Ask an atheist

[brennan]

Around where I live nobody even asks if you are religious or not, it is more or less irrelevant to the way people live their lives.

OT, ah where to start...

Anyone played Black & White? Populous? D&D? The human imagination can easily explore a universe in which various sorts of deity exist and you know what? This isn't one of them.

The human ability to comprehend the world we live in has outgrown the need to explain things in terms of our own sense of self importance - the idea that we make things therefore things have to be made is outdated. The things that we do not understand have retreated to the deepest corners of theoretical research or been debunked, why not God along with the unicorns?

The idea that the universe has to have been created not only leads to a circular argument, but logically a creator with the power to create a universe is a more complicated proposition than the existence of the universe itself. Occams razor requires that the idea be dropped. In addition there is no evidence of any sort of design in the universe itself: it is mostly empty space in which a scattering of miscellaneous particles happen to have clumped into a completely random pattern over billions of years. There is no evidence of any structure or plan and all the old evidence for divine intervention is now understood as part of the scientific paradigm, with no further need of the God hypothesis.

Not only this but our understanding now is that creation itself is built into the very fabric of the universe - virtual particles pop and fizz in and out of a bizarre state of semi existence all the time, a phenomena that has even been measured (see the 'Casimir Effect') and the need for an external creator - whose existence itself is unexplained except for a convenient 'God made himself' becomes even more unnecessary.

1) The God hypothesis is unnecessary to explain anything.
2) The God hypothesis is actually inconsistent with the universe we observe.
3) There is no God. Yes, in exactly the same way as there are no leprechauns.

Now get out there and enjoy your life.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The human ability to comprehend the world we live in has outgrown the need to explain things in terms of our own sense of self importance - the idea that we make things therefore things have to be made is outdated. The things that we do not understand have retreated to the deepest corners of theoretical research or been debunked

This is very interesting news to me. Can you link me to the answers to Metaphysics?

The idea that the universe has to have been created not only leads to a circular argument, but logically a creator with the power to create a universe is a more complicated proposition than the existence of the universe itself. Occams razor requires that the idea be dropped.

It would be simpler still to drop the idea of a Universe.

In addition there is no evidence of any sort of design in the universe itself: it is mostly empty space in which a scattering of miscellaneous particles happen to have clumped into a completely random pattern over billions of years.

As Chesterton would point out, this is Apophenia just as much as claiming a design in the universe. I say we live in an unusual crowded universe, with an incredibly symmetrical design. I suppose we'll just pull up some maps of other universes and compare to see how crowded and random the pattern is in our universe.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sure. When a conscious, intelligent creature imagines multiple courses of action and rationally evaluates them, that is called choice. When this evaluation causes a suitable action, that is called free will. (These are sufficient conditions, not necessary ones.) The rationality in "rationally evaluates" need not be perfect, but the creature needs to have some substantial tendency to be rational sometimes, and the particular occasion needs to bring the creature's A game, or at least its B game. In situations where it would be rational for the creature to follow a policy of, in these situations acting on whim, acting on whim counts as an A game. There are degrees of free will; it's not binary yes/no.

Well then foreknowledge does not violate Free Will by this definition. All this requires is a creature imagining multiple courses of action and rationally evaluating them. In fact, for a perfectly rational being, it would be necessary for foreknowledge of their choices to be possible, because it would need to chose the rational one.

 

[brennan]

What is 'metaphysics'?

Dunno 'bout you but to me the non-existence of the universe is inconsistent with the observed evidence :S

The large scale distribution of matter in the universe is consistent with the simple pattern you would expect from the underlying laws. Therefore no evidence of outside influence. The claim that the universe is crowded is simply absurd, you have no others to compare with.

Large scale bodies such as planets are pretty symmetrical i.e roughly spherical. No need for God to explain that, just gravity.

You are clutching at straws.

 

[ParkCungHee]

What is 'metaphysics'?

Metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of existence. Answers I'm looking for are in the field of say, do universals exist, the existence of free will, identity and the possibility of change, etc. etc.

Dunno 'bout you but to me the non-existence of the universe is inconsistent with the observed evidence :S

I haven't seen any convincing evidence either way.

The large scale distribution of matter in the universe is consistent with the simple pattern you would expect from the underlying laws. Therefore no evidence of outside influence.

Why would the existence of god necessitate distribution inconsistent from the pattern you would expect from the underlying laws?

 

[brennan]

Ah, a list of things that have nothing to do with God. Why bring them up?

Communicating with me is inconsistent with a solipsist philosophy

Tell me what God made the universe for and i'll tell you what distribution i'd expect... currently what I see is randomness. Not only that but it's a pretty inefficient use of space for an omnipotent entity.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ah, a list of things that have nothing to do with God. Why bring them up?

You claimed that things that we do not understand have retreated to the deepest corners of theory, and this was to be evidence of there being no god. I'm asking if we understand the answers to a 101 course yet.

Communicating with me is inconsistent with a solipsist philosophy

It most certainly is not. If I was a solipsist, I would say I'm not communicating with you. But I'm not a Solipsist, I tend towards Monism, so I say that not only am I not communicating with you, but both you and I are logical impossibilities, and the idea of us communicating is even more nonsensical.

Tell me what God made the universe for and i'll tell you what distribution i'd expect...

That would assume you would know how an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would act, which is a fairly bold claim.

Not only that but it's a pretty inefficient use of space for an omnipotent entity.

Actually, it's a perfectly efficient use of it. Efficiency is the ability to do something without waste, expense or unnecessary effort. Since and Omniscient being would by definition have no limits it could not was space: it would always have more, it would cost nothing, and require no effort.
In fact, if you count Dark Energy into the equation, the creation of space has over 100% efficiency.

 

[Clement]

The idea that the universe has to have been created not only leads to a circular argument, but logically a creator with the power to create a universe is a more complicated proposition than the existence of the universe itself. Occams razor requires that the idea be dropped.

It may well lead to a circular argument, that's just called infinity, a human being saying "oh well i don't like infinity, i can't measure or understand it and it so i'm just going to pretend it isn't there" is a cop out.

In addition there is no evidence of any sort of design in the universe itself: it is mostly empty space in which a scattering of miscellaneous particles happen to have clumped into a completely random pattern over billions of years. There is no evidence of any structure or plan and all the old evidence for divine intervention is now understood as part of the scientific paradigm, with no further need of the God hypothesis.

Wonderful! everything is understood as part of the scientific paradigm! this is fantastic news, so what started the universe? how did it come into existence from nothing, or if it came from something, where did that itself come from? what is the nature of our reality? is the universe finite or infinite and what is the nature of infinity? are there other dimensional realities? how many are there?

why didn't someone tell me that all these questions had been solved? these are questions i've always wanted to know the answer to, so happy to hear that there is no further need for speculation since scientists have solved them all where's the link?

Not only this but our understanding now is that creation itself is built into the very fabric of the universe - virtual particles pop and fizz in and out of a bizarre state of semi existence all the time, a phenomena that has even been measured (see the 'Casimir Effect') and the need for an external creator - whose existence itself is unexplained except for a convenient 'God made himself' becomes even more unnecessary.

How did the theatre of reality itself that we live in come into existence for all this "pop and fizz" to happen in the first place? at what point did non-existence decide to just spontaneously exist? i'm really looking forward to all these answers that are "now understood as part of the scientific paradigm".

 

[brennan]

So the argument in favour of the God hypothesis goes as follows:

We don't know everything yet, so God must exist.

You are not God so God must exist.

Because I can say anything I like about God, God must exist.

These are all pretty poor quality imo. Funny how God always retreats into the gaps until he's not even worth discussing.

 

[Clement]

So the argument in favour of the God hypothesis goes as follows:

We don't know everything yet, so God must exist.

You are not God so God must exist.

Because I can say anything I like about God, God must exist.

These are all pretty poor quality imo. Funny how God always retreats into the gaps until he's not even worth discussing.

No answers to the big questions? how disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[ParkCungHee]

So the argument in favour of the God hypothesis goes as follows:

We don't know everything yet, so God must exist.

You are not God so God must exist.

Because I can say anything I like about God, God must exist.

Actually, I haven't proposed any arguments for the existence of God. I've only proposed that your arguments for the non-existence of god are poor ones:

We do know just about everything, so God must not exist.

I know how god would act, so God must not exist.

The existence of space is inefficient, so God must not exist.

I have simply pointed out all of your premises are untrue, which makes your conclusions unsound.

If you'd like, I can actually provide proof that God's creation of space would be efficient:
The ratio of efficiency is r=P/C
P is the amount produced while C is the amount Consumed.
C of course is equal to 0. Since god would be omniscient, it never costs him anything to do anything.
So at worst, if the amount of space produced by his effort was 0, this would be a perfectly efficient action. So long as space is produced (and it's your claim that it has been), this actually involves efficiency over 100%, or, more efficient then anything ever observed.
Sounds pretty efficient to me.

 

[emzie]

Actually, I haven't proposed any arguments for the existence of God. I've only proposed that your arguments for the non-existence of god are poor ones:

We do know just about everything, so God must not exist.

I know how god would act, so God must not exist.

The existence of space is inefficient, so God must not exist.

I have simply pointed out all of your premises are untrue, which makes your conclusions unsound.

Those claims are a weebit of a stawman.

If you'd like, I can actually provide proof that God's creation of space would be efficient:
The ratio of efficiency is r=P/C
P is the amount produced while C is the amount Consumed.
C of course is equal to 0. Since god would be omniscient, it never costs him anything to do anything.
So at worst, if the amount of space produced by his effort was 0, this would be a perfectly efficient action. So long as space is produced (and it's your claim that it has been), this actually involves efficiency over 100%, or, more efficient then anything ever observed.
Sounds pretty efficient to me.

Divide by 0 = god exists. That's... that's not even wrong.

 

[brennan]

Clement, why should these questions have answers? Given that there could be nothing or there could be something, why is 'God' any better an explanation for anything than 'stuff exists because it does'? And given not only the increasing lack of any actual evidence for there being a God but the fact that the universe as we know it seems to get along just fine without Him, what further reason is there for the hypothesis at all?

It is very human to want answers but our current understanding is that at a fundamental level there aren't any:

In quantum mechanics if you ask 'why did this particle just decay into this other particle?' the answer seems to be that there is no reason, it just happens. People have searched for decades for some pattern, for 'hidden variables' that are the cause of what we see and you know what, there don't seem to be any. Things really do happen just because they do. Philosophically then what we actually observe is that there is in fact no uncomfortable infinite regression to be resolved.

Why does the universe exist: there is no reason, it just does, this is a consistent viewpoint with observations of Quantum Mechanics in which events really do happen for no reason, the only notes we can take are how likely they are to happen in a given timeframe.

How did the universe start: again there is no reason, and again this is consistent with actual observation of the way the universe behaves. Stuff just happens: energy and matter pop in and out of existence for no reason all the time.

None of this requires that we understand absolutely everything about everything and to put this up as an objection is a strawman i'm afraid.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Those claims are a weebit of a stawman.

Those claims are the ones that were presented in his post.
"We do know just about everything, so God must not exist."

The things that we do not understand have retreated to the deepest corners of theoretical research or been debunked, why not God along with the unicorns?

That sounds like a claim of near absolute knowledge, with the conclusion that God does not exist as a result.

"I know how god would act, so God must not exist."

Tell me what God made the universe for and i'll tell you what distribution i'd expect...

Note that he didn't deny that I made a fair characterization of his statement. He just said that this was insufficient proof of god, which is true, because it was not intended as such. But to know what distribution to expect based on God's goal, would imply that you would understand god's method if you knew his goal. That is, you know how an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would act. In which case, please fill us in, because we really, really want to know how an omnibenevolent being would act.

"The existence of space is inefficient, so God must not exist."

Not only that but it's a pretty inefficient use of space for an omnipotent entity.

I really don't know how to take this except as a claim that the use of space is inefficient.

Divide by 0 = god exists. That's... that's not even wrong.

This on the other hand, is an actual strawman, and you can tell because at the opening of the post I said I have offered no argument for the existence of god. I was only addressing the claim that the overabundance of space is inefficient. This does not prove the existence of god, merely that if an omnipotent being created space, it would be perfectly efficient in doing so, which is practically a tautology. If you actually would like to argue the point that the creation of space would be inefficient for an omnipotent being, you could fill me in on what such a hypothetical being is using up that is wasted?

 

[brennan]

ParkCungHee:

I have never stated that we know everything, in fact I just said that we don't. In reality, although we know a lot about how things work, in terms of how much information you could actually accumulate about the specific distribution of matter and energy at all scales of the universe we know so clsoe to nothing as makes no odds. But then if you just know the alphabet and how to use it then all human knowledge opens up before you

I see you are admitting that at least one of your retorts is pure tautology.

 

[emzie]

Those claims are the ones that were presented in his post.

He listed bad reasons for believing in god, not reasons for disbelieving. There's a difference.

This on the other hand, is an actual strawman, and you can tell because at the opening of the post I said I have offered no argument for the existence of god. I was only addressing the claim that the overabundance of space is inefficient. This does not prove the existence of god, merely that if an omnipotent being created space, it would be perfectly efficient in doing so, which is practically a tautology. If you actually would like to argue the point that the creation of space would be inefficient for an omnipotent being, you could fill me in on what such a hypothetical being is using up that is wasted?

You're making an assumption about the nature of a deity that is, at best, superfluous.

 

[brennan]

Indeed. My reasons for disbelieving are backed up by observations that defy the supposed metaphysical reasoning that leads people to seek answers to questions that just lead to more questions.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You're making an assumption about the nature of a deity that is, at best, superfluous.

That's irrelevant to the question of the efficiency of an action. Whether god is superfluous, or even if he exists, is immaterial to whether it would be efficient for him to create space. I can make assumptions about the nature of superfluous theoretical engine if I like. It being superfluous doesn't enter into it's efficiency. If it did, I'd design a superfluous perpetual motion machine.

He listed bad reasons for believing in god, not reasons for disbelieving

He seems to disagree with you on that.

My reasons for disbelieving are backed up by observations that defy the supposed metaphysical reasoning that leads people to seek answers to questions that just lead to more questions.

 

[Clement]

Clement, why should these questions have answers?

Because they are the most valuable answers to the human being that is utterly lost, to say "why should these questions have answers?" is a huge cop-out, we don't simply stop trying to understand something because we feel we may never understand it.

Given that there could be nothing or there could be something, why is 'God' any better an explanation for anything than 'stuff exists because it does'? And given not only the increasing lack of any actual evidence for there being a God but the fact that the universe as we know it seems to get along just fine without Him, what further reason is there for the hypothesis at all?

I never claimed a god exists, i just don't know if it does, however it is you who claims to know what "doesn't" exist, and you said all was understood under the scientific paradigm, which was good for a laugh.

It is very human to want answers but our current understanding is that at a fundamental level there aren't any

There are answers, but you can't answer them and neither currently can anyone else, experience has shown me that someone who pretends to know everything often trys to bend their will on the person asking the questions, and make him/her feel their questions are not valid to hide their own lack of knowledge, doesn't work on me.

Well then your answers

In quantum mechanics if you ask 'why did this particle just decay into this other particle?' the answer seems to be that there is no reason, it just happens.

Why does the universe exist: there is no reason, it just does

this is a consistent viewpoint with observations of Quantum Mechanics in which events really do happen for no reason

How did the universe start: again there is no reason

Stuff just happens: energy and matter pop in and out of existence for no reason all the time.

That last one there is pretty funny, not exactly a scientific answer is it? seriously that is just not good enough, funny how "god of the gaps" is always quoted when they say someone is trying to fit god inbetween bits of theory that point to him not existing, yet nobody pulls up some anti-theists when they outright ignore so many huge questions like the ones i asked you, maybe god wouldn't have so many gaps to hide in if we human beings actually knew as much as we claim to.

None of this requires that we understand absolutely everything about everything and to put this up as an objection is a strawman i'm afraid.

Bottom line is, when making grand claims like "all is understoood under the scientific paradigm" don't expect people to not ask questions that blow a massive hole in your supposition, claiming those questions don't matter is a desperate measure and doesn't convince anyone of anything.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But then if you just know the alphabet and how to use it then all human knowledge opens up before you

But that's been true since the invention of mass literacy. All of human knowledge has always been accessible to humans. You claimed that "The things that we do not understand have retreated to the deepest corners of theoretical research or been debunked." This is demonstrably untrue.

I see you are admitting that at least one of your retorts is pure tautology.

I don't see the problem with that. A tautology is something that is by definition true. So yes, I have no problem saying that one of my statements is by definition true. What I find odd however, is that you have no problem standing in contradiction to something that is by definition true.