# Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 4, 2013, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288 "2013-02-04T04:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/501 "2013-02-20T12:25:09Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > At the scale involved – cosmology and cosmogeny – this isn’t entirely certain. For one thing, God could be the universe. The cosmos could be his “body,” and thus his existence and the existence of “all that is” might be one and the same. > > Otherwise, the same argument could apply against natural explanations for the origin of the universe: some kind of “existence” must have been around, for the Big Bang to happen “in.” > > The trouble with things of this nature is that they don’t accord with our common sense, or even with our ideals of philosophical necessity. > > (I love reading philosophical rejections of the Trinity; if God were composed of separate parts, then he cannot be “all powerful” or “all knowing,” because this kind of universality cannot be divided. Either all of the power is only in one part – God the Father, perhaps – or it is split up among the persons, and thus no one of them is really all-anything. The trouble, of course, is that this is pure sophism, pure word-play. It isn’t based on anything solid.) Or one could say the translation for the word’ God’ could be existence. Even the universe had to have a place to exist.What isn’t in existence doesn’t exist! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/502 "2013-02-20T12:27:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > At the scale involved – cosmology and cosmogeny – this isn’t entirely certain. For one thing, God could be the universe. The cosmos could be his “body,” and thus his existence and the existence of “all that is” might be one and the same. > > Otherwise, the same argument could apply against natural explanations for the origin of the universe: some kind of “existence” must have been around, for the Big Bang to happen “in.” > > The trouble with things of this nature is that they don’t accord with our common sense, or even with our ideals of philosophical necessity. > > (I love reading philosophical rejections of the Trinity; if God were composed of separate parts, then he cannot be “all powerful” or “all knowing,” because this kind of universality cannot be divided. Either all of the power is only in one part – God the Father, perhaps – or it is split up among the persons, and thus no one of them is really all-anything. The trouble, of course, is that this is pure sophism, pure word-play. It isn’t based on anything solid.) If God the father is a spirit, and holy, then why need a Holy Spirit as a separate being? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/503 "2013-02-20T12:31:01Z")
> [@For You](#): > > These do not pertain to religious people per se, rather it is based on attendance. It does not indicate that _belief_ improves your health: believers who skip church are less healthy than believers who do, the factor is church more than belief itself. I could dispute that, I don’t go to a Church, I am in my 80’s and my doctor tells me I am in better health than many of her much younger patients. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/504 "2013-02-20T12:37:20Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Or one could say the translation for the word’ God’ could be existence. [QUOTE=Abraham Lincoln] Q: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. [/QUOTE] Redefining the word that much is just playing word games. ---
**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:** [February 20, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/505 "2013-02-20T17:43:08Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I could dispute that, I don’t go to a Church, I am in my 80’s and my doctor tells me I am in better health than many of her much younger patients. This kind of argument is totally irrelevant anyway. Lord of the Rings fans might be healthier and happier than non-fans, but that does not mean Frodo ever lived. Theists who use it as justification for their beliefs are showing a bit of desperation. It is the same as claiming that evolution is not correct because the concept has been misused. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/506 "2013-02-20T18:42:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > For one thing, God could be the universe. > [@monavis](#): > > Or one could say the translation for the word’ God’ could be existence. Equating God with existence or the universe as a whole strikes me as the ultimate case of Stockholm syndrome. Benevolent Gods were created as alternative realities to the cold, existential conditions of the universe, and conflating the two is like conferring good intentions on a heartless, uncaring captor. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/507 "2013-02-20T21:35:11Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Or one could say the translation for the word’ God’ could be existence. Even the universe had to have a place to exist.What isn’t in existence doesn’t exist! > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Redefining the word that much is just playing word games. Well, theology itself is nothing but word games. The point was, it is possible (in theological terms) that God is the cosmos, and thus God is existence. i.e., it is entirely feasible for some religious sect to hold this view as their foundational dogma. > [@monavis](#): > > If God the father is a spirit, and holy, then why need a Holy Spirit as a separate being? Exactly! What does the doctrine offer, in explanatory terms, that makes it better than non-Trinitarian doctrine? Why should we prefer one over the other? It’s all just word games! ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/508 "2013-02-20T21:38:35Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Or one could say the translation for the word’ God’ could be existence. Even the universe had to have a place to exist.What isn’t in existence doesn’t exist! OK, I’ll agree to that… provided that such theists swear to \*\*never \*\*then claim that their god cares about whether I wear poly-cotton, eat lobster, or sleep with someone of the same sex. (And so forth… it’ll be a long list…) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/509 "2013-02-20T21:40:21Z")
We have a word for existence, and that word is “existence”. Likewise, we have words for “cosmos” and “universe”, so why do we have to bother with the word “God” at all if the definition is already covered by an already existing word? ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/510 "2013-02-20T21:46:12Z")
> [@For You](#): > > These do not pertain to religious people per se, rather it is based on attendance. It does not indicate that _belief_ improves your health: believers who skip church are less healthy than believers who do, the factor is church more than belief itself. …which would explain why pchaos wants to make an atheist church! He just wants us to be healthier, is all. How nice of him. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/511 "2013-02-21T05:28:44Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We have a word for existence, and that word is “existence”. Likewise, we have words for “cosmos” and “universe”, so why do we have to bother with the word “God” at all if the definition is already covered by an already existing word? Because if “God” and “existence” are the same, and if God has a mind, then “existence” would have a mind, something not implied by the word “existence” as we currently use it. (Just as, if your sofa had a mind, we’d want to move on from calling it “furniture” anymore.) (Hey, my old office chair tried to kill me once; the idea of it having a mind isn’t all that far-fetched!) ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/512 "2013-02-21T05:40:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We have a word for existence, and that word is “existence”. Likewise, we have words for “cosmos” and “universe”, so why do we have to bother with the word “God” at all if the definition is already covered by an already existing word? Because “existence” has 9 letters and 3 syllables, whilst “god” only has 3 letters and 1 syllable – much easier for people who are inclined toward monosyllabism. Though, I suppose “Og” would be even easier, and it has that nice heavy-brow-ridge sound to it. ---
**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:** [February 21, 2013, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/513 "2013-02-21T07:06:44Z")
> [@For You](#): > > Though, I suppose “Og” would be even easier, and it has that nice heavy-brow-ridge sound to it. Plus it is a quite smashing name. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/514 "2013-02-21T13:05:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Because if “God” and “existence” are the same, and if God has a mind, then “existence” would have a mind, something not implied by the word “existence” as we currently use it. > > (Just as, if your sofa had a mind, we’d want to move on from calling it “furniture” anymore.) > > (Hey, my old office chair tried to kill me once; the idea of it having a mind isn’t all that far-fetched!) If anything, or being, is in existence, then doesn’t existence precede evrything? If it isn’t in existence then it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/515 "2013-02-21T13:07:10Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Because if “God” and “existence” are the same, and if God has a mind, then “existence” would have a mind, something not implied by the word “existence” as we currently use it. > > (Just as, if your sofa had a mind, we’d want to move on from calling it “furniture” anymore.) > > (Hey, my old office chair tried to kill me once; the idea of it having a mind isn’t all that far-fetched!) If anything, or being, is in existence, then doesn’t existence precede eveything? If it isn’t in existence then it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/516 "2013-02-21T22:15:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If anything, or being, is in existence, then doesn’t existence precede evrything? If it isn’t in existence then it doesn’t exist. Well, no… The word “precede” is the problem here. How can existence precede everything, if existence is everything? Existence precedes itself? Something came before everything? It is entirely possible (in metaphysical terms) that “everything” and “existence” came into being at the same time. It’s might have been sudden, or it might have been gradual. A big bang…or a slow dissolve. It might have been piece-wise: a big chunk of “everything” over yonder might have come into existence before all the other big chunks. Or it might have been all-at-once, with everything coming into existence at the same time. Who can know? I’m not completely sure the terms here even have definable meanings! ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/517 "2013-02-22T18:25:29Z")
> [@For You](#): > > That [the possibility that the universe always existed] presents a few difficulties, but it is interesting to consider. I admit it doesn’t solve any problems, really. IMHO, nothing solves the “why is there anything at all?” problem. > [@](#): > > If the universe always existed, that would allow the other side of eternity (the infinite past) for the creation of us. I mean, 4 billion years is a long time, an eternal past is even longer. > > Most problematic is entropy. Energy seems to flow downhill only (warm to cold), how an eternal universe could not be totally flat by now (after an infinite amount of time to lose its fizz) kind of strains the imagination. Unless it has something to do with dark energy or something. My understanding is limited, but we do know that the rules predict that the rules don’t apply in a singularity. (Well, some rules don’t apply.) I’m interested in case anyone can shed any light on whether entropy is preserved in a singularity. To some extent it is (it defines the event horizon of a black hole, for example.) > [@](#): > > Everything we know of has a point before which it did not exist and a rather high probability of a point after which it will not exist. It is difficult to imagine a thing that never did not exist and always will. Of course, it seems just as likely that the universe is not a “thing”. > > Personally, I find the idea of creation no more logically plausible than the idea of eternal presence. Why should the universe ever have not existed? I don’t think my common sense has much to bear on the subject. We already know that common sense doesn’t hold for even simple mathematical properties of infinity – at least until infinities are studied well enough that we learn a new common sense about them. IMHO that’s a much simpler subject than the origin of the universe. But, for quantum fluctuations to cause something, there has to be space (or something to “hold” the physical laws) for it to happen. This leads to infinite regress, which is either a problem or isn’t. I doubt we’ll have any high-confidence answers to these questions in my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/518 "2013-02-22T18:45:39Z")
A very wise person once wrote on a bathroom wall, “The 1st Law of the Universe is ‘Things Happen’, and all other Laws stem from this 1st Law. Even if there WAS absolutely nothing, something would happen anyway.” ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/519 "2013-02-22T22:04:54Z")
> [@koufax](#): > > I am trying to find videos on you tube or anywhere for that matter that can explain how someone can actually be a REAL atheist. > > All I can seem to find is “atheists” who point out how ridiculous most religious teachings are (which I completely agree with) but they don’t seem to explain how they believe that matter just came out of nothing with no cause. > > I consider myself a Deist because I cannot get rid of the belief that something caused all of this, even though it doesn’t care about its creation and allows everything to happen randomly. > > So, are there, in fact REAL atheists who believe that life and matter just occurred out of nothing or are these “atheists” like me and are in fact Deists? As a life long atheist I have to admit that there has been an increase in atheists who proselytize. After 9/11, you could count me as one of them. Didn’t really care what you and others believed in before that, but it seemed to me that religious people needed sanity. Perhaps that explains why there are more atheists on youtube and what have you. As to your second point. Why does the lack of knowledge require a deity? So we can’t explain how matter came out of nothing, and therefore there must be a God? Even one that does not answer prayers? “We don’t know yet” works for me. Don’t need the tooth fairy to take the place of my ignorance. I am happy and comfortable with don’t have a clue. I realize I’ve come very late to the debate, but wanted to point out my POV, as an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288/520 "2013-02-22T22:31:11Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > . . . Why does the lack of knowledge require a deity? . . . This is the one that it all keeps coming back to. Where, then, did the deity come from? If an “uncaused cosmos” is hard to grasp, why is an “uncaused intelligent entity” any more comforting? How is it a better explanation? Which is the simpler explanation: A blortload of hot gas came out of nowhere, or a conscious, thinking, intelligent, moral entity with volition and immeasureable power came out of nowhere? What advantage is there in the second explanation? I’ll forgive the people in less sophisticated times for the “pocket watch” argument; at first glance, the world does appear to be remarkably well designed. If you don’t have advanced observational skills, nature does look like it is “intelligent” in origin. There is no sin in our grandfathers for thinking that deism was a good explanation. It was the efforts of a few generations of naturalists – Darwin prominent among them – that showed that this explanation is less to be preferred, because it fails to explain things which the evolutionary explanation explains clearly. In cosmology, we’re at or beyond that same turning point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism/649288.md?page=27)