# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/121 "2006-12-05T03:13:28Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Tell me what you mean by “time breaks down,” please. [/QUOTE] From: [Stephen Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_](http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/b.html): > [@](#): > > All of the Friedmann solutions have the feature that at some time in the past (between ten and twenty thousand million years ago) the distance between neighboring galaxies must have been zero. At that time, which we call the big bang, the density of the universe and the curvature of space-time would have been infinite. Because mathematics cannot really handle infinite numbers, this means that the general theory of relativity (on which Friedmann’s solutions are based) predicts that there is a point in the universe where the theory itself breaks down. Such a point is an example of what mathematicians call a singularity. In fact, all our theories of science are formulated on the assumption that space-time is smooth and nearly fiat, so they break down at the big bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. This means that even if there were events before the big bang, one could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would break down at the big bang. > > Correspondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we could not determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences, so they should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that time had a beginning at the big bang. ---
**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 5, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/122 "2006-12-05T03:24:40Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Let me word it differently, as a question: Do you (anyone) take it on faith that we will ultimately find a physical explanation that will negate the logical conclusion of an unmoved mover? Or do you feel that the syllogism that concludes in the unmoved movers is a non sequitur, even without any other physical explanation? Or something else? [/QUOTE] Not on faith - just very likely. First, I think the idea of a simple unmoved mover (the Big Bang, and whatever started it) is more logical than an exceedingly complex unmoved mover - God. Second, Aristotle’s “proof” is full of holes. B says that if nothing moves, then nothing can move. Aristotle was not aware of the conservation of momentum. If a single thing, full of energy, is sitting unmoving (and what unmoving means when there is only one thing in the universe is another problem) it `an explode into many moving pieces with a net motion of 0. Third, it is impossible, by Heisenberg, to have a universe with no motion. Thus Aristotle’s proof doesn’t bother me at all. ---
**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 5, 2006, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/123 "2006-12-05T09:37:58Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] So you don’t believe humans have free will? Kinda takes a big chunk out of religious morality don’t you think? [/QUOTE] In the sense we’re discussing, there is no such thing as an unfettered, uninfluenced exercise of free will, conducted by an uncreated being in a primal, uncreated environment. If that invalidates certain religious beliefs, so be it. ---
**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 5, 2006, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/124 "2006-12-05T09:39:13Z")
Not ignoring the other posts. Be back later today hopefully. ---
**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 5, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/125 "2006-12-05T14:17:07Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Are you under the impression that I’m arguing logically for the existence of a Christian God? :dubious: [/QUOTE] Aquinas was and you are basing this particular segment of the discussion on his alleged proof. ---
**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 5, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/126 "2006-12-05T19:09:37Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] In the sense we’re discussing, there is no such thing as an unfettered, uninfluenced exercise of free will, conducted by an uncreated being in a primal, uncreated environment. If that invalidates certain religious beliefs, so be it. [/QUOTE] Allow me to regroup by asking some questions about unmoved mover(s). Is there any evidence that an unmoved mover… [list=A]still exists? [li]is immune to being moved as a result of a circular chain of movements?[/li][li]intended to move anything?[/li][li]intended the second, third, fourth, etc. movers to move anything?[/li][li]was aware the second, third, fourth, etc. movers to move anything?[/li][li]is capable of having an intention?[/li][li]has any sort of plan?[/li][li]is intelligent?[/li][li]is omniscient?[/li][li]is omnipotent?[/li][li]defines good or evil?[/li][li]is capable of good and/or evil?[/li][li]is omnibenevolent?[/li][li]contains, transmits, or prefers a morality?[/li][li]has anything to do with afterlife?[/li][li]enjoys skee-ball?[/li][li]should be worshipped or prayed to?[/li][li]can or does respond to worship or prayers?[/li][li]plays any role in our current or future lives?[/li][li]is aware of us?[/li][li]is aware of anything?[/li][li]has need of prophets or messiahs?[/li][li]is capable of having any needs?[/li][li]is similar to any other unmoved mover?[/li][li]is anything more than an explosion?[/li][li]has any definable characteristics still in effect?[/list][/li] If, as I suspect, the answer to all these is _no_, then what does the argument for an unmoved mover have to do with atheism not working? Answering _no_ to all of the above sounds a lot like atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/127 "2006-12-05T21:53:55Z")
[QUOTE=According to Pliny] No, if you think there is a possibility of a god you are not an atheist but an agnostic. [/QUOTE] Hmmmm… let me check… do I believe in god? Nope, having checked out my head, I can’t seem to find a god belief floating around in there. So, I’m an atheist. I’m ALSO an agnostic, if by that you mean I don’t claim to know whether or not god exists. I don’t know lots of things, actually. What I DO know, better than anyone else, is the contents of my own mind. So please don’t try to tell me that I’m not an atheist, ok? I think I know whether I am or not a heck of a lot better than you do. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/128 "2006-12-05T22:01:38Z")
[QUOTE=ReggieB] My point was that science cannot explain the existence of the universe. [/quote] Can you cite some evidence that this is true? Because I know a fair bit about science, and one of the key things about it is that we CANNOT know WHAT we can or cannot know. I mean, knowing that would require knowing something about it, which would contradict the idea that we cannot know or explain it! > [@](#): > > In the Big Bang Theory, everything explodes from a point called singularity. Science can explain what heppens after the explosion of the singularity itsself, but cannot explain where that singularity came from. Maybe we can, maybe we can’t: it all depends on a heck of a lot of complicated things that we don’t know much about. Maybe it came from somewhere, maybe it didn’t come from anywhere. Maybe it was created in much the same way singularities are created WITHIN our universe, maybe not. We don’t know… and neither do you. Worse, your proffered explanation of God not only fails COMPLETELY to explain this question, it also puts on the table countless other things that demand explanations. That doesn’t seem like useful progress over ignorance to me. > [@](#): > > The universe is the sum total of all natural conditions and laws. In order to to give a scientific explanation of the universe, one would have to have an observation point outside of the whole system. One would have to have laws independent of what is being explained, the universe. But, since the universe is governed by scientific laws and principles, they cannot exist outside of the universe, so you cannot scientific principles to explain the singularity. Dunno. Maybe if “outside” the universe makes any sense as a concept, there are different laws that we can figure out. Again: why are you purporting to act like you’ve got the universe all figured out? Heck, not even the most arrogant of string theorists claim to understand the entire UNIVERSE. > [@](#): > > Yep, the universe is non-essential… Again, we don’t know that. All the arguments I’ve heard to this effect are, I’m afraid, highly unconvincing. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/129 "2006-12-05T22:04:59Z")
Here’s a handy ytmnd that explains things pretty well: > **[Enter the RAZOR](https://entertherzor.ytmnd.com/)** > > Whetstone thinks he's got some killer arguments for why you just GOTTA believe in God. Enter: THE RAZOR. ---
**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 6, 2006, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/130 "2006-12-06T09:47:00Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Aquinas was and you are basing this particular segment of the discussion on his alleged proof. [/QUOTE] I don’t believe that in accepting Aquinas proof one must conclude in the existence of the Christian God (again, as a matter of logic), however he intended it. His proof does not logically flow to an end where only the Christian God is possible (though the Christian God certainly is consistent with the notion of an unmoved mover, as are many other entities). Again, discussing logic, not my faith. ---
**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 6, 2006, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/131 "2006-12-06T10:00:38Z")
I’ll give it a try. Not sure what you mean by evidence. I’ll answer in terms of logic, since the unmoved mover is a logical construction. [list=A]still exists? The unmoved mover always existed prior to the events that created the universe. IOW, the entity exists outside of time, I would think–an eternal being. [li]is immune to being moved as a result of a circular chain of movements? No. The unmoved mover simply had no prior mover.[/li][li]intended to move anything? Yes.[/li][li]intended the second, third, fourth, etc. movers to move anything? No.[/li][li]was aware the second, third, fourth, etc. movers to move anything? No.[/li][li]is capable of having an intention? Yes, this seems logical to me. Something triggered the first movement, and it wasn’t some external physical force.[/li][li]has any sort of plan? No.[/li][li]is intelligent? To the extent that it can apply its intentions (see above), yes, that seems logical.[/li][li]is omniscient? No.[/li][li]is omnipotent? No.[/li][li]defines good or evil? No.[/li][li]is capable of good and/or evil? Yes, if capable of putting an intention into motion.[/li][li]is omnibenevolent? No.[/li][li]contains, transmits, or prefers a morality? Yes (for the same reason noted above), yes (perhaps only in a limited fashion), and if the first two are yes, then so is this.[/li][li]has anything to do with afterlife? No.[/li][li]enjoys skee-ball? No.[/li][li]should be worshipped or prayed to? No.[/li][li]can or does respond to worship or prayers? No.[/li][li]plays any role in our current or future lives? No.[/li][li]is aware of us? No.[/li][li]is aware of anything? No.[/li][li]has need of prophets or messiahs? No.[/li][li]is capable of having any needs? Not sure.[/li][li]is similar to any other unmoved mover? No.[/li][li]is anything more than an explosion? Yes.[/li][li]has any definable characteristics still in effect? Yes, if this is an eternal entity[/list][/li][quote] If, as I suspect, the answer to all these is _no_, then what does the argument for an unmoved mover have to do with atheism not working? Answering _no_ to all of the above sounds a lot like atheism. [/QUOTE] It is at least consistent with the existence of a God. It makes a strong atheism at least somewhat less tenable, IMO. And I’m not trying to be coy here. I would answer these questions quite differently if asked as a matter of faith, absolutely. ---
**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 6, 2006, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/132 "2006-12-06T10:03:11Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Not on faith - just very likely. First, I think the idea of a simple unmoved mover (the Big Bang, and whatever started it) is more logical than an exceedingly complex unmoved mover - God. Second, Aristotle’s “proof” is full of holes. B says that if nothing moves, then nothing can move. Aristotle was not aware of the conservation of momentum. If a single thing, full of energy, is sitting unmoving (and what unmoving means when there is only one thing in the universe is another problem) it `an explode into many moving pieces with a net motion of 0. Third, it is impossible, by Heisenberg, to have a universe with no motion. Thus Aristotle’s proof doesn’t bother me at all. [/QUOTE] How does the single thing, full of energy, erupt in explosion without a triggering event? The universe as it exists is in constant motion, but it’s illogical to conceive of an infinite regression of this motion, right? That’s the point. ---
**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 6, 2006, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/133 "2006-12-06T10:06:46Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] From: [Stephen Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_](http://www.physics.metu.edu.tr/~fizikt/html/hawking/b.html): [/QUOTE] Are F-solutions generally accepted? (Clearly, no physicist I.) This excerpt reads like the “firewall” I referred to previously. ---
**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 6, 2006, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/134 "2006-12-06T14:32:05Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I don’t believe that in accepting Aquinas proof one must conclude in the existence of the Christian God (again, as a matter of logic), however he intended it. His proof does not logically flow to an end where only the Christian God is possible (though the Christian God certainly is consistent with the notion of an unmoved mover, as are many other entities). Again, discussing logic, not my faith. [/QUOTE] Well, I guess I was confused by the injection of this argument into a thread about atheism. It seems that you are speaking about an amorphous whatever-it-is as the unmoved mover. As I and others have pointed out, we cannot know anything about what happened before the Big Bang. In fact “before the Big Bang” is a nonsense way of putting it since there was no “before.” _Ergo_, you can hypothesize anything you want as your unmoved mover and it is just as legitimate as the hypothesis of the most able scientist. ---
**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 6, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/135 "2006-12-06T16:20:44Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I’ll give it a try. Not sure what you mean by evidence. I’ll answer in terms of logic, since the unmoved mover is a logical construction. … [/quote] Good point. **A** & **B** seem to be in conflict. Time simply begins with the initial movement. The unmoved mover is in time for as long as any motion occurs. Couldn’t future movements change or destroy the original mover? The unmoved mover is (was) eternal only in the sense that time did not exist. Now that it does, why would it have any eternal qualities that other movers don’t have? **C** , **F** , & **H** : How do you deduce that an unmoved mover has intention or intelligence? Why couldn’t the initial movement be simply random? Perhaps there was only one movement it could have possibly made. **L** & **N** : In order for an unmoved mover to be capable of good or evil, wouldn’t those concepts have to exist prior to the initial movement? Do you view good and evil as something other than relative human constructs? **Y** : See C, F & H. **Z** : See A & B. > [@](#): > > … > It is at least consistent with the existence of a God. It makes a strong atheism at least somewhat less tenable, IMO. And I’m not trying to be coy here. I would answer these questions quite differently if asked as a matter of faith, absolutely. Certainly strong atheism has a severe logical failing. But I don’t think that position can be made stronger or weaker by adding or subtracting a turtle or two. ---
**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 6, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/136 "2006-12-06T17:08:35Z")
Getting back to **Z** … What are the definable characteristics of the\* unmoved mover that are still in effect? [sub]\*Setting aside for the moment the existence of other unmoved movers.[/sub] ---
**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 6, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/137 "2006-12-06T19:08:27Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] How does the single thing, full of energy, erupt in explosion without a triggering event? The universe as it exists is in constant motion, but it’s illogical to conceive of an infinite regression of this motion, right? That’s the point. [/QUOTE] How does an atom decay without a triggering event? But that’s not motion. As for the origin of motion, it comes from natural laws. By the uncertainty principle, we cannot exactly know the position and velocity of anything - but more so the smaller the particle. If the universe were created, say, with motionless particles, this would violate the law, so any creation event must have created particles in motion. Aristotle assumed that the rest state was natural - in fact motion is natural, and total rest is impossible. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/138 "2006-12-06T19:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] intended to move anything? Yes. has any sort of plan? No. is aware of us? No. is aware of anything? No. Yes, if this is an eternal entity It is at least consistent with the existence of a God. [/quote] So this “unmoved mover” is capable of forming intentions, but has no awareness? How does that work? Our understanding of the universe is neither consistent nor inconsistent with God, since God is considered to exist outside of the laws we understand to operate in the universe. Since we currently have no way to ascertain what physical laws operate outside the “firewall”, if such a realm even exists, to speak of whether a given thing would be “consistent” is utter speculation. If you believe in a God that transcends our understanding of the physical world, why would you care about evidence and logic anyway? > [@](#): > > It makes a strong atheism at least somewhat less tenable, IMO. And I’m not trying to be coy here. I would answer these questions quite differently if asked as a matter of faith, absolutely. I agree with the previous post: strong atheism is _already_ untenable. Adding God makes it neither more nor less so. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/139 "2006-12-06T19:25:29Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Are F-solutions generally accepted? (Clearly, no physicist I.) This excerpt reads like the “firewall” I referred to previously. [/QUOTE] I think the entire chapter might be there on the website. I’m not sure what you’re asking, but if I remember right, Hawking wrote that he didn’t feel that big bang theory ought to have any effect on religious beliefs, since God could have created the big bang just as easily as he could have created a steady-state universe. Assuming that there is a realm outside our universe in which every effect must have a cause doesn’t answer any questions, because it still leads to infinite regression. So I don’t see any reason to blindly speculate on it, other than to make oneself feel good. I suppose the universe _could_ have been formed by an entity that is/was capable of forming intentions, but since there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case, there’s no reason for me to entertain the idea. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/140 "2006-12-06T19:41:35Z")
The premise that atheism doesn’t work is meaningless. What is it supposed to do?. It requires mere logic. No dues or attendance are required. Religion does not work. It doesn’t answer the mysteries of life It only introduces more complex improvables. It has fatal flaws and boils down to I believe because I have been taught to or want to. It has evolved into a disrupting force and really does not work anymore. If it ever did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=8)