Foundations for Atheism

[fadingCaptain]

Many years ago I tipped the first in a long line of dominoes that inevitably came crashing down. I was around 15 or so and started questioning my roman catholic upbringing.

The reason the first dominoe and all others came down is simple: Given the evidence available to me via my senses, I made a decision based on probabilities.

In my studies and reflections, I have found it is highly improbable that an all powerful 'god' is in existence. Questions of a 'cause' are more dubious at this point. However, logic contends there must be either a. an event without cause or b. infinity. The options seem to be an infinite recursion scenario or a big bang type scenario without cause. Both have no need for a creator or god.

 

[wesmorris]

Yes you can. An apple is not an orange, 'cuz they are totally different fruit. There, I just proved the negative that an apple is not an orange.

No you didn't. You cannot say that an apple can never be an orange. Consider hybridization, etc.

For any random thing I make up and claim, you cannot disprove it's existence. You can however, cite a lack of evidence as no reason to consider the claim as valid.

We, too, can prove that god does not exist.

No, you can't. The claim itself is a ridiculous as its opposite.

*sigh*

I should reconsider at this point:

Because of course you CAN prove it, but an important aspect of proof is to whom, and what constitutes proof? Proof can be quite arbitrary, or quite stringent dependent on the "whom" to which the "proof" is relevant. Eh?

So while you may be able to prove to you that there is no god, you cannot prove it to me because I already see proof that the claim is just as ridiculous as its opposite.

 

[Cris]

C7,

“ Originally Posted by Cris
What the heck is a necessary being? ”

"nothingness". existence of non-existence. being. nothingness without being is impossible. nothingness: the thing from which the universe (visibility, light, mind, consicousness) is extracted from. compared to. separated from. made visible.

That doesn't explain anything.

“ Absence of evidence is the perfect reason not to believe something. ”

why?

Because you will likely be wrong otherwise, and in the case of something fantastic that has no precedent (e.g. gods, souls) then it seems highly likely you’d be wrong.

But why not wait until evidence is found? What’s the rush?

 

[Hapsburg]

snip - postage -

So you're with them, then?

 

[Cris]

KennyJC,

….. just go through all the things that the universe has that makes any sort of life possible... It's a long list of things to happen from a 'big bang'.

And in several thousand billion years a lot can happen.

 

[KennyJC]

Yes. Life in this universe will probably be a blink of the eye in the lifespan of the universe, which will probably be infinite anyway...

But it makes you wonder how many times it has happened in other 'places'. I certainly don't think our bubble is the only thing that exists, or that intelligence of any kind only exists within our bubble. As much as I hate theists and their ways of thinking, I can't help coming to the thought that despite the fact everything around us is all so wierd, it also makes a lot of sense...

 

[Prince_James]

spidergoat:

My view is that the universe does exhibit a kind of order, after all, we are intelligent, and we are not separate from it. The universe is alive, but not centralized or personified, not active but passive, all things arising out of it's own nature (Tao).

Explain "all things arising out of its own nature"?

KennyJC:

Everything. Not that our universe is likely to be the best it can get for any form of intelligence, but just go through all the things that the universe has that makes any sort of life possible... It's a long list of things to happen from a 'big bang'.

Assuming that energy has certain base properties, it is pretty much bound to happen that the Earth and life would develop.

If big bangs happen all the time, very few of them I imagine would have any form of life, and if ours is the only one... the only thing, the only existence of anything anywhere... then those are long odds to be an accident.

The chances of ours being the only one, knowing the nature of chemical interactions, is slim to none. There are billions of trillions of stars in the universe.

Hapsburg:

Yes you can. An apple is not an orange, 'cuz they are totally different fruit. There, I just proved the negative that an apple is not an orange.
We, too, can prove that god does not exist.

For the first time in quite a while, I concur with you.

fadingCaptain:

In my studies and reflections, I have found it is highly improbable that an all powerful 'god' is in existence. Questions of a 'cause' are more dubious at this point. However, logic contends there must be either a. an event without cause or b. infinity. The options seem to be an infinite recursion scenario or a big bang type scenario without cause. Both have no need for a creator or god.

Aristotle contended that God was that very cause without a cause. What say you in reply to that?

wesmorris:

No you didn't. You cannot say that an apple can never be an orange. Consider hybridization, etc.

To hybridize the fruit would be to fundementally change it. It would cease to be what it once was.

For any random thing I make up and claim, you cannot disprove it's existence. You can however, cite a lack of evidence as no reason to consider the claim as valid.

If God is a logical thing, then one -can- disprove it. You are right, however, about contingent empirical claims.

No, you can't. The claim itself is a ridiculous as its opposite.

*sigh*

I should reconsider at this point:

Because of course you CAN prove it, but an important aspect of proof is to whom, and what constitutes proof? Proof can be quite arbitrary, or quite stringent dependent on the "whom" to which the "proof" is relevant. Eh?

So while you may be able to prove to you that there is no god, you cannot prove it to me because I already see proof that the claim is just as ridiculous as its opposite.

Logic offers us a means to prove things objectively, does it not?

KennyJC:

But it makes you wonder how many times it has happened in other 'places'. I certainly don't think our bubble is the only thing that exists, or that intelligence of any kind only exists within our bubble. As much as I hate theists and their ways of thinking, I can't help coming to the thought that despite the fact everything around us is all so wierd, it also makes a lot of sense...

Does sense need to have a God?

 

[KennyJC]

Does sense need to have a God?

Not at all. Science is the only way to find crumbs of what information we can, but we'll die without getting close to knowing. Religion is just for the impatient who want to cram it all into their lifetime, even if deep down they know they are stabbing in the dark.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Prince,

Aristotle contended that God was that very cause without a cause. What say you in reply to that?

If you wish to call the big bang god then by all means consider me a theist. This is, of course, stretching the term to point of it being meaningless. It is the same way many prominent scientists muddy the waters by invoking 'god' when they simply mean 'universe' (see einstein, hawking, etc.). It is the problem I have with pantheism. It is a godless religion and how ridiculous is that?

So, if Aristotle (whom I deeply respect) wishes to believe there was a first cause to the universe, and he wishes to call this cause 'god'....I can only politely request he simply things and refer to the universe as the universe. For if there was an event that started it all, surely it was not apart from the universe...but only in a different form!

 

[spidergoat]

spidergoat:



“ My view is that the universe does exhibit a kind of order, after all, we are intelligent, and we are not separate from it. The universe is alive, but not centralized or personified, not active but passive, all things arising out of it's own nature (Tao). ”



Explain "all things arising out of its own nature"?

It's an unplanned cascade of complexity driven by it's own internal structure.

 

[wesmorris]

So you're with them, then?

Who dey be dat I be wit?

I'm wit me.

You 'member dat shiznit I sedz bout vanity?

IMO, a claim either way is pretty much duh same yo.

Either calls the other a liar and cannot be him to know of his lies.

The rite answer fo me bout gods n such iz: fundamentally indeterminant.

It beez da same fo inny dam thangs you makes up buts gots noze evidense to sport.

 

[wesmorris]

To hybridize the fruit would be to fundementally change it. It would cease to be what it once was.

So you're saying you're in charge of the limits of categorization for me? Who decides on what it is or isn't? There is no case to be made that a hybridized applorange is an apple, nor that it is an orange, when it contains the essence of either? If so, then because you say it should be dissallowed, it should be? Is that what's logical?

What about the higher dimensional view of the fruit, wherein you stand in grid (v,w,x,y,z,t) and see an apple, but standing at (v+100,w,x,y,z,t) you see an orange?

Oh and do I get to taste it to infer the difference? How do I know my tastbuds are working correctly? What criteria am I allowed by which to make the determination? What if I'm retarded and every roundish fruit is an apple?

If God is a logical thing, then one -can- disprove it.

So the premise of the thread is that god is logical?

Please then provide an argument that supports god as a logical thing. As I specified earlier, it is not logically defensible. It's assumption. All assumption is logically indefensible. I would posit however, that some assumptions are reasonably defensible.

You are right, however, about contingent empirical claims.

Of course.

Logic offers us a means to prove things objectively, does it not?

Huh? How so?

No, it doesn't.

Logic transforms inputs into outputs. GIGO, bitches. Hehe.

 

[wesmorris]

It's an unplanned cascade of complexity driven by it's own internal structure.

That's catchy. I like it.

 

[Mystech]

Yes you can. An apple is not an orange, 'cuz they are totally different fruit. There, I just proved the negative that an apple is not an orange.
We, too, can prove that god does not exist.

That's not a negative - contrasting two existing bodies is not proving a negative.

 

[c7ityi_]

Oh, and whether or not things are perfect is a matter perspective also.

omg, that's exactly what i said

But why not wait until evidence is found? What’s the rush?

what is "evidence" and what is not is such a subjective thing.

Religion is just for the impatient who want to cram it all into their lifetime, even if deep down they know they are stabbing in the dark.

wrong.

If you wish to call the big bang god then by all means consider me a theist.

what caused the big bang? how could something come from nothing? it is a physical impossibility.

 

[dr. cello]

drcello

To begin with; nope. The nature of the entire shape, history and form of the universe is something we know very, very little about. There is a massive array of possibilities in terms of the universe (and, indeed, universes) work(s). Examples like consistently expanding and contracting universe, god starting and creating the universe, the universe being infininte (though this seems highly unlikely).

you're arguing from ignorance here. the universe has demonstrated logical order (and i will get to your points about math earlier). every effect has a cause. a triangle cannot also be a circle. y cannot be 'x' and 'not x' simultaneously. these are concepts which have yet to be proven false, and that is what i mean by logic. if the universe is an effect (and i posit that it is), then it has a cause.

We don't know that there must be a material (or other) cause for the universe. We simply have no idea yet. And to say "well, since we don't know I'm placing my bets on this god thing" is really silly. How bout we all just stick at "we don't know yet"?

i'm not placing my bets on anything, since my beliefs in god have no bearing or ramifications on my beliefs in the nature of the universe, because i don't believe that god is anything more than an abstract concept--i dislike using the word 'god', in fact, because it conveys the wrong message.

How much logic have you done? (I really don't mean to sound insulting here, so disregard it if I do). As a matter of fact, nothing really follows "the rules of logic". At a most base level take math (or, even subdivide into arithmetic). For years and years it was thought that math was complete and that we could axiomatize it if only we were smart enough. Then Kurt Godel proved us wrong with his incompleteness theory. This showed that there are no set rules - and in fact, couldn't possibly be any - that govern how mathematics works.

i've studied a fair amount of logic in my time. but when i say 'follows the rules of logic', i am not talking about the synthesized versions, or of mathematics. logic is an inadequate word for what i'm talking about, at times. i am saying that there are, in fact, rules that the universe follows. that cannot be broken. i call these rules 'logic'. math, logic classes, etc., are what we can gather about these rules through studying the universe.

Usually, dr. cello, when people made (I say made as no one makes it anymore because it's already been proven false) your arguement they'd say the proof is in that anything can be derived. Well, nope. In 1973 (don't quote me, but I'm pretty sure it was 73) two mathematicians found an equation that can't be proven from the once-thought axioms of math. So, nadda. No logical axioms for things. Sorry.

again--disproving math is not disproving logic. i'm not suggesting it. math is highly synthesized. when you can find for me something, in universe, that actively contradicts logic (exempli gratia, show me a square which is a triangle), you might have made your point. but when you find merely that mathematicians have been working based on erroneous assumptions, i can't hold your proof made.

 

[Cris]

C7,

what is "evidence" and what is not is such a subjective thing.

Only to the layman whose views are worthless for serious consideration. But we do have strict and verifiable processes for defining and demonstrating appropriate evidence – it is known as the scientific method.

It is exactly because of your perspective and those from the past who relied on mystical gibberish that the method was devised.

 

[Hagar]

My position is just this, even though its already been stated previously: since there is not general definition of what god is and each person has their own concept of god, what is the real point in theorizing a god? It is the same as space aliens: everyone has their own idea about what an alien is, so should we continue to believe in aliens without reference to anything?

Atheism is in itself an absurd and useless term since it is typically a label attached to any belief system that goes against a culture's popular religion. Christians often claim that Muslims are atheists and vice-versa because their gods don't match.

However, since there are many concepts of God and these concepts are usually rooted in some culture or tradition, atheism might be defined as the belief that a particular word used to refer to a particular god is a word that has no reference. Thus, there are as many different kinds of atheism as there are names of gods. - From http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html

 

[KennyJC]

It is the same as space aliens: everyone has their own idea about what an alien is, so should we continue to believe in aliens without reference to anything?

Bad analogy. We know aliens can and probably do exist. If you want proof... or at least theoretical proof, look around you... what are we? That is the reference you claim isn't there. There is however no reference to God anywhere.

 

[valich]

I'm sorry that I didn't have enough time to read all the postings on this thread, but a wise man once said, "The more you learn, the more you know how much yo do not know." I am at that point in my life. I have learned enough to know how much out there there is to learn and how much that I do not know. But unfortunately - or fortunately? - I know enough now that religions do not give me the answers to what I want to know; but scienctific inquiry - repeated experiments to establish theories and facts that others can also do to prove the same results - does.