# Ok, Atheist. What's the problem? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2010, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025 "2010-06-05T05:54:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Stealth\_Potato](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Stealth\_Potato](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stealth_Potato)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/81 "2010-06-06T17:39:12Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Because an infinite regression of moved movers is impossible. … The syllogism says, simply, that since we cannot have an infinite regression of moved movers, there must be an unmoved mover. As **Mijin** said, we have no reason to believe that an “infinite regression of moved movers” is impossible; and we also have no reason to believe that uncaused things are against the nature of our universe. But more importantly, if we do suppose that there must be at least one uncaused thing, why shouldn’t that thing be the universe? It’s the only thing for whose existence we have any evidence, to begin with. It is no contradiction to suppose that it exists without cause, or that perhaps it caused itself. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/82 "2010-06-06T17:49:39Z")
Also, did you ever meet a designer who could resist going back to tinker with their designs? I haven’t, so why isn’t he still around tinkering with his designs? Y’know, making man a less judgmental, war mongering, prick would be a good place to start. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/83 "2010-06-06T17:51:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Eyes not wired backwards… Curious why you think our eyes are wired backwards? It’s arbitrary, just a flow of information. ---
**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:** [June 6, 2010, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/84 "2010-06-06T18:13:48Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Curious why you think our eyes are wired backwards? It’s arbitrary, just a flow of information. No, it’s bad design to put the nerves in front of the retina where they block the incoming light and create the blind spot. The nerves should be in back, not the front. ---
**Author:** ![Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b38774/32.png) [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Attack_from_the_3rd_dimension)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/85 "2010-06-06T18:18:56Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Curious why you think our eyes are wired backwards? It’s arbitrary, just a flow of information. In the human eye, axons run across the front of the retina, converge at the [optic disc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_disc) and plunge through to the back of the retina to form the optic nerve, creating a blind spot where they converge. As I recall, squid eyes are wired such that the nerves run across the back, with no blind spot. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/86 "2010-06-06T18:19:11Z")
> [@NOLA\_Cajun](#): > > Forget the plethora of world religions and explanations. Because I suspect this “religion” thing is really what turns you off the most. Understandable. Mankind is a sorry representation of “GOD”. > > So let’s just look at it from a more practical point. > > 1. We’re here. (none of this man-made-religious-are-we-really-here-bullshit) > 2. The universe is here. We have even begun to probe the ass of it. > > Doesn’t any of this say “intelligent designer”? No. Quite the opposite, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/87 "2010-06-06T18:24:49Z")
> [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > In the human eye, axons run across the front of the retina, converge at the [optic disc](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_disc) and plunge through to the back of the retina to form the optic nerve, creating a blind spot where they converge. > > As I recall, squid eyes are wired such that the nerves run across the back, with no blind spot. Our eyes also process information upside down - the image has to be flipped at some point. I don’t know if this causes humans any particular vision _problems_ but it’s a needless complication that an intelligent designer would avoid. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/88 "2010-06-06T18:51:54Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > ETA: That’s confirmed by all his subsequent responses: Definitely a joke. I guess it’s too easy to get people riled up here. Who’s riled up? I just see normal responses. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/89 "2010-06-06T19:53:44Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Because an infinite regression of moved movers is impossible. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/90 "2010-06-06T19:59:33Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Because an infinite regression of moved movers is impossible. I can certainly imagine a hypothetical universe’s timeline in which there was an infinite regression of moved movers. It’s mathematically coherent, which is to say it’s not a _logical_ impossibility. So, then, in what sense is it impossible? (For that matter, I can also imagine all kinds of spontaneous movements; there needn’t be just one from which everything else flowed) ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/91 "2010-06-06T20:13:44Z")
> [@NOLA\_Cajun](#): > > btw- how did this drivel evolve into a great debate? > [@Marley23](#): > > In the absence of any kind of clear message from you, people made up their own and started arguing about it. At least I think that’s what happened. I **had** read what suranyi said and considered the (at least) partly-facetious tone, and decided to play debate anyway. For something that was not intended to be taken as opening a Great Debate, it surely has brought up a lot of interesting points about evolution and its naturally (heh) haphazard paths. And about the emptiness of any claim of Intelligent Design working through biological evolution, with many countering examples given. (Abiogenesis may be a different matter, for all I know.) _ **- "Jack’** _ ---
**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:** [June 6, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/92 "2010-06-06T22:04:40Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > For various empirical reasons we don’t believe our universe has had an infinite sequence of events. But in the abstract, _why_ is an infinite chain of cause and effect impossible? Our universe, as you point out (I think), could not logically contain an infinite regression, in that it does not reach back infinitely. In the abstract, it’s a non sequitur by definition. If all that exists are moved movers–entities that can exist in their current state only from a prior cause–the start of that complex chain that exists in time and space is unexplainable. > [@](#): > > We aren’t sure about this. Various quantum events appear spontaneous. Do you have an example? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/93 "2010-06-06T22:22:38Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Our universe, as you point out (I think), could not logically contain an infinite regression, in that it does not reach back infinitely. In the abstract, it’s a non sequitur by definition. If all that exists are moved movers–entities that can exist in their current state only from a prior cause–the start of that complex chain that exists in time and space is unexplainable.Do you have an example? Thanks in advance. Suppose I say that the movement of a ball 1 second ago was the effect of a movement 1.1 seconds ago, which was the effect of a movement 1.11 seconds ago, which was the effect of a movement 1.111 seconds ago, and so on. Is this impossible? Is this not an infinite regression? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/94 "2010-06-06T22:25:27Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Who’s riled up? I just see normal responses. Why respond so vehemently to a message that obviously was not intended to be taken seriously? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/95 "2010-06-07T01:10:49Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Why respond so vehemently to a message that obviously was not intended to be taken seriously? Who responded vehemently? ---
**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:** [June 7, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/96 "2010-06-07T01:11:24Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > Suppose I say that the movement of a ball 1 second ago was the effect of a movement 1.1 seconds ago, which was the effect of a movement 1.11 seconds ago, which was the effect of a movement 1.111 seconds ago, and so on. Is this impossible? Is this not an infinite regression? But you’ll ultimately trace it back to a starting point. It’s “infinite” only in the mathematical sense that you can infinitely slice up a time line into smaller segments (theoretically), but that will not change the fact that the time line started at some set point (just as our universe did). It’s infinite, I suppose, in the same way that there are an infinite number of points in a line segment, but that particular line segment is not infinitely long. ---
**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:** [June 7, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/97 "2010-06-07T01:16:09Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Our universe, as you point out (I think), could not logically contain an infinite regression, in that it does not reach back infinitely. In point of fact, there is no logical or mathematical reason why this cannot be the case. It isn’t necessary for there to be a “start.” ---
**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:** [June 7, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/98 "2010-06-07T01:17:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > But you’ll ultimately trace it back to a starting point. Why do you think there has to be a starting 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:** [June 7, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/99 "2010-06-07T01:58:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > In point of fact, there is no logical or mathematical reason why this cannot be the case. It isn’t necessary for there to be a “start.” How’s that, given a universe composed of moved movers? How might that work? ---
**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:** [June 7, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025/100 "2010-06-07T01:59:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Why do you think there has to be a starting point? Because an infinite regression of moved movers is impossible, of course. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-atheist-whats-the-problem/542025.md?page=6)