# Atheists, why debate christians? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681 "2011-08-30T21:49:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**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:** [September 3, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/381 "2011-09-03T18:59:35Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I’m not suggesting that you should _conclude_ the universe is deliberately created. I’m suggesting that I don’t see a valid reason to reject that possibility entirely. And I don’t see any reasonable grounds to make any _safe_ assumption as it’s to it’s relative likelihood either. The question really isn’t whether or not you should reject the possibility-it’s whether or not you should seriously _entertain_ the possibility. If you want to get meta enough, you could spend your lifetime entertaining all the different possibilities as to what might jump out from under your bed if you dare to get up…but life is too short to be wasting time contemplating possibilities for which no evidence has come forth. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/382 "2011-09-03T19:12:37Z")
Like I said, I don’t see any justification to consider it an unlikely prospect either. My own experience tells me that “created” vs “not created” is an important question. I don’t see my own experience as being particularly helpful here, and I suspect that this may be an important issue when considering the prevalence of theistic belief, but I certainly don’t have any _other_ experience to replace that with. I’m right with you on the conclusion that it may not be appropriate to seriously entertain the prospect that the universe is a space alien. On what basis though do you conclude that it is not appropriate to even _entertain_ the prospect that the universe has been created? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/383 "2011-09-03T19:36:14Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > How then do you justify entirely rejecting the possibility that the universe was deliberately created without any evidence to the contrary? In your own experience a significant subset of things that exist are things are created. Because that explanation immediately raises the question “Who created the creator?” At some point there must be an uncaused cause. \*Something \*had to spontaneously spring into existence. We know the universe exists. We don’t know that gods exist. So if something has to spring spontaneously into existence, it’s more plausible to say the universe did. > [@](#): > > I’m not suggesting that you should conclude the universe is deliberately created. I’m suggesting that I don’t see a valid reason to reject that possibility entirely. I don’t reject the possibility entirely. I just put it in the some category as sock gnomes. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/384 "2011-09-03T19:41:18Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > On what basis though do you conclude that it is not appropriate to even _entertain_ the prospect that the universe has been created? There are an infinite number of unsupported hypotheticals and human life is finite. Do you also spend time contemplating the invisible unicorn in your garage? You know, he’s a very wise unicorn and has the capacity to bring about an earthly utopia if enough people believe in him. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/385 "2011-09-03T19:42:13Z")
A “creator” is a total non-starter because it’s regressive. It doesn’t explain anything. It just unnecessarily adds another thing that needs to be explained. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/386 "2011-09-03T19:57:00Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > " At some point there must be an uncaused cause. \*Something \*had to spontaneously spring into existence. But maybe there isn’t a first cause. Maybe the universe has always existed. Forever expanding and then collapsing in upon itself again, until another Big Bang occurs. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/387 "2011-09-03T20:07:59Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t reject the possibility entirely. I just put it in the some category as sock gnomes. You seem to be suggesting that all none verifiable hypotheses are equally unlikely. > [@](#): > > A “creator” is a total non-starter because it’s regressive. It doesn’t explain anything. It just unnecessarily adds another thing that needs to be explained. It does nothing to render the hypothesis invalid either, unless you feel compelled to explain the ultimate origin of everything. You can’t reject the hypothesis that a chair that you are sitting on has been created just because that doesn’t immediately answer all further questions. The chair was created, the answer is regressive, but it’s not forced to be infinitely regressive. “Turtles all the way down” is silly, but it doesn’t absolutey deny the ability of turtles to stand on each other. Based on my imperfectly applicable experience I conclude that “was the universe created?” is an important question. What the hell are you basing the conclusion that it _isn’t_ on? If we don’t get to use our imperfectly applicable experience, we might as well give up on the whole thing, which incidentally means that rejecting _anything_ is just as pointless as not rejecting anything. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/388 "2011-09-03T20:08:16Z")
I actually think enigmatic is just being precise with language here. I agree that it is strictly correct to say that we can’t prove that there is no creator god or other similar being. In practical terms though, doing that makes no difference to our daily lives, we end up with billions of conceivable fantasies and absurdities that, to be perfectly fair and accurate, we cannot say do not exist. We do, however, treat the world as if they do not exist until given good reason to do otherwise…so far? good reason is lacking. Into that pot I lump creator beings, individual deities and santa claus. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/389 "2011-09-03T20:15:02Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > You seem to be suggesting that all none verifiable hypotheses are equally unlikely. All supernatural ones are. > [@](#): > > It does nothing to render the hypothesis invalid either The fact that it doesn’t explain anything makes it invalid as a hypothesis. > [@](#): > > It does nothing to render the hypothesis invalid either, unless you feel compelled to explain the ultimate origin of everything. > > You can’t reject the hypothesis that a chair that you are sitting on has been created just because that doesn’t immediately answer all further questions. The chair was created, the answer is regressive, but it’s not forced to be infinitely regressive. > > “Turtles all the way down” is silly, but it doesn’t absolutey deny the ability of turtles to stand on each other. > > Based on my imperfectly applicable experience I conclude that “was the universe created?” is an important question. What the hell are you basing the conclusion that it _isn’t_ on? That it’s logically impossible. Any magical “creator” fairy you want to postulate has to be part of the “universe.” It’s meaningless and pointless to speculate about it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/390 "2011-09-03T20:25:22Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > You seem to be suggesting that all none verifiable hypotheses are equally unlikely. Not at all. But a supreme being is a pretty far-fetched idea. It violates numerous fundamental physical laws. In order for a supreme being do exist, most of what we know about the universe has to be wrong. That’s a pretty big stretch. Sock gnomes are less outrageous. > [@](#): > > You can’t reject the hypothesis that a chair that you are sitting on has been created just because that doesn’t immediately answer all further questions. But I \*don’t \*reject the hypothesis that the chair was created. I have a wealth of evidence that that the chair was created. I can see marks where parts of it were machined. I can go visit chair factories where other chairs are made. I believe the chair was created because I have evidence that it was. However, I do reject the hypothesis that the chair was poofed into existence by God right before I saw it in the store. It’s \*possible \*that’s where the chair came from. However I have no reason to believe such an outlandish thing. Do you believe that its possible that each piece of furniture in your house was spontaneously crafted by angels the moment before you first saw it? > [@](#): > > Based on my imperfectly applicable experience I conclude that “was the universe created?” is an important question. What the hell are you basing the conclusion that it _isn’t_ on? There’s no evidence that it was. If it was created, like a chair, I’d expect there to be some “craftsman’s marks” like the chair has. As far as we can tell, it has none. > [@](#): > > If we don’t get to use our imperfectly applicable experience, we might as well give up on the whole thing, which incidentally means that rejecting _anything_ is just as pointless as not rejecting anything. As I said, there are literally an infinity of unsupported hypotheses. You could spend 24 hours a day contemplating evidence-free possibilities. Critical thought is the process of rejecting the unsupportable. The fact that something is \*possible \*is meaningless. What matters is if that possibility has evidence back it up. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/391 "2011-09-03T20:25:22Z")
> [@](#): > > The fact that it doesn’t explain anything makes it invalid as a hypothesis. The hypothesis that someone created the chair you are sitting on is invalid because it doesn’t explain the existence of carpentry? > [@](#): > > That it’s logically impossible. Any magical “creator” fairy you want to postulate has to be part of the “universe.” It’s meaningless and pointless to speculate about it. That’s like arguing that any magical “carpenter” you might postulate has to be part of the “chair”. How exactly is it “logically impossible” for the universe to have been created? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/392 "2011-09-03T20:32:18Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I agree that it is strictly correct to say that we can’t prove that there is no creator god or other similar being. I would say that we can’t prove ANY a posteriori knowledge. We can’t PROVE Barack Obama is President or that the Earth orbits the Sun. All we can do is create provisional explanations that agree with observations and correctly predict future events. The fact that the non-existence of God can’t be proved like a mathematical theorem means nothing. If you adopt such an extreme standard for truth, you can’t make ANY claim about the nature of reality, even a fundamental one like “I am sitting in a chair right now.” ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/393 "2011-09-03T20:37:54Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I would say that we can’t prove ANY a posteriori knowledge. We can’t PROVE Barack Obama is President or that the Earth orbits the Sun. All we can do is create provisional explanations that agree with observations and correctly predict future events. > > The fact that the non-existence of God can’t be proved like a mathematical theorem means nothing. If you adopt such an extreme standard for truth, you can’t make ANY claim about the nature of reality, even a fundamental one like “I am sitting in a chair right now.” I agree, I merely concede that point in theory so that the conversation might move on. In practice, as you rightly say, allowing such an extreme position to stifle discussion gets us no-where. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/394 "2011-09-03T20:38:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Not at all. But a supreme being is a pretty far-fetched idea. It violates numerous fundamental physical laws. There is no reason to assume that something that can create a university would be subject to it’s fundamental physical laws. > [@](#): > > But I don’t reject the hypothesis that the chair was created. I have a wealth of evidence that that the chair was created. I can see marks where parts of it were machined. I can go visit chair factories where other chairs are made. I believe the chair was created because I have evidence that it was. I bow to your superior and absolute knowledge of the tell tales signs of universe machining. > [@](#): > > As I said, there are literally an infinity of unsupported hypotheses. You could spend 24 hours a day contemplating evidence-free possibilities. Critical thought is the process of rejecting the unsupportable. The fact that something is possible is meaningless. What matters is if that possibility has evidence back it up. Critical thought, combined with my actual experience tells me that the question of deliberate construction is a more valid one to apply to an object than assertaining it’s status as an extraterrestrial or sock gnome. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/395 "2011-09-03T20:51:06Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I bow to your superior and absolute knowledge of the tell tales signs of universe machining. Please don’t. What features of the universe do you believe imply deliberate construction? > [@](#): > > Critical thought, combined with my actual experience tells me that the question of deliberate construction is a more valid one to apply to an object than assertaining it’s status as an extraterrestrial or sock gnome. Why? The existence of sock gnomes would be a pretty amazing revelation if true. Another sentient species sharing the planet with us! With access to magic or technology allowing them to survive undetected for so long! It would be an earth-shaking discovery, and far more relevant to our day-to-day lives that the isolated actions of a remote creator god billions of years ago. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/396 "2011-09-03T20:53:01Z")
> [@](#): > > In practice, as you rightly say, allowing such an extreme position to stifle discussion gets us no-where. If you think that “I am unwilling to reject the possibility that the universe was created” is an extreme position, I can only conclude you are new to this theology shit 😃 I have no intention to stifle debate on this stuff, I’m just somewhat bewildered at the level of vitriol people seem to direct at the suggestion we are allowed to even _consider_ the possibility of a creator. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/397 "2011-09-03T21:00:14Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > If you think that “I am unwilling to reject the possibility that the universe was created” is an extreme position, I can only conclude you are new to this theology shit. It’s only an extreme position if you apply a different epistemological standard to God than you do to any other hypothetical entity. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/398 "2011-09-03T21:05:32Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > I have no intention to stifle debate on this stuff, I’m just somewhat bewildered at the level of vitriol people seem to direct at the suggestion we are allowed to even _consider_ the possibility of a creator. It’s not the \*considering \*that the problem. It’s the refusal to move past considering to \*rejecting \*that’s frustrating. Particularly because agnostics have no problem considering and rejecting countless other similarly unsupported (but still possible) hypotheses on a daily basis. Nobody’s agnostic about the unicorn in the garage, or the sock gnomes, or the country of Yugopotamia, or Earth’s other two moons, even though, using the standards of truth you’re proposing, these should all be propositions open to debate. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2011, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/399 "2011-09-03T21:19:25Z")
God, if defined as any type of entity involved in the hypothetically deliberate creation of an object of verified existence, to whit, the universe. This would seem to cover a much broader range of possibilities than “I believe in sock gnomes entirely on the basis of the fact that my socks are missing” We are going in circles here. Like I said, I am not arguing that the universe was created, I’m merely arguing that it is not appropriate to reject that possibility. And now I’m going to bed. ---
**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:** [September 3, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681/400 "2011-09-03T21:28:10Z")
> [@enigmatic](#): > > God, if defined as any type of entity involved in the hypothetically deliberate creation of an object of verified existence, to whit, the universe. > > This would seem to cover a much broader range of possibilities than “I believe in sock gnomes entirely on the basis of the fact that my socks are missing” > > We are going in circles here. Like I said, I am not arguing that the universe was created, I’m merely arguing that it is not appropriate to reject that possibility. > > And now I’m going to bed. You are saying that because the “God” possibility is large, it must be given more consideration than other possibilities, but this makes no sense, because it totally disregards such things as _probabilities_ and _evidence_. Using this logic, I must give the possibility of the Earth having an ancient civilization living at it’s core more weight than the possibility that the beer in my refrigerator is cold, just because it’s a larger concept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-why-debate-christians/594681.md?page=21)