluctuations), you still cannot conclude that the entire universe has a cause or that the existence of the universe has a cause. You cannot even argue that the existence of anything has a cause much less the entire universe. Now this pretty much destroys our original assumption, doesn’t it? What then? We can then safely assume either possibility - that the existence of the universe is causeless or it is caused by a supernatural entity (which, by now, is totally unnecessary). If, after this, you still believe that the cosmological argument is convincing proof of the existence of a supernatural unmoved mover, feel free to believe so. But don’t pretend that your belief has any rational basis. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/207 "2006-12-10T16:43:23Z")
Positing a supernatural intelligence that precedes all movement sounds like a watered down Intelligent Design strategy: “There has to be an intelligence behind it.” Why does there have to be an intelligence behind it? This intelligence would have to function without movement of any thought medium. It would have no experience. It had no prior sensory input or communication yet was aware of whatever it intended move. What makes this a compelling argument? It’s just Intelligent Design moved back 14 billion years and a significantly diminished scope. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/208 "2006-12-10T17:01:15Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] This intelligence … would have no experience. [/QUOTE] In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) pointed out that if you assume a Designer he or she could have been an apprentice. For all we know our universe could be a first, botched attempt by the apprentice who soon discarded it and went on to perfect the universe making skill with later, better models. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/209 "2006-12-10T17:03:05Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) pointed out that if you assume a Designer he or she could have been an apprentice. For all we know our universe could be a first, botched attempt by the apprentice who soon discarded it and went on to perfect the universe making skill with later, better models. [/QUOTE] Make this sentence read - In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) David Hume pointed out that if you assume … ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/210 "2006-12-10T17:10:27Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] So you’re sticking to claiming that it takes faith to conceive of a causeless universe? Have you not understood my point? [/quote] I suspect I haven’t, given your response. > [@](#): > > Basically, the cosmological argument rests on the assumption that everything in the universe has a cause. We have demonstrated to you that what we observe as causation in the universe cannot inform us of the “coming into existence” of the universe. In other words, even if you achieve complete induction and really observe that everything in the universe has a cause (nevermind those pesky quantum vacuum fluctuations), you still cannot conclude that the entire universe has a cause or that the existence of the universe has a cause. You cannot even argue that the existence of anything has a cause much less the entire universe. Help me understand your point. Why is the argument invalid? If we know that nothing comes into its current state without some prior external influence, why would the actual creation of matter be excluded from the proof? Why would the same logic not apply in considering the infinite regress right back to, and including, the creation of matter? Are you arguing because we know nothing about the creation of matter? I’m not sure that would invalidate the proof. Again, not trying to be contrary. Help me see the light, since it seems you detect a blind spot. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/211 "2006-12-10T17:13:12Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] Positing a supernatural intelligence that precedes all movement sounds like a watered down Intelligent Design strategy: “There has to be an intelligence behind it.” Why does there have to be an intelligence behind it? [/quote] There needs only be intelligence enough to act upon an intention. A grand design for the universe needn’t exist (though Tom A. had a different spin, for sure). > [@](#): > > This intelligence would have to function without movement of any thought medium. It would have no experience. It had no prior sensory input or communication yet was aware of whatever it intended move. What makes this a compelling argument? It’s just Intelligent Design moved back 14 billion years and a significantly diminished scope. I think you and I have a different definition of intelligent design. The unmoved mover needn’t be omniscient or have a grand plan that is unfolding around us. It needs only be the first mover. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/212 "2006-12-10T17:16:29Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] In his critique of the Intelligent Designer idea (yes, it’s been around at least that long) pointed out that if you assume a Designer he or she could have been an apprentice. For all we know our universe could be a first, botched attempt by the apprentice who soon discarded it and went on to perfect the universe making skill with later, better models. [/QUOTE] I also don’t see anything logical that would exclude this possibility. (So there you have it, both Hume _and_ Stratocaster are in agreement. That ought to settle it. ;)) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/213 "2006-12-10T17:24:23Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I also don’t see anything logical that would exclude this possibility. (So there you have it, both Hume _and_ Stratocaster are in agreement. That ought to settle it. ;)) [/QUOTE] Oh, it was settled a long time ago. Despite its numerous deficiencies you accept the “first cause” argument as logical. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/214 "2006-12-10T17:30:56Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Oh, it was settled a long time ago. Despite its numerous deficiencies you accept the “first cause” argument as logical. [/QUOTE] Really? Hume’s contribution here certainly doesn’t invalidate it. It just offers an alernative that Tom A. wouldn’t prefer. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/215 "2006-12-10T17:45:46Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] There needs only be intelligence enough to act upon an intention. A grand design for the universe needn’t exist (though Tom A. had a different spin, for sure). … I think you and I have a different definition of intelligent design. The unmoved mover needn’t be omniscient or have a grand plan that is unfolding around us. It needs only be the first mover. [/QUOTE] Do you at least agree that this non-omniscient intelligence/awareness/intent functioned without any experience, sensory input, or communication? Even without omniscience you’re still arguing watered down ID. You’re claiming there had to be a supernatural intelligence and intent to do even the one movement. The design in this case is the intent to move something else, not the current product we see today. Are you content with the idea that the unmoving matter _just existed_ or does it need a creation story too? Did this matter have some set of physical attributes like mass, volume and a spatial relationship to other matter? Why can’t matter have a motion attribute for “as long” as it had the others? ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/216 "2006-12-10T17:50:56Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I suspect I haven’t, given your response.Help me understand your point. Why is the argument invalid? If we know that nothing comes into its current state without some prior external influence, why would the actual creation of matter be excluded from the proof? Why would the same logic not apply in considering the infinite regress right back to, and including, the creation of matter? Are you arguing because we know nothing about the creation of matter? I’m not sure that would invalidate the proof. Again, not trying to be contrary. Help me see the light, since it seems you detect a blind spot. [/QUOTE] The argument is NOT invalid. The premise, however, is highly doubtful given that all we know of causality in the universe doesn’t have anything to do with the creation of matter. Remember that the premise “everything has a cause” is based on our own observation of causality in the universe. The same thing goes for your assertion “..nothing comes to its current state without some prior external influence” Given that causality, as we know it, is simply the rearrangement of matter in the universe and NOT the creation of matter, we simply cannot extrapolate this observation to the creation of matter. In other words, the laws, conditions, that brought about the creation of matter, or even perhaps, space-time itself is timeless and causeless. (unmoved mover) Since we have no information of matter or the universe for that matter coming into existence, we have no way to extrapolate our observation of causality with the coming into existence of the universe. If we can’t do that, we cannot state with any confidence if the universe itself is the unmoved mover or something supernatural altogether. The only difference between the two beliefs is that we have evidence of the existence of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/217 "2006-12-10T21:22:17Z")
**could be** timeless and causeless ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/218 "2006-12-10T21:53:34Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Dogs are intelligent. [/QUOTE] A mighty hot dog is our God. If dogs had created the universe, there would be more bones and fewer cats. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/219 "2006-12-11T02:16:36Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I don’t think that really represents the conclusion of the proof–or at least my conclusion. I would depict it as: 1. Everything in the universe, as we understand it, must have a cause. 2. Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused. 3. Therefore there is an unmoved mover with properties outside of our understanding that completes this logical construct. It’s interesting to consider what these properties would consist of, assuming #1 is true. [/QUOTE] Nope, doesn’t fly. Again, as Hume pointed out, we cannot prove causality as being universal, we can only assume that it is. We can only assume that everything in the universe has a cause. And that’s especially the case for things way way back at the start of the universe, where we don’t even have any good clue how to model what was going on. In short, since we can never absolutely know everything, and even the everyday will always contain mystery, particularly in the case of causality, the “first cause” property might as well be a part of just about anything. Forget the grand and cosmic for a second: for all we REALLY know, if first causes and unmoved movers are possible, bowling a bowling ball doesn’t actually cause it to knock over the pins. We only assume they are because the two are commonly correlated in our experience. But for all we know, the pins falling over is an uncaused event that works backwards through time to cause bowling balls to be bowled at them. Sound crazy, but then, once you break down the basic ASSUMPTION of causality, anything is fair game. You only see the prime mover version because that happens to be the thing you’re focused on most immediately. And again, you tried the old trick of applying observations of things within the context of the universe TO the universe itself. That’s a classic category error, even without the problem I pointed out. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2006, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/220 "2006-12-11T03:04:29Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I think you misunderstand the definition of unmoved mover. There was no time. There was no physical influence (no prior movement). _By definition_. Intelligence or intention–while hardly conclusively evident–are absolutely consistent with the unmoved mover, and the definition of such offers no concerns. [/QUOTE] Give me a break. You can’t even BEGIN to tell me what it means that something has “intention” or “intelligence” without discussing time and/or causality. Again, trying to talk coherently about something completely outside the only coherent experience or understanding we have of that thing is pointless. You might as well be talking about the goouti hurooti of the unmoved mover: without defining what that is, exactly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=12)