# Atheists: Why are you so sure of your non-belief? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777 "2010-06-19T15:24:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/121 "2010-06-20T19:33:49Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > Well, I would say that the fact that there are things about the universe that we could never hope to understand is evidence that there could be powers we can’t understand. That power being an invisible pink unicorn is less likely than it existing at all, unless you believe that there’s absolutely ZERO chance that anything of the sort could exist (or that if it does exist it HAS to be an invisible pink unicorn, I suppose) But nobody is saying the power, as you put it, is an IPU. That’s adding another part to the question you’re being asked–and one that would, as you point out, make it less likely. So to repeat > [@](#): > > The question really is; how much probability do you give an IPU? Not a god-like IPU. Not something else. Invisible. Pink. Unicorn. In the one corner, weighing in with a probability of X%, we have the “power.” In the other corner, an invisible pink unicorn–another, completely different entity, for which there’s no empirical evidence that it does exist, and which is (or can be made to be, if you want to fight the hypothetical) exactly as plausible or implausible under the laws of physics as a “power.” So, do you give the same, different probability to the existence of an IPU that you give to the existence of a “power”? ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/122 "2010-06-20T19:45:37Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > But nobody is saying the power, as you put it, is an IPU. That’s adding another part to the question you’re being asked–and one that would, as you point out, make it less likely. > > So to repeat > And, I add, is that the same, or different to the probability you give a “power”? > > Not a god-like IPU. Not something else. Invisble. Pink. Unicorn. Oh yeah, I guess it was the dragon in somebody’s garage that was in another dimension or something. I don’t know of any evidence of the run-of-the-mill IPU existing so I have no reason to think it might, but, like I said, I think that the fact that our brains are incapable of grasping things about the universe is evidence that a higher power MAY exist. So, based on the evidence as I see it, I give the unspecified power a higher probability of existing than the IPU. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/123 "2010-06-20T19:55:56Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > Oh yeah, I guess it was the dragon in somebody’s garage that was in another dimension or something. Technically, the dragon was only in another dimension to respond to another poster trying to fight the hypothetical by saying his “god” was in another dimension; further, being in another dimension doesn’t make something god, or a “power”–it’s just a place it lives. > [@](#): > > I don’t know of any evidence of the run-of-the-mill IPU existing so I have no reason to think it might, but, like I said, I think that the fact that our brains are incapable of grasping things about the universe is evidence that a higher power MAY exist. So, based on the evidence as I see it, I give the unspecified power a higher probability of existing than the IPU. Very nice response! So, if I understand you correctly, you aren’t just arguing that we should keep an open mind as to a higher power based on the absence of evidence–you’re looking to circumstantial evidence, and using it to evaluate the probability of such a thing existing. And, as you point out in the case of an IPU, the complete absence of evidence is a reason not to have any reason to think that such a thing might exist, yes? Or as you put it, > [@](#): > > I don’t know of any evidence of the run-of-the-mill IPU existing so I have no reason to think it might So now we get to debate the evidence in favor or against a higher power. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/124 "2010-06-20T20:08:45Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > […]I think that the fact that our brains are incapable of grasping things about the universe is evidence that a higher power MAY exist. So, based on the evidence as I see it, I give the unspecified power a higher probability of existing than the IPU. Our brains have nothing to do with it. The “higher power” is generally _defined_ in such a way that - no matter how smart and well-informed we are - we still **couldn’t** do an exhaustive search or test that would give any evidence that it exists or not. The exact same thing is true for the IPU. Even if we were trillions of times smarter, that wouldn’t change a thing about the argument or evidence for gods, higher powers, invisible pink unicorns or any other suitably defined hypothetical entity. The problem is not our minds or our physical limitations, it’s that these types of entities are defined to be both undetectable and incomprehensible and therefore inherently impotent and not worthy of thought even if they did exist. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/125 "2010-06-20T20:09:24Z")
Strange ,the earth is 4.5 million years old. Man has been around a thin slice of that time. Religion has been around for 2 or 3 thousand years. Yet some people believe the worlds was all made for us . It requires a huge belief that people are something special. Some sharks, bears and lions think we are food. Not so special. Mosquitoes like our blood. We are just another life form on a rock circling a mid sized sun. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/126 "2010-06-20T20:13:30Z")
To the OP, not reading the rest of thread yet: I’m sure because belief in a deity is a personal thing. I’m sure I don’t believe in any Gods because I know what my own beliefs are. I’m not telling you that _you_ don’t believe in a God. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/127 "2010-06-20T20:58:13Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > All those scenarios are hypothetical - made up - with equal evidence to back them up (that is, none, and with no apparent way of advancing the evidence). In that case, it’s perfectly rational to assign them all the _same_ probability. Doing anything else is AFAICS irrational. Yes, my unstated assumption was that the very act of assigning probabilities entailed assignment of differing values. If that’s not the case, then the notion of probability doesn’t really make any sense…unless the value being assigned to all such possibilities is “indeterminate”. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/128 "2010-06-20T21:01:34Z")
> [@Digital\_Stimulus](#): > > Yes, my unstated assumption was that the very act of assigning probabilities entailed assignment of differing values. If that’s not the case, then the notion of probability doesn’t really make any sense…unless the value being assigned to all such possibilities is “indeterminate”. Personally, I’d say more than 0 and less than 1. If we’re talking about entities within the universe, something very close to 0. Outside, who cares? ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/129 "2010-06-20T21:45:55Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Technically, the dragon was only in another dimension to respond to another poster trying to fight the hypothetical by saying his “god” was in another dimension; further, being in another dimension doesn’t make something god, or a “power”–it’s just a place it lives. But something that lives in another dimension would be supernatural, right? > [@](#): > > Very nice response! So, if I understand you correctly, you aren’t just arguing that we should keep an open mind as to a higher power based on the absence of evidence–you’re looking to circumstantial evidence, and using it to evaluate the probability of such a thing existing. Yes that’s exactly right. I don’t think there might be a higher power just because, hey, why not? It’s true that that line of thinking would apply just as much to the IPU. The infinite nature of time and space is something I just can’t wrap my mind around, and I don’t think any other person can either. It wouldn’t sound too likely either if we didn’t know it had to be true. So we have no idea what is behind that, but we do know it’s something our minds can’t conceive of. Doesn’t that make it beyond the scope of science? > [@](#): > > And, as you point out in the case of an IPU, the complete absence of evidence is a reason not to have any reason to think that such a thing might exist, yes? Or as you put it, > So now we get to debate the evidence in favor or against a higher power. Yes we do 🙂 > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Our brains have nothing to do with it. The “higher power” is generally _defined_ in such a way that - no matter how smart and well-informed we are - we still **couldn’t** do an exhaustive search or test that would give any evidence that it exists or not. The exact same thing is true for the IPU. > > Even if we were trillions of times smarter, that wouldn’t change a thing about the argument or evidence for gods, higher powers, invisible pink unicorns or any other suitably defined hypothetical entity. > > The problem is not our minds or our physical limitations, it’s that these types of entities are defined to be both undetectable and incomprehensible and therefore inherently impotent and not worthy of thought even if they did exist. I didn’t mean that we can’t detect the higher power because we’re not smart enough, I meant that we know for a fact that there ARE things that we can’t imagine. We can’t imagine the universe being infinite OR finite, but one of them has to be true. I guess my notion of a “higher power” is so vague that it all kind of blends together to me. There’s something going on that we’re incapable of comprehending. I don’t see why it would be unlikely that some type of higher power is in the mix. And like I said, I don’t worship this vague thing that may or may not exist, I don’t get my morals from it, I don’t kill people in its name, etc. But I do like to think that there could be some kind of afterlife involving it. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/130 "2010-06-20T22:04:50Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > But something that lives in another dimension would be supernatural, right? Sure–but remember that the dragon was only put in another dimension to match an assertion made about “god” in an attempt to fight the hypothetical. The point is not that I’m invested in (or particularly proposing) an interdimensional dragon, but that I’m proposing a dragon that cannot be trivially distinguished from “god” by saying “well, the dragon is on earth and “god” isn’t” > [@](#): > > Yes that’s exactly right. I don’t think there might be a higher power just because, hey, why not? It’s true that that line of thinking would apply just as much to the IPU. This is exactly the point of the hypothetical–to determine if the argument is evidence-based, or if it is merely a “hey, why not” argument–and if it is the second, to rebut it fiercely (as is entirely appropriate–it’s a silly argument) because it could apply equally to the IPU (not that many people pushing the “open mind” argument are willing to acknowledge that it applies equally well to the IPU). > [@](#): > > The infinite nature of time and space is something I just can’t wrap my mind around, and I don’t think any other person can either. It wouldn’t sound too likely either if we didn’t know it had to be true. So we have no idea what is behind that, but we do know it’s something our minds can’t conceive of. Doesn’t that make it beyond the scope of science? I strongly disagree that anything’s beyond the scope of science. Beyond the scope of now-known science, sure–but beyond that, aren’t you making an assumption about, as you put it, the infinite nature of time and space, by saying it’s never going to be understandable by humans, ever? I think that statement makes exactly the error you seem to be challenging–it makes an assumption about the nature about the not-currently understood, with no support for so doing. > [@](#): > > Yes we do 🙂 And that may be a risky argument for those advocating “open minds”–but we can, and should objectively consider the evidence in favor of a higher power. > [@](#): > > I didn’t mean that we can’t detect the higher power because we’re not smart enough, I meant that we know for a fact that there ARE things that we can’t imagine. At this time. That’s all, by your own contention, that we can know now–that we can’t imagine at this time. > [@](#): > > There’s something going on that we’re incapable of comprehending. I don’t see why it would be unlikely that some type of higher power is in the mix. Again, unknown doesn’t to me mean unknowable. In fact, you shouldn’t take a view on whether the unknown is unknowable specifically because you don’t know what it is. Black holes, quasars, and so on were unknown to galileo. Unknowable, they were not, as we now know them well. Just because something is unknown, perhaps even unimagined, at the present time just plain says nothing about whether it is knowable or not. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/131 "2010-06-20T22:05:22Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > And like I said, I don’t worship this vague thing that may or may not exist, I don’t get my morals from it, I don’t kill people in its name, etc. But I do like to think that there could be some kind of afterlife involving it. Just curious: why would an afterlife involve some kind of higher being? I don’t believe in either, but I suppose that if there’s an afterlife, I imagine it as something “natural”. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/132 "2010-06-20T22:10:33Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > Well, I would say that the fact that there are things about the universe that we could never hope to understand is evidence that there could be powers we can’t understand. Sure. A lot of believers mention that (at this point in time at least) humans don’t understand everything - what pre-existed the big bang for ex. But that is no surprise if you assume there is no reason the universe got to this point for the sake of being understood by humans - or that humane exist for the purpose of understanding the universe. I’m not sure “understanding the universe” confers a significant evolutionary advantage… Most atheists think that humans are simply animals. The universe was not made for my golden retrievers to understand… Many believers seem to think humans are something special. Even if you wish to separate the 2 questions of god’s existence and his action, do you see any evidence of either? And, do you see any evidence of one particular god(s} over any other? The fact that gods come in and out of vogue, and that so many are downright silly in their specifics, I find contributes to the “no god” side of the ledger. Do you agree that man has the ability to make things up - for any number of reasons? Does that not strike you as a much more likely explanation for a god belief than whatever “magical” explanation? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/133 "2010-06-20T22:18:08Z")
> [@Dinsdale](#): > > Sure. A lot of believers mention that (at this point in time at least) humans don’t understand everything - what pre-existed the big bang for ex. But that is no surprise if you assume there is no reason the universe got to this point for the sake of being understood by humans - or that humane exist for the purpose of understanding the universe. I’m not sure “understanding the universe” confers a significant evolutionary advantage… > > Most atheists think that humans are simply animals. The universe was not made for my golden retrievers to understand… Many believers seem to think humans are something special. This is also quite a good response to the “universe is unknowable” argument–that any failure of knowledge is down to our inability to perceive it. To take it a step further–if humans really were special, and were created by some kind of higher power, doesn’t it seem like that higher power has failed, or is flawed, because it has put us in a world that we can’t perceive, understand, or imagine fully? > [@](#): > > Do you agree that man has the ability to make things up - for any number of reasons? Does that not strike you as a much more likely explanation for a god belief than whatever “magical” explanation? Exactly! now that we’re evaluating probabilities, we have to take this one into account–and from my own viewpoint, I agree that this seems far more likely than the actual existence of a higher power (especially given the huge number of inconsistent stories about gods that fill humanity’s past). ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/134 "2010-06-20T22:54:11Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > I strongly disagree that anything’s beyond the scope of science. Beyond the scope of now-known science, sure–but beyond that, aren’t you making an assumption about, as you put it, the infinite nature of time and space, by saying it’s never going to be understandable by humans, ever? I think that statement makes exactly the error you seem to be challenging–it makes an assumption about the nature about the not-currently understood, with no support for so doing. I just don’t see how it could ever possibly make sense to us that the universe has no end. I don’t believe it’s something we can maybe figure out someday. I’m no scientist (so correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t know of anything that’s ever been so incomprehensible on such a basic level, but then science solved the mystery. There are a lot of scientific facts that seem amazing, maybe hard to believe, hard to understand…but IMPOSSIBLE? I think our brains would have to change in some fundamental way for us to be able to grasp the concept of infinity. Take time travel as an example. I don’t think it’s possible and if it is, I sure haven’t the slightest clue how it could be done…but I can IMAGINE it happening. Maybe someday people will figure out how to do it. My brain doesn’t get stuck like when I try to think about the universe never ending, or else ending, and then…? > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Just curious: why would an afterlife involve some kind of higher being? I don’t believe in either, but I suppose that if there’s an afterlife, I imagine it as something “natural”. How could it be something natural though? We know what happens to us physically when we die. > [@Dinsdale](#): > > Sure. A lot of believers mention that (at this point in time at least) humans don’t understand everything - what pre-existed the big bang for ex. But that is no surprise if you assume there is no reason the universe got to this point for the sake of being understood by humans - or that humane exist for the purpose of understanding the universe. I’m not sure “understanding the universe” confers a significant evolutionary advantage… > > Most atheists think that humans are simply animals. The universe was not made for my golden retrievers to understand… Many believers seem to think humans are something special. You make an interesting point. I’ll have to think about it some more. And I don’t think humans are special either. > [@](#): > > Even if you wish to separate the 2 questions of god’s existence and his action, do you see any evidence of either? And, do you see any evidence of one particular god(s} over any other? No, I don’t believe in any specific god, because I can’t see any evidence of one. As I’ve been saying, I do see evidence though of something that I think is beyond the scope of science. > [@](#): > > The fact that gods come in and out of vogue, and that so many are downright silly in their specifics, I find contributes to the “no god” side of the ledger. > > Do you agree that man has the ability to make things up - for any number of reasons? Does that not strike you as a much more likely explanation for a god belief than whatever “magical” explanation? Humans definitely can and do make things up. There have to be all kinds of things made up about various gods, since they can’t all be true. But none of that is the basis for my belief that there could possibly exist a higher power of some kind. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/135 "2010-06-20T23:04:56Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > How could it be something natural though? We know what happens to us physically when we die. I meant “natural” as in “innate”; something that happens to everyone/thing. As far as I understand it, most believers in an afterlife assume a concept of “soul” or “spirit” that persists after death. Meaning there’s _something_ that everybody already has when they’re alive that you “keep” when you die. I’m not at all certain what a “soul” is, though I’ve tried, and the result of that is that I now believe nobody has a good definition of it, but anyway, _if_ we (as in humans, to get rid of at least part of the problems) all have souls that can persist after death, I don’t see what any kind of higher power has to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/136 "2010-06-20T23:08:41Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > I just don’t see how it could ever possibly make sense to us that the universe has no end. I don’t believe it’s something we can maybe figure out someday. I’m no scientist (so correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t know of anything that’s ever been so incomprehensible on such a basic level, but then science solved the mystery. Well, I’d disagree that infinity is particularly incomprehensible to “us”. To you, to many people, sure, but I’m not willing to generalize about humanity based on your own experience–especially as mine differs. To me, infinity–something that goes on forever is not particularly complicated. Weird, sure, but conceptually complicated, I disagree. How many numbers are there on a number line? Sixth-graders can understand that. If you want examples, how about general relativity, quantum mechanics, the workings of the cell, as things that were incomprehensible on a basic level, but are now understood. But beyond that, surely you agree that incomprehensible to you just plain doesn’t mean incomprehensible to anyone, everywhere. Maybe you just don’t understand it. And unless infinity is incomprehensible to anyone, everywhere, it’s just not evidence of a higher being. The argument from personal incredulity just isn’t a very strong argument–especially when you try to generalize from that incredulity. > [@](#): > > There are a lot of scientific facts that seem amazing, maybe hard to believe, hard to understand…but IMPOSSIBLE? Assumes it’s impossible. > [@](#): > > I think our brains would have to change in some fundamental way for us to be able to grasp the concept of infinity. Because you can’t grasp it, here and now? I just see no basis for this conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/137 "2010-06-20T23:15:53Z")
> [@Blackberry](#): > > I just don’t see how it could ever possibly make sense to us that the universe has no end. I don’t believe it’s something we can maybe figure out someday. I’m no scientist (so correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t know of anything that’s ever been so incomprehensible on such a basic level, but then science solved the mystery. From what I understand (and I’m not a scientist either, just a layman interested in physics) is that nobody knows if the universe is infinite, and actually, many if not most physicists are quite ready to state that they don’t like the idea of an infinite universe. Not just because it makes the maths more or less impossible to deal with, but also because a truly infinite universe would make _everything_ that’s possible not just plausible but _certain_ to exist. And that includes planets covered in chocolate. What we know is that, given the age of the universe, we can’t “see” the edge - we can see as far back as it’s possible to see. And there might not even be an edge, even if the universe is finite (the universe might “wrap around”, though it seems unlikely on any scale we can measure, IIRC, again, I’m not a physicist). ETA: if you mean “end” as in “end in time”, there appears to quite probably be one. ---
**Author:** ![Blackberry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecd19e/32.png) [@Blackberry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackberry)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/138 "2010-06-20T23:17:32Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I meant “natural” as in “innate”; something that happens to everyone/thing. As far as I understand it, most believers in an afterlife assume a concept of “soul” or “spirit” that persists after death. Meaning there’s _something_ that everybody already has when they’re alive that you “keep” when you die. > > I’m not at all certain what a “soul” is, though I’ve tried, and the result of that is that I now believe nobody has a good definition of it, but anyway, _if_ we (as in humans, to get rid of at least part of the problems) all have souls that can persist after death, I don’t see what any kind of higher power has to do with it. Well, yeah, if there’s an afterlife I would think it would be for everyone. And it wouldn’t need a “god” exactly…but if there’s an afterlife then that must mean there is some supernatural stuff going on, which would be a type of higher power, I think? I wasn’t thinking of it as some personified God, necessarily. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/139 "2010-06-20T23:18:03Z")
I can imagine an infinite universe with no planets covered in chocolate… ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777/140 "2010-06-20T23:22:28Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > I can imagine an infinite universe with no planets covered in chocolate… You can imagine one, but in a truly infinite universe, how would you prevent planets covered in chocolate from forming? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-are-you-so-sure-of-your-non-belief/543777.md?page=8)