Atheism does not work...

Great Debates
21

ReggieB, you make so many illogical leaps it’s scary. Okay, where do I begin?

First of all, what you stated is in no way axiomatic, and actually makes no sense. The lack of a witness to the impetus of a process does not negate the abilty to ultimately explain said impetus and resulting process scientifically.

The universe is not made of circumstances and laws. The universe “follows” laws, including those that have yet to be discovered or understood, and its current condition is the “result” of circumstances that shaped it. Anyway, what’s your point?

What do you mean by “independent set of physical conditions?” Independent of what? And why would an independent set of anything be required to explain the universe scientifically?

:blink: What? Precisely how does this follow your previous assertions?

A valid argument could accurately be made that the universe is not essential. It exists, however, because it’s essential to our existence, only because we couldn’t exist without it. But even that doesn’t make it essential, because there’s no mandate that we must exist.

Unlikely, in my view. The Big Bang led inexorably to our existence. The only way we would not have come to exist in some form would be if the Big Bang hadn’t happened at all. My personal opinion is given enough time sentience is inevitable with a universe of the configuration of the one we inhabit.

Where in left field are you suddenly getting “parts” of the universe from?

You haven’t made the case, at all, that the universe can’t be explained scientifically, and its essential nature has no bearing whatsoever on the argument, as far as I’m concerned. Even accepting the absurd proposition that all your flawed logic magically aligned and made sense, none of it would exault the idea of a creator as the “only” possible explanation above all other possibilities. Think about it. You posit a creator for no other reason I can see than that it’s what you believe. “Science can’t do this, and the Universe isn’t that, therefore the only thing that makes sense is an creator.” That’s essentially your argument right there. Surely you see the illogic.

Your house of cards doesn’t hold up, I’m afraid, my friend. You either have a lot more ‘splainin’ to do to get your points across better, or you need to reread the sources of the claptrap you posted so you can understand it a little better yourself before responding.

22

I’ve got to learn to stop reading these.

23

Actually, the rational person should accept the fact that we are a computer simulation running in some alien universe. That voice in your head is, in fact, your player telling you what to do. Think about it: They started with a few players (people) and now they have billions online at once playing ‘Sim Earth’. Unfortunately, what you don’t know is that a virus has invaded their computer and will cause it to crash in 5 minutes. Lucky, that will seem like 15 billion years to us…

How do I know this is true? Well we have computers and we have game simulations that are quite complex and becoming more so. Eventually, we will have similar technology to the holodeck on Startrek and will be able to do the same thing as the aliens are doing to us*. See I can point to a computer and demonstrate my theory, you? All you can do is point to the sky and say, “Pretty”.

*Us being them, of course. Yes, it is somewhat confusing, but try to make sense of the Trinity sometime. This makes perfect sense comparatively. If you have any questions please send me at a note to Universe 2, Chinko’s homeworld).

24

The premise of the OP is pretty shakey. The reason most people believe the universe exists is because they have direct experience that it exists not because they believe in a set of scientific laws that prove the universe should exist. The scientific laws came after the fact to organize the observed experiences.

Most people do not have similar direct experience of a creator. They must either take the creator’s existence based on believing reports from other people who claim to have had direct experience or the existence of a creator must be inferred from the existence of the universe. And if you accept the premise that the universe requires a creator to have been created, the next question is who created the creator? If a creator can exist without being created, why can’t the universe exist without being created?

25

No, if you think there is a possibility of a god you are not an atheist but an agnostic.

26

What he said.

27

No, this opens atheists up to unwarranted charge of arrogance. “How can you possibly know that ANYTHING doesn’t exist?” You can be an atheist while admitting the technical possibility of God, as in, “Sure, anything is possible, but after careful examination I’m as sure as a person can be that there is no God.” That allows for the possibility but little else.

28

Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the ‘theories’ we have on the universe’s beginnings are nothing but hypotheses…and that includes the big bang ‘theory’…which is currently being shot to shit (Back and to the left)…turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe…or somehow create a second verse…and that’s under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began…nor can we figure out if a ‘who’ was involved, or if there even is a ‘why’.

It’s a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

29

The OP needs to take two courses: Logic and Epistemology. There are so many fallacies and just random ideas in the OP, I don’t know where to start.

30

I would have agreed with you in the past, but skeptic taxonomy is a fiendishly complex subject, it turns out, with so many degrees of “hardness” you feel like you’re at a symposium on erectile dysfunction when in full debate mode over categorization. MEB’s not wrong. Thing is, with sufficient nuance, I’m not sure one can be wrong about classifying the doubtful in many circumstances.

31

"Message Board Etiquette 101: no drive-by posting" would be a nice addition to his curriculum.

32

Oh snap…you should of told us earlier! So many researchers wasting their time when they could be doing something more worthwhile. You need to hurry up and spread the news!

Oh, and if time travel and traveling back in time to the beginning of the universe are both possible then it would be a Very Bad Idea to do so, for a variety of reasons I can think.

Oh shit, did I miss something big in the news lately? Is Hubble’s Law BS? Did something happen to red shift? Did some noble man disprove the microwave background radiation? Were all those satellites infected with demons?

33

I’m an atheist. That means I don’t believe in a god. Period. It does not mean that I am absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no way that a god can exist. As of now, I see no reason or evidence for me to believe in a god. That doesn’t mean that in the future I won’t find a reason or get some evidence. But unlike an agnostic, I’m not suspending my belief until then, I’m withholding it.

34

:::sigh:::

Why do people jump-in into a debate without bothering to actually read the information provided by the person they are responding to. And that includes links in said posts.

Here, in case you missed it the first time, courtesy of MEBuckner: An Introduction to Atheism

Read that and try responding again. In abridged form: a weak atheist, does NOT deny the possibility of the existence of a god or gods, but simply lacks belief in such.

While we can – and often do – get lost in semantic wrangling over the meaning of the word “atheist,” we could do the same with the “agnostic” label, for it too, is open to interpretation.

For instance, George H. Smith makes a pretty good case that agnostics are simply atheist without the nerve to declare themselves as such in his book “Atheism: The Case Against God.” Great read, btw, not just for non-believers but also for Christians who’d like to have their beliefs challenged.

Lastly, you might want to learn the difference between “hard” atheists (as George Smith for instance) and the great majority of atheist, which belong to the “weak” camp.

</end hijack>

35

Well, you don’t have to call the entity “God,” but some accept the fact that an infinite regression of moved movers is logically absurd:

My best friend, an atheist, pooh-poohs this, of course. There is simply some other explanation, one we haven’t discerned yet. Perhaps, but it seems to me to be reduced out of necessity to some eternal, uncreated entity that set the universe in motion. Seems to me to be logic enough to at least allow for the existence of God, an allowance that is a bit stronger than, “Well, I guess anything is possible.” Just my opinion, of course (actually it’s St. Tom’s opinion, but I happen to share it ;)).

36

I also like pointing out that agnostics–according to the dictionary–believe that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. So, if next Tuesday the heavens open with a great shout, and a brilliant yet somehow not blinding Light suffuses the entire world, and we are all filled with a wonderful sense of peace and joy and a great Voice–heard by everyone in the world in the language of his birth–says “Behold, My children, I have come again to you at last”, and then we all live for the next ten thousand years unaging in a world of perfect peace and justice and beauty, then us atheists–who don’t believe in God because no one has persuaded us that such a belief makes sense–can all say (with perfect consistency with our previous beliefs)–“Oh, er, well, I guess we were wrong then. Heh. Sorry about that” while the agnostics will still have to be standing over in the corner saying “Well, this is all very nice, I’m sure, but I’m still not convinced.”

No one can really claim they know George Washington was first President of the United States under the present Constitution. After all, everyone who was actually there is long dead. Maybe George Washington wasn’t even a real person, just a figurehead artificial intelligence simulation and REAL power was held by a triumvirate consisting of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Dolley Madison. It’s all just hypotheses at this point.

37

So it’s turtles all the way down, eh, Mr. Aquinas?

38

My point was that science cannot explain the existence of the universe. 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.

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 indpendent of what is being explained, the universe. But, since the universe is goverened by scientific laws and principles, they cannot exist outside of the universe, so you cannot scientific principles to explain the singularity.

Yep, the universe is non-essential…

You said that there is no mandate that we must exist, we are a component or part of the universe. My reasoning, is that if components of the universe exist by chance, couldn’t the universe exist by chance?

39

If I, one who doubts the existence of your God, must accept the possibility of your God, then logically you too must accept “a god (that is not your God)”.

Or indeed “all gods” - or by extension “all gods whose existence mutually contradicts your God” - or indeed “all mutually contradictory gods”.

Also, please, include “all gods no longer worshipped”. And of course “all future gods (not currently extant)”.

Or one could decide the whole god thing is bunk and ascribe it to chance…

40

That’s true at the moment, but there’s no reason science couldn’t explain it in the future.