How do smart atheists construct their arguments against God?

[Light Travelling]

One is the cause came from another universe running backwards in relation to our own, by the mechanism of quantum tunnelling.

But then we still have to ask where the other universe came from. There ahs never been a true creation theory (i mean even a theory) that can explain how something can self originate from nothing. That in itself is mind blowing... noone has the slightest idea..

Therefore the universe is both eternal and had a local beginning.

Sounds like a definition of God..

 

[glaucon]

Yes, I grossly oversimplified for the sake of saving myself typing. Just demonstrating occums in action rather than trying to prove any creation theory..

Cool.

Kind of an aside, but I've always been mystified as to how some theists still hold on to any ontological argument for god. Anselm's argument was thrashed asunder at least since Hume, if not Kant, and rarely been given notice since....

 

[Crunchy Cat]

There may be slight variations to the definition, but I have never come across one before that links open minded to requiring proof.

Not proof... evidence.

http://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/newsletter.aspx?id=72

Consequently, proof can only be achieved when all the variables are known (which typically only happens in mathematics).

 

[Dywyddyr]

There ahs never been a true creation theory (i mean even a theory) that can explain how something can self originate from nothing. That in itself is mind blowing... noone has the slightest idea..

Not quite true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243005&postcount=1
Check the links.

 

[Light Travelling]

Not quite true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243005&postcount=1
Check the links.

It seems to be saying that something appears from nothing, becasue it just does.. ummhh. Is this a theory? I am not sure.

I will endevour to read more though... What I do find of interset though is that the poster of the other thread himself admits that he does not understand it "The mathematics behind this monumental claim is beyond me" he writes.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's a theory, with the physics behind it.

 

[river-wind]

The phrase "open mind" has nothing whatsoever to do with evidence.

It means to allow the thoughts and ideas of other people to be considered equally alongside ones own.

Considering all ideas to be equal is not a viable method of problem solving. Open mindedness has not to do with considering all ideas to be equal; it is giving all ideas equal consideration - i.e., given equal *chance* to be identified as useful to a given problem.


o·pen-mind·ed
   /ˈoʊpənˈmaɪndɪd/ [oh-puhn-mahyn-did]
–adjective
1. having or showing a mind receptive to new ideas or arguments.
2. unprejudiced; unbigoted; impartial.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/open-minded)

If multiple ideas are brought up in a conversation, the relative accuracy must be considered in any worthwhile problem-solving process. Open mindedness requires taking them all as possibly true *initially*, and not rejecting them out of hand; it does not require that you then hold them all at equal value points after they have been assessed (based on the current situation and knowns).

For example, three people are lost in the woods:
Person 1: "We need to figure out where we are. We left our car on route 1 in the middle of Maine an hour ago, so we must still be in Maine."
Person 2: "Agreed. In fact, we must be 1 hour's walk or less from our car and route 1."
Person 3: "I think we are in Alaska."

All three people's ideas should be given equal initial consideration. However, after that initial consideration, person's 3 idea, while it cannot currently be proven to be incorrect (they are lost, afterall), is so unlikely to be true that it should be devalued as a likely option.

Both ideas of Person 1 and 2 can be considered likely correct given the known aspects of the situation, however, Person 2's idea hold more useful information than Person 1, without violating logic. It can therefore be said that both Person 1 and 2 are likely correct, but Person 2's idea is more complete.

 

[Emil]

Real problem is not in existence or not of a "god".Assume that there is a "god" is a reasonable assumption. :scratchin:

The problem is the concrete form you give to this "god".
From asserting the existence of a "god" you have reached some conclusions incredible and each religion has its conclusions.

 

[spidergoat]

But then we still have to ask where the other universe came from. There ahs never been a true creation theory (i mean even a theory) that can explain how something can self originate from nothing. That in itself is mind blowing... noone has the slightest idea..

That is incorrect, many people have an idea. The universe did not require any additional energy to create! It looks as if it came from nothing. This isn't so radical, since in the quantum world, particle pairs can arise spontaneously.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

...since in the quantum world, particle pairs can arise spontaneously.

On a side note they arise from fields. The energy already exists out there in fields (like thick fogs permeating everything). Those fields are what spawn virtual particles .

 

[spidergoat]

On another side note, I'm totally naming my band "The Inflationary Biverse".

 

[Crunchy Cat]

On another side note, I'm totally naming my band "The Inflationary Biverse".

Sexy

 

[scifes]

The phrase "an open mind" mean allowing your acceptance of *something* to change based on evidence. The average human can only arrive at atheism via an open mind.

and he can't leave it via an open mind.
so open your mind till you reach atheism, then close it tight shut, that's a fairly correct assessment of the reality of the usual debate.

i've said it before, but when one leaves a state to another by being open minded; when a person opens his mind to the fact that he's a sheeple following blindly, he correctly moves to atheism. when he refuses any NEW proposed argument for his previous state because when was in it, he was unenlightened, is well, not so open minded.

your original post CC shows it well, a smart atheist 1-shows how the claims ar wrong. 2-explain why they exist. IOW, repeat a passage like a parrot, for the possibility that the theist could be correct is not even acknowledged.

that's a major flaw CC, one you need to correct in yourself.

 

[river-wind]

Speaking strictly for myself, if God appeared tomorrow in some fashion that couldn't be explained by my own psychosis, I'd become a theist.

I don't think becoming an atheist causes one's mind to close, I think becoming an atheist often parallels the maturing of the thought process; particularly in demanding high levels of evidence before being willing to drop known explanations in favor of unknown: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

and he can't leave it via an open mind.
so open your mind till you reach atheism, then close it tight shut, that's a fairly correct assessment of the reality of the usual debate.

There's no evidence in favor of theistic paranormal claims being true, so there's no evidence to open your mind to. There is evidence of the underlying psychological reasons why paranormal claims exist to begin with. That is something to open your mind to.

i've said it before, but when one leaves a state to another by being open minded; when a person opens his mind to the fact that he's a sheeple following blindly, he correctly moves to atheism.

That's a poor reason to move to atheism from theism.

when he refuses any NEW proposed argument for his previous state because when was in it, he was unenlightened, is well, not so open minded.

If the arguments lacking evidence or contradicted by evidence then I can understand refusing them; however, if they had supportive evidence then I would agree with you.

your original post CC shows it well, a smart atheist 1-shows how the claims ar wrong. 2-explain why they exist. IOW, repeat a passage like a parrot, for the possibility that the theist could be correct is not even acknowledged.

Well, they're not correct ;3. All theistic claims of God to my knowledge come with many claims about reality (by God himself) that have been demonstrated false. That invalidates him. The only God that can be protected from invalidation is one that doesn't make any claims about reality, and good luck finding a claimer willing to run with that.

that's a major flaw CC, one you need to correct in yourself.

When you know and can demonstrate 1+1=2, do you "correct yourself" to the "possibility" that 1+1=3?

 

[Light Travelling]

Not quite true.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2243005&postcount=1
If I understand correctly, the property of perfect symmetry is equivalent to the absence of all things. Whatever thing you could conceive of doesn't exist in this state because the thing would be differentiated from the rest of reality and thus would break the perfect symmetry. This state of nothingness has no measurable matter/energy, space or time. (this quote taken from your link)
Check the links.

That is incorrect, many people have an idea. The universe did not require any additional energy to create! It looks as if it came from nothing. This isn't so radical, since in the quantum world, particle pairs can arise spontaneously.

OK, The theory is that in the absence of all things; in complete nothingness, the physical laws of nature will arise and the universe will form. Nothingness has this inherent quality.

Well in another thread Spidergoat used the following argument to try to refute my definition of god;
“That's called a hypothesis that is falsifiable. If you cannot imagine a scenario that could ever disprove it, then it's useless”

And I say that that same argument applies here to nothingness having this inherent quality to manifest…it is a hypothesis that is falsifiable, It can never be tested or disproved, because as I have said on another thread;

“There can never be nothing because the observer will always be a something. We can only conceptualise nothing in relation to there being something. The nothing must always be surrounded by something or you have complete non-existence, which would mean the non- existence of an observer as well, so you would have a ‘tree falling in the woods’ type scenario.”

 

[spidergoat]

In order to falsify this, you could show that the universe did require an unexplained input of energy in order to form. Or you could show that particle pairs do not arise spontaneously in a vacuum.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And I say that that same argument applies here to nothingness having this inherent quality to manifest…it is a hypothesis that is falsifiable, It can never be tested or disproved, because as I have said on another thread;

“There can never be nothing because the observer will always be a something. We can only conceptualise nothing in relation to there being something. The nothing must always be surrounded by something or you have complete non-existence, which would mean the non- existence of an observer as well, so you would have a ‘tree falling in the woods’ type scenario.”

So you're under the impression that a mathematical equation can't be disproved? That the physics underlying that equation can't be disproved or shown to be incorrect?

 

[Light Travelling]

Well, they're not correct ;3. All theistic claims of God to my knowledge come with many claims about reality (by God himself) that have been demonstrated false. That invalidates him. The only God that can be protected from invalidation is one that doesn't make any claims about reality, and good luck finding a claimer willing to run with that.?

Actually God has never made any claims about reality. Men have made claims about what god has said about reality. What can be disproved is that the claims men make about god are false.

I am sure you can see the logic that if god had indeed made a claim of any sort he therefore must exist.

 

[Light Travelling]

In order to falsify this, you could show that the universe did require an unexplained input of energy in order to form. Or you could show that particle pairs do not arise spontaneously in a vacuum.

No the theory is not talking about what exists in a vacuum, it is talking about a state of complete nothingness, no matter, no energy, nothing. This state cannot be reproduced by simply creating vacuum. Unless you what to hypothesise that a universe can spontaneously spring up in a vacuum, in which case the world's particle accelerators are in serious danger of destroying the entire universe.

So you're under the impression that a mathematical equation can't be disproved? That the physics underlying that equation can't be disproved or shown to be incorrect?

The math equation can be shown to be erroneous, but that does not disprove the theory just the mathematics. My point is, it is no more possible to provide evidence against this theory than it is to provide evidence against god.