Ask an atheist

[Flying Pig]

Q: Why did the universe form and what is it for?
A: The questions do not make sense in the context of the universe: there was nothing for it to come from and why does it need a reason?

Funnily enough, that's exactly the answer that an Anglican Christian will give you!

 

[brennan]

Pfeh not even an Anglican can tell you what an Anglican actually believes in.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I claimed nothing of the sort, I claimed that there is no structure to the universe beyond that that to be expected from it's underlying laws, therefore the suggestion that it was designed appears flawed.

And I have pointed out that you have not provided a reason why god should design a universe different from what the underlying laws

Further to this when asked what sort of structure I would expect I asked what it is for, since knowledge of the purpose of a designed object it needed in order to determine what possible forms it might take.

And I'm under no obligation to provide an answer to what I don't know. You claimed the same right before.
I do not know god's purpose for the Universe.
However, you evidently don't know god's purpose either. Or at any rate, what a hypothetical God's Purpose for the universe would be, and by your own admission here, without knowing this, you can't know what form a universe designed by god would take. And therefor you can't meaningfully say that the universe shows no signs of design, because you don't know what signs of design look like.

Incorrect, I posited that I would be able to understand HOW God COULD eat an apple, whatever the details might be,

Ah, then you're not claiming that it is easy to know the will and way of god. You are only claiming that if the will and the way of god were made evident, you would understand it. Plausible, I will say, but that still doesn't get us any closer to the central problem: do you know the way and the will of god? I am certain that if god made his purpose of the universe evident to you, you could see if there is perhaps some fault in the universe according to his plans.
But you don't know his plans, or what his plans would be if he existed,

You have not given me any parameters with which to comment, despite being asked for them.

And I cannot give you them. My point is that you have

Any pattern I could describe would however be inconsistent with the known fact that there is NO SUCH PATTERN:

This is not an established fact. This is your claim. I am asking how you reconcile this with your admission that you have no paremeters for knowing what a pattern looks like. I can say there is no evidence where we expect it of a Unicorn, because I know what to expect from a Unicorn. Footprints that look like such, hair that looks like such, and a physical form that looks like such.
What you are attempting to do is claim the non-existence of x, based on the lack of evidence for x. You have no idea what x is, and you have no idea what sort of evidence x would leave in it's wake, and so of course you find none. That does not mean that there is no evidence of x.

Why all the waste of space and matter? If I were an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being

And how would you know what it is like to be an omnibenevolent being? If you can handle such a grand task as establish the most moral of all universes, I'm sure you can now settle decisively the most moral of all actions, in any number of matters. Surely if you know how to organize the entire universe, you know how to organize human society, human families, and the most basic of human actions. Surely you should be sharing your insights into perfect moral action in these fields, rather then stellar organization.

I would perhaps create a universe in which all the matter were clumped into simple systems where a single planet orbited a small star at just the right distance to support life comfortably. There would be no carnivores to promote the general wellbeing and to reduce suffering across the animal kingdom (and also reduce the tendency of sentient beings to compete violently).

The universe manifestly does not have any such 'designed' characteristics. Vast stretches of space and colossal amounts of matter are wasted and there is pain and suffering in abundance. So I say again that the observed characteristics of the universe, inefficient and cruel as it is, is inconsistent with the grand design of a creator being; especially an omnipotent, omnibenevolent one.

This is nothing but the most crass hubris. You have a god, and it is you. You believe you have the answers to all moral questions (via your working knowledge of Omnibenevolence), and you are offended that the Universe has not conformed to your will.

 

[brennan]

And I have pointed out that you have not provided a reason why god should design a universe different from what the underlying laws

Here's 1: Because what we've got is blatantly sub optimum, which is pretty poor going for mr 'omnipotent and omnibenevolent'. Pretty sure i've said similar before so please don't pretend I haven't.

However, you evidently don't know god's purpose either. Or at any rate, what a hypothetical God's Purpose for the universe would be, and by your own admission here, without knowing this, you can't know what form a universe designed by god would take. And therefor you can't meaningfully say that the universe shows no signs of design, because you don't know what signs of design look like.

Piffle, I can readily suggest alternatives that have elements of design. See last post. No sign of such elements around here. No God.

This is not an established fact. This is your claim.

Er, no. See research on anisotropy of the microwave background (no large scale patterns), fractal clumping of matter in the universe (mathematically expected in random systems). No evidence that an omnipotent being has been hard at work making everything, just insanely vast tracts of space with a smattering of dust.

how would you know what it is like to be an omnibenevolent being?

I don't, clearly, but you say that I cannot guess, and I clearly can. You claim that I cannot make any suggestions, when I can and I have; finally you resort to claims of hubris, and I laugh at how bankrupt your argument has become.
Your position is based upon the irrelevant premise that I cannot know the mind of God, I don't have to know the morals and philosophy of an architect to tell a cave from a house.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Here's 1: Because what we've got is blatantly sub optimum,

If you can't establish the Optimum, how can you establish what is beneath it.

Piffle, I can readily suggest alternatives that have elements of design. See last post. No sign of such elements around here. No God.

You have suggested alternatives that are elements of a design. You have not suggested parameter for all possible designed universes.
I am communicating with you via computer. I can tell it has no design behind it because it has no joystick. If I were to design a computer, it would have a joystick. I'm suggest an alternative that has elements of design. No such elements here, no designer of the computer.

No evidence that an omnipotent being has been hard at work making everything, just insanely vast tracts of space with a smattering of dust.

No signs of the pattern failing either, because you haven't established what pattern we're looking for.

I don't, clearly, but you say that I cannot guess, and I clearly can.

So now you're basing your lack of belief in god on your suppositions about god's nature. You realize the irony here don't you? That you have a more dogmatic conception of God then I?

You claim that I cannot make any suggestions, when I can and I have;

You cannot make any grounded suggestions, which you haven't. You have presented your view of what the universe should be. Everyone can do that. But you haven't established that your world is the perfect one, just one you'd like.
You didn't demonstrate your world was perfect, or even a very good one.
Your world would have a boring night sky, would lack means for sailors to navigate the world, would lack Star Trek, and eventually, would lack any further support for your species once they overdeveloped, leading them to deplete their resources and collapse, or relegate themselves to a lower level of development, until their sun consumed their planet, destroying everything. They would never pass level I on the Kardashev scale. Of course, this is all assuming that in a world without predators anything of higher intelligence would actually develop. Not only would there be no need for higher intelligence to outcompete other predators and to catch prey, there would be no reason to develop higher intelligence as a defense. The sum total of competition would be to reproduce more rapidly, or to grow larger in an effort to consume more plants.
Of course, even this is allowing for evolution. Considering your prohibition on carnivores, that seems to be a world without mutation.
So there is your perfect world: A piece of rock, orbiting a ball of gas, with a bit of lichen and some primitive animals munching on it, for a short period time on the astronomical scale, with nothing ever changing or being aware of existence.
Sound like a lovely world.

What you haven't finally you resort to claims of hubris, and I laugh at how bankrupt your argument has become.

You have claimed knowledge of what a person would do, if they were to choose the most moral action of all, for all beings, all the time. This is laying claim to divine knowledge. Not knowledge I'm saying belongs to god, but knowledge that qualifies you as a god. Interestingly enough, if you claim this knowledge, but don't claim to be perfect in all your actions, it suggests you consciously commit evil, so there's that.

Your position is based upon the irrelevant premise that I cannot know the mind of God, I don't have to know the morals and philosophy of an architect to tell a cave from a house.

You need to know architecture though. And what you've demonstrated is that not only can you not describe your ideal house, that this fails to live up to, but that you can't even describe the nails or wood that a house should be constructed out of, and you've avoided every attempt to describe them, and when asked to describe what a house should look like, you came up with something that fell apart.

 

[brennan]

That's pretty poor Park. My arguments do not rely on the specifics given in those examples, merely the fact that such examples can be given. Tbh i'd have thought that was obvious. If I can imagine matter being more specifically organised then that shows that what we have is sub optimum without needing to reference what the optimum is and frankly all I have to do is suggest a second atom per cubic centimetre, so it's not even a challenge.

you haven't established what pattern we're looking for

No, but we have established that there are no patterns in large scale matter distribution beyond what we would predict to occur randomly, are you even paying attention? Your argument is like me saying i've finished my dinner because my plate is empty and you claiming I just haven't seen a pea yet. (God of the gaps much?)

Boring? My worlds would be packed closer together, for efficiency, and therefore be much more interesting than what we currently have. tbh it would probably be easier to navigate with great big reference points right across the sky. Arguing in favour of evolution seems to me only to weaken your argument for a designer/creator, and what makes you think my omnipotent creator can't change the rules of evolution?

You have claimed knowledge of what a person would do, if they were to choose the most moral action of all, for all beings, all the time. This is laying claim to divine knowledge.

Just. No. This is your claim, I feel no need to waste time refuting it beyond asking if God would lay a road differently to a Roman.

You need to know architecture though. And what you've demonstrated is that not only can you not describe your ideal house, that this fails to live up to, but that you can't even describe the nails or wood that a house should be constructed out of, and you've avoided every attempt to describe them, and when asked to describe what a house should look like, you came up with something that fell apart.

Did I describe something or not? You seem confused. Your position (if we stick to this analogy) is that I cannot attempt to describe or imagine a house. Regardless of how well or not you think I did (and I don't think you were even close to what I imagnied judging by your criticism): you were wrong.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's pretty poor Park. My arguments do not rely on the specifics given in those examples, merely the fact that such examples can be given. Tbh i'd have thought that was obvious.

But your argument entirely is entirely based on

If I can imagine matter being more specifically organised then that shows that what we have is sub optimum without needing to reference what the optimum is and frankly all I have to do is suggest a second atom per cubic centimetre, so it's not even a challenge.

Why would that be a more benevolent creation?

No, but we have established that there are no patterns in large scale matter distribution beyond what we would predict to occur randomly,

No, you haven't. You've established patterns do not conform to your single, ill-concieved though experiment.

Your argument is like me saying i've finished my dinner because my plate is empty and you claiming I just haven't seen a pea yet.

My argument is that your a man who doesn't know what a pea is, and you're claiming you haven't seen a pea.

(God of the gaps much?)

I'm beginning to think you don't know what that term means.

Boring? My worlds would be packed closer together, for efficiency,

You keep using that word, when you've already admitted it is logically impossible for any design by an omnipotent being to be inefficient. So you're saying something that you admit by definition is wrong.

and therefore be much more interesting than what we currently have.

Man, Astronomers must love you.

tbh it would probably be easier to navigate with great big reference points right across the sky.

What reference points? There's just the sun. No moon, no stars, no reference points. You still haven't demonstrated that your universe is morally better then ours, or my ideal universe, or anyone else's.
Moreover, this would be equivalent to claiming that anyone else who holds a different idea of an ideal universe is morally wrong. So yes, that's what you have to reach for this to be a pattern for a universe created by god: Establish for us that your universe is perfect, beyond any criticism, and that all of us who do not feel this universe to be ideal, wish for something evil and wrong. You might not want to do that, but that's what you're already claiming if you claim this is what an omnibenevolent being would do.

Arguing in favour of evolution seems to me only to weaken your argument for a designer/creator,

Why? Believing in it seems contrary and what makes you think my omnipotent creator can't change the rules of evolution?[/quote]
If he

Just. No. This is your claim,

No, I can quote you:
"If I were an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being"
Omnibenevolence IS universal moral understanding. If you claim to know that I feel no need to waste time refuting it beyond asking if God would lay a road differently to a Roman.[/quote]
God could, and he might. I see no reason why he would. In fact I've heard plenty of stories about small g gods creating roads very different from Romans, so yeah.

Did I describe something or not? You seem confused. Your position (if we stick to this analogy) is that I cannot attempt to describe or imagine a house. Regardless of how well or not you think I did

(and I don't think you were even close to what I imagnied judging by your criticism):

It was exactly what you described. If you are unhappy with it, that seems to suggest you don't properly understand how you would act if omniscient.

you were wrong.

In this terrible analogy of yours (argument by analogy is usually a sign of a bad thought process) a "house" is an ideal universe as designed by a omnibenevolent being. You described a severely flawed universe, designed by someone with delusions of grandeur. You have not described a "house."

I wonder if we were to apply the same standard of truth to your idea of a spontaneous, not created universe, and see if the universe applies to that.

Fortunately I don't even have to make up a terribly boring universe, I have a "universe not created by god on hand"

There is nothing except for the ice of Niflheim, to the north, and the fire of Muspelheim, to the south. Between them is a yawning gap called Ginnungagap.

Now, to apply your standard, because this is a universe not created by God, it is a metric to look for in a universe not created by god. Since our universe doesn't resemble it, we must assume there is no evidence that god didn't create the universe.

 

[brennan]

Park, stop trying to put words in my mouth about what claims I have made.

Why would that be a more benevolent creation?

Where did I say it was?

Man, Astronomers must love you.

..it was you who retorted to comments about the aesthetics of the night sky, not I. lol.

My argument is that your a man who doesn't know what a pea is, and you're claiming you haven't seen a pea.

Rofl, even if you didn't know what a pea was, an empty plate is still an empty plate.

It was exactly what you described

Well, no, it only seemed to have one world in it, so you made a pretty fundamental fail, and since it was a simple example I could hardly expect you to grasp upon it as some kind of rigorously thought out alternative reality. Which you did. Bizarrely.

argument by analogy is usually a sign of a bad thought process

Please don't resort to insults, I posted for over a page without using an analogy and your arguments seem to refer to them more than mine.

a "house" is an ideal universe as designed by a omnibenevolent being. You described a severely flawed universe, designed by someone with delusions of grandeur. You have not described a "house."

No. A 'house' is simply a created universe (all the other stuff is extra requirements coming from yourself) as opposed to a non-created one. You have stated that I cannot describe elements of universe that would show improved design. I did so and you are resorting to insults.

Now, to apply your standard, because this is a universe not created by God

That is not my standard, my standard is 'created'. Since your example shows a highly ordered distribution of matter I think you make my case for me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Where did I say it was?

By claiming that if you were omnibenevolent you would do that.
Being omnibenevolent means you're making the most moral choice, all the time. By saying you would do something as an omnibenevolent being means that if other people say they would not as an omnipotent being

Rofl, even if you didn't know what a pea was, an empty plate is still an empty plate.

Maybe a pea is the embroidery on the plate. You can't claim there is no pea if you don't know what the pea is.

Well, no, it only seemed to have one world in it, so you made a pretty fundamental fail

I notice now that I missed the key 's' I read it as system, rather then systems. This leads to entirely new problems. Yes every system now runs into the same limit, they can't get past stage I, unless they go to war. Every planet is now already inhabited, in order to advance they must make room, as opposed to our current universe, which seems to be designed with a vast multitude of planets, bountiful with resources, to a relatively small number of inhabited worlds, allowing each of them to expand beyond their home world.

and since it was a simple example I could hardly expect you to grasp upon it as some kind of rigorously thought out alternative reality. Which you did. Bizarrely.

Because this was supposed to be the pattern that you claim to have not found. Your entire argument is based on the universe not resembling the one you have come up with. The fact that you didn't even consider what this created universe was supposed to look like until now shows how tortured your logic is: You have claimed there is no pattern because it didn't resemble something that you didn't come up with until after you had come to your conclusion that the universe didn't resemble it.

No. A 'house' is simply a created universe (all the other stuff is extra requirements coming from yourself) as opposed to a non-created one.

Oh, well if you remove omnibenovence that's even harder to demonstrate that this is not what you'd expect from a created universe. If you do that, the only pattern we need to find is that the universe might be moderately useful, for anyone, of indescribably various and potentially alien mindsets, and it has reached the criteria of "what you would expect from a created world."

You have stated that I cannot describe elements of universe that would show improved design.

I said you cannot describe elements of a universe that would show the design of an omnibenevolent design.

That is not my standard, my standard is 'created'. Since your example shows a highly ordered distribution of matter I think you make my case for me.

So you're now saying the Universe we live in does not meet the criteria of a non-created universe? Because one is all the same for created universe, the same standard applies to uncreated one. As for the comparison, I'd say our universe has a much more complex organization of matter. Matter being composed of energy, taking various forms, organizing themselves into the same shapes repeatedly.
Far more organized then shapeless essences in to vague directions.

 

[brennan]

If you are redefining a 'pea' as not even food then I think my argument can stand.

This leads to entirely new problems.

What no development without war? What a nasty opinion of sentient life you have. This even flies in the face of some of the detail I gave so is inconsistent.

It is irrelevant exactly what created universe I or you conjure up, the significant factor is that the matter/energy within it is highly organised at a macroscopic level, which is why the universe I suggested and the one you suggested would both show evidence of design and why the universe we live in does not. Please stop trying to play games with which definition of God we use as it is irrelevant to my position.

So you're now saying the Universe we live in does not meet the criteria of a non-created universe

... you have this exactly 100% wrong i'm afraid. Our universe shows no sign of long range order, as I have said. You are free to disagree, but you would be with the flat earthers.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If you are redefining a 'pea' as not even food then I think my argument can stand.

Again with your absolutely dreadful analogies, which I have to explain back to you.
In this case the "pea" would be evidence of gods plan which was "dinner", you claimed you had not seen the "pea" and therefor there was no "dinner", my point was that you do not know what evidence of gods plan "a pea" is, because you don't know what the plan is, "dinner", as such you cannot meaningfully say that you haven't seen a pea "evidence" because you wouldn't even know it if you looked at it.
You responded that this didn't matter because the plate is empty. The plate is...well it's nothing, you got bogged down in arguing your analogy rather then the point, but I ran with it and pointed out that if you don't know what a pea is, it could even be on an empty plate, and you wouldn't know it.

What no development without war? What a nasty opinion of sentient life you have.

It doesn't matter what kind of life you stick on it. You can't get more energy out of one planet and one sun without more then one planet and one son.

This even flies in the face of some of the detail I gave so is inconsistent.

Yes, your theory that without predators in our ancestry we'd get along.

It is irrelevant exactly what created universe I or you conjure up, the significant factor is that the matter/energy within it is highly organised at a macroscopic level,

Why? Why is this necessary as part of the plan? What plan would even need this? The fact that God has better taste then to arrange the universe like a suburban urban planning committee is hardly evidence that the world is without a creator. Suppose god wanted to make a really big explosion because, like us, he likes explosions. He'd have gotten that out of this universe without organizing it into plots because he wanted to blow something up, and he's still getting that.

Please stop trying to play games with which definition of God we use as it is irrelevant to my position.

"I don't care about what I'm claiming changes, that's irrelevant to my position."

... you have this exactly 100% wrong i'm afraid. Our universe shows no sign of long range order, as I have said.

But that's immaterial to whether it shows a pattern of creation. Your obsession with long range geometric planning does not extend to all other beings, much less all other possible beings, in all their creations.

 

[emzie]

I don't know enough about cosmology to say much there, but there's plenty of examples in biology that weigh against a designer, or at least a competent designer.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't know enough about cosmology to say much there, but there's plenty of examples in biology that weigh against a designer, or at least a competent designer.

Or a designer that is actually still tinkering with his creations this far down the evolutionary line, and as I've explained the idea that He does that is quite ridiculous.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't know enough about cosmology to say much there, but there's plenty of examples in biology that weigh against a designer, or at least a competent designer.

Could you pls give an example. The way I believe/understand the evolution in relation to God is that there is actualy special conscious force which take care of it and God is making sort of adjustment e.g. wipe out of dinosaurs and swich to different evolutionary line.

 

[emzie]

Could you pls give an example. The way I believe/understand the evolution in relation to God is that there is actualy special conscious force which take care of it and God is making sort of adjustment e.g. wipe out of dinosaurs and swich to different evolutionary line.

The nerve that runs to your voice box runs through your heart. So, from you brain, down your neck past your voice box, around your heart, back up your neck to your voice box. To take it to an extreme, that's true for giraffes as well. So a nerve runs down the giraffe's neck, through it's heart, and all the way back up. It's just little thing that demonstrates evolution. There's a lot of little flaws like this across the domain of life.

As to if God ever tinkered with evolution, that's a question that can't be answered in any traditional manner. I don't think it's true but can't demonstrate that so believe what you will.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The way I believe/understand the evolution in relation to God is that there is actualy special conscious force which take care of it

You understand wrong.

 

[timtofly]

The nerve that runs to your voice box runs through your heart. So, from you brain, down your neck past your voice box, around your heart, back up your neck to your voice box. To take it to an extreme, that's true for giraffes as well. So a nerve runs down the giraffe's neck, through it's heart, and all the way back up. It's just little thing that demonstrates evolution. There's a lot of little flaws like this across the domain of life.

As to if God ever tinkered with evolution, that's a question that can't be answered in any traditional manner. I don't think it's true but can't demonstrate that so believe what you will.

How did that nerve evolve? Would that nerve work without the vibration dampening of the beating heart?

 

[Flying Pig]

The nerve that runs to your voice box runs through your heart. So, from you brain, down your neck past your voice box, around your heart, back up your neck to your voice box. To take it to an extreme, that's true for giraffes as well. So a nerve runs down the giraffe's neck, through it's heart, and all the way back up. It's just little thing that demonstrates evolution. There's a lot of little flaws like this across the domain of life.

If we're going down that way, a better example would be male nipples - completely pointless, yet not inconvenient enough to be edited out by evolution.

 

[emzie]

How did that nerve evolve? Would that nerve work without the vibration dampening of the beating heart?

If you look at a fish, a direct path from brain to jaw actually does traverse around the heart. There are limits to what evolution can achieve.

If we're going down that way, a better example would be male nipples - completely pointless, yet not inconvenient enough to be edited out by evolution.

Actually since men retain some mammary tissue, and thus the ability to produce some milk, male nipples make a bit of sense. Maybe. I would be more sure of that statement if other male apes ever breastfed young.

 

[Akka]

Could you pls give an example. The way I believe/understand the evolution in relation to God is that there is actualy special conscious force which take care of it and God is making sort of adjustment e.g. wipe out of dinosaurs and swich to different evolutionary line.

If he doesn't get it right the first time, he's clearly not a designer of godly proportion.
If he's wiping out entire species (and, in fact, built a universe based on "let's have everyone kill each other in order to survive"), he's clearly not benevolent.

The "intelligent design" is just a ridiculous theory based, as usual, on wishful thinking and riddled with more holes than a ton of swiss cheese, but these two points above are sufficient enough to shot down the existence of the biblical god.