Atheistic arguments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-05-2015, 02:18 PM
Atheistic arguments
Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 02:43 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2015 03:16 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

Welcome, I will endeavor to assist you. I will number your claims as you presented them, and provide an answer for your consideration. Flex

Claim #1's answer: There is substance to these scientific claims based on observations of the real world around us, and the universe we reside in. A “tremendous game of semantics” would be positing that since we don’t know what caused, if anything caused the universe we should just make shit up like a super genie floating in nothingness who created at least 400+ billion planets (that is how many the hubble telescope can see) until he/she/it got at least one juuuuuuuust right, then scooped up a handful of dirt and blew into it, creating man!....yeah. Sounds legit. No

Claim #2's answer: We get to insist that those who make impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims have to prove them as they have the onus of proof because….they made the claim. Get it? If I told you at work tomorrow I have a purple unicorn in my backyard that when I feed it fairy sprinkles, it farts miracles in the form of human souls….I would expect you to say….no way, prove it, unless you are an extremely gullible moron…so….."god"....no way, prove it. This is an appropriate response to the ridiculous claim about magical universe creating super genies that live in never never land called…”the transcendental world” which conveniently is a man made concept, like god, which lies just out of reach of the real world. Facepalm

Claim #3's answer: You said, "So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God..."

Wow. lets do a quick review.

Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

So you see, it is your worldview that requires, and embraces faith to posit that an invisible super genie exists...because....we don't have the answer to life, so it just HAS to be this made up concept from a superstitious and agenda based group of goatherders...this ridiculous childish uber bigfoot level belief in a god may be popular, (which never ceases to amaze me the level of ignorance, lack of education, and gullibility it requires to profess that) but that doesn't make it right, or "sensible." It is not sensible to make up childish fairy tales simply because we lack the answers to EVERYTHING about life. Here let me try, here is my assertion:

Actually you have to trace everything back to Uranus...you see, Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. They feed these unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled in invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. This can be proven by analyzing nursery rhymes.....in goldilocks, if you look reeeeal hard at page 12, you see what looks like a knothole in the 4th board from the right in their home, magnify that knothole, and you will see the shape of the unicorn's hoof, thus proving the great purple unicorn is the creator! Now you see, you are seeking the truth...and all this time it was in URANUS.

Get the point?

Claim #4's answer: nothing really said here, waste of space, lets move on.

Claim #5's answer: Again, these theories and hypothesis come from observation of the real world we live in. The only “handwaving” is done by those who fail to be able to critically consider the plethora of evidence that disproves the bible, which is the basis of the anthropocentric Xtian god concept. What really happened is Man created god in his own image. Yes

Claim #6's answer: No one knows what, or if anything created the universe, anyone who claims to know is a liar. Christians are all liars, or at the minimum delusional, because they claim to know the answer. The problem is they derive this answer from the square toilet paper called the bible, of which I can, and have to great length many times before disproven time and time again…what else you got? Smartass

I look forward to your erudite, educated and cited response.

Now a question for you...why do you have faith?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
29-05-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
Atheism makes no claim outside of There is not enough evidence to prove their is a god. The end.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Hobbitgirl's post
29-05-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Just curious what you all think.

Apply the same level of skepticism to your preferred religious text and you are well on your way to becoming an atheist Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like photon9's post
29-05-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

Welcome, I will endeavor to assist you. I will number your claims as you presented them, and provide an answer for your consideration. Flex

Claim #1's answer: There is substance to these scientific claims based on observations of the real world around us, and the universe we reside in. A “tremendous game of semantics” would be positing that since we don’t know what caused, if anything caused the universe we should just make shit up like a super genie floating in nothingness who created at least 400+ billion planets (that is how many the hubble telescope can see) until he/she/it got at least one juuuuuuuust right, then scooped up a handful of dirt and blew into it, creating man!....yeah. Sounds legit. No

Claim #2's answer: We get to insist that those who make impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims have to prove them as they have the onus of proof because….they made the claim. Get it? If I told you at work tomorrow I have a purple unicorn in my backyard that when I feed it fairy sprinkles, it farts miracles in the form of human souls….I would expect you to say….no way, prove it, unless you are an extremely gullible moron…so….."god"....no way, prove it. This is an appropriate response to the ridiculous claim about magical universe creating super genies that live in never never land called…”the transcendental world” which conveniently is a man made concept, like god, which lies just out of reach of the real world. Facepalm

Claim #3's answer: You said, "So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God..." Wow. lets do a quick review.
Faith - the belief in something without evidence.

Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder. A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.

Religion - The embracement of delusion.

So you see, it is your worldview that requires, and embraces faith to posit that an invisible super genie exists...because....we don't have the answer to life, so it must be a made up concept from a superstitious and agenda based group of goatherders...this ridiculous childish uber bigfoot level belief in a god may be popular, which never ceases to amaze me the level of ignorance, lack of education, and gullibility it requires to profess that, but that doesn't make it right, or "sensible." It is not sensible to make up childish fairy tales simply because we lack the answers to EVERYTHING about life. here let me try, here is my assertion:

Actually you have to trace everything back to Uranus...you see, Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. They feed these unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled in invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. This can be proven by analyzing nursery rhymes.....in goldilocks, if you look reeeeal hard at page 12, you see what looks like a knothole in the 4th board from the right in their home, magnify that knothole, and you will see the shape of the unicorn's hoof, thus proving the great purple unicorn is the creator! Now you see, you are seeking the truth...and all this time it was in URANUS.

Get the point?

Claim #4's answer: nothing really said here, waste of space, lets move on.

Claim #5's answer: Again, these theories and hypothesis come from observation of the real world we live in. The only “handwaving” is done by those who fail to be able to critically consider the plethora of evidence that disproves the bible, which is the basis of the anthropocentric Xtian god concept. What really happened is Man created god in his own image. Yes

Claim #6's answer: No one knows what, or if anything created the universe, how long it has been here, how many there are, how many cycles it has gone through etc etc…anyone who claims to know is a liar. Christians are all liars because they claim to know the answer. The problem is they derive this answer from the square toilet paper called the bible, of which I can, and have to great length disproven time and time again…what else you got? Smartass

I look forward to your erudite, educated and cited response.

Now a question for you...why do you have faith?

^^ This^^ Plus, A whole multitude of gods have existed in multiple religions--blind faith would be picking a god and hoping you have the right one. The fact that many gods have “existed” in many times and places throughout the world--should at least give you pause for reflection that they were/are a man-made entity. Wouldn't a more productive idea be to "test" the other gods in other religions to make sure you have the right one?

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like jennybee's post
29-05-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I look forward to your erudite, educated and cited response.

No citations here since we're talking about existential issues Smile And I'm not talking about any particular God of any particular holy book here. Just the sort of God that I imagine is a logical conclusion of observation.

(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Claim #2's answer: We get to insist that those who make impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims have to prove them as they have the onus of proof because….they made the claim. Get it?

Completely. But again, only one problem, from my perspective, the only perspective that counts for me, you're the one making the impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims. To me the existence of God is merely a logical conclusion of the evidence that I've decided to look at.

(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Claim #3's answer...

I'm not here to convert anyone, I'm just curious where we disagree. Having said that, and to answer your question ("...why do you have faith?") my "faith" in God isn't so haphazard, well, actually it isn't really faith in the sense the word is commonly used. I have faith in God as I have faith in gravity to pull me back down to earth. I'm just using a different, broader set of evidence, some scientific, some not, to arrive at my conclusions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 03:18 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
[quote='hddd12345678910' pid='790291' dateline='1432930718']
/quote]

Hi, hddd

Glad you came here.

Just a question. Suppose we accept your arguments, what makes you think YOUR god is is the solution.

And could you give us an indication of which one it is?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 03:23 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 03:16 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  
(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I look forward to your erudite, educated and cited response.

No citations here since we're talking about existential issues Smile And I'm not talking about any particular God of any particular holy book here. Just the sort of God that I imagine is a logical conclusion of observation.

(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Claim #2's answer: We get to insist that those who make impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims have to prove them as they have the onus of proof because….they made the claim. Get it?

Completely. But again, only one problem, from my perspective, the only perspective that counts for me, you're the one making the impossible, ridiculous and extraordinary claims. To me the existence God is merely a logical conclusion of the evidence that I've decided to look at.

(29-05-2015 02:43 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Claim #3's answer...

I'm not here to convert anyone, I'm just curious where we disagree. Having said that, and to answer your question ("...why do you have faith?") my "faith" in God isn't so haphazard, well, actually it isn't really faith in the sense the word is commonly used. I have faith in God as I have faith in gravity to pull me back down to earth. I'm just using a different, broader set of evidence to arrive at my conclusions.

We will get to citations later if needed. I am fluent in biblical history to include the historicity of jesus, or rather, the lack thereof. More on that later if and when it comes up. I may have made the assumption you are a christian. You may just be a pantheist for all I know, feel free to elaborate.

I am curious where we disagree as well. To me the conclusion of the existence of a god is illogical. Based largely on zero evidence for such a being, and the fact that all creations by man of gods can be traced back to their inception and assimilation.

"I have faith in God as I have faith in gravity to pull me back down to earth. I'm just using a different, broader set of evidence, some scientific, some not, to arrive at my conclusions."

Gravity is easily proven, and doesn't require faith...god is not, and does require faith, as there is no evidence, if there was evidence it wouldnt require faith, it would just be fact.

Do you have a specific god or are you just saying something is "out there"..is it a caring god, omni present like the abrahamic based anthropocentric theory xtian god, or non involved like some of the other "gods" Which god is yours? Zeus, Mithra, perhaps Romulus which is the 800 year before jesus basis for the jesus story...feel free to elaborate why the logical conclusion is a god, and if so which god....and why?

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2015, 03:24 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
(29-05-2015 02:18 PM)hddd12345678910 Wrote:  Hey folks, here are a few atheistic arguments and my thoughts on them. While the basis for these arguments is often not so absolutely worded as their religious counterparts, I find that the end result is often the same:

First off, modern atheism is fundamentally flawed from the get-go because it attempts to deal in existential claims i.e. God does not exist, universe came to exist from nothing, etc. This is flawed because atheism bases its reasoning upon science, and science fundamentally prohibits itself from making existential claims. And that's because science supports theories through natural evidence, and natural evidence can only ever exist. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't be natural evidence. Hence there can by definition never be evidence of non-existence. This, of course, is really just a restatement of a common atheistic argument to the effect of "asking me to disprove God is like asking me to disprove the unicorn in my backyard". And it is, in fact, not a limitation of science, but a feature.

Claim: Science supports the idea that the universe came from nothing because random quantum fluctuations in empty space, a.k.a. nothing, allow the creation of an entire universe.
Problem #1: There are so many problems with this I don't know where to start. But certainly the one that stands out is that science has theories about the structure of empty space! In the history of human intellectual endeavors, if a hint of structure were found, what could cause us to call it "nothing"? In fact, science already has a term for this infamous nothing: quantum foam. In other words, a very much something. There is a tremendous game of semantics required to be able to peddle this idea that the universe came from nothing.
Problem #2: This is not a conclusion of any scientific experiment, but an interpretation of maths that don't directly imply anything of the sort. This isn't really a problem for most scientists of course, it's only when these claims are pushed as though they are based on mainstream scientific theories when it gets ridiculous.
Problem #3: Again, a scientific theory, by the very application of the scientific method, can never support the claim that something came from nothing.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because those making the exceptional claim (that God does exist) have the burden of proof.
Problem: This is absolutely true. Only one problem: since when do atheists, who are in the minority, get to decide what the exceptional claim is? Even if they were in the majority, it is still a completely subjective judgment call, as it would be in any other domain of human thought. An atheist can have their perspective, and I will have mine.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because that's like asking us to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Problem: Every normal human comes to learn and understand first hand as they grow to adulthood, by intuition of natural laws and tangible experience, that in fact the tooth fairy, goblins, Santa Clause, the spaghetti monster, and unicorns are stories created by other human adults. But no human has firsthand experience or knowledge about where the universe has come from, how it was created, and what happens after we die. So barring blind faith, a natural reaction by sensible humans is that it was created by some higher being; by God. So no, the two are nothing alike.

Claim: You can't ask us to prove that God doesn't exist because by your own argument, science can't prove non-existence.
Problem: Well actually, by itself, I have no problem with this. It's the other claims that I've got beef with.

Claim: The anthropic principle solves the problem of fine-tuning and is further supported by the multiverse theory which in turn is supported by the idea that an infinite number of random quantum fluctuations in "empty" space can bring about an infinite number of universes in which one of them happens to coincidentally have all the right variables for humanity to exist and for me to be typing away on my computer wondering about the perfection of the universe.
Problem #1: A major, striking problem with this is that...this is not an existential theory at all. It in no way, shape, or form explains how things came to exist since the "nothing" of empty space, isn't in fact nothing as mentioned above. All it ends up accomplishing is imagining up galactic machinery, a lot of which is basically handwaving, that explains how we got here without bothering to explain where the machinery itself came from.
Problem #2-4: All the other problems already mentioned about quantum fluctuations.

Claim: The idea of a Creator, Designer God is silly since it would have to be infinitely complex, and so we will apply Occam's razor.
Problem #1: And somehow an infinite number of universes being created from empty space, a.k.a. quantum foam, a.k.a. nothing, is a simpler theory?
Problem #2: Many argue that regardless of whether it's a simpler theory or not, it at least has the support of scientific evidence to support it. This is patently false because, once again, science can't make existential claims so it can't support the idea that a universe, not to speak of an infinite number of them, came from nothing.

Just curious what you all think.

*golf clap*

congratulations, you actually got me to facepalm. The idiocy here is staggering. Let's break this down for you.

Claim 1 is IRRELEVANT. The science on the origin of the universe could be COMPLETELY WRONG and it STILL would not mean that a god exists. I'm not familiar enough with the origin of the universe argument to debate it, but it is not relevant to atheism. And why?

Claim 2.

And just because you are in the majority does not shift the burden of proof. You are making an existence claim, that there is an entity called god and that it exists. I don't believe you because you have not demonstrated this. If you say I have a blue basketball at home it is not up to me to prove that you DON'T have a blue basketball, it is YOUR responsibility to show me that you do. This rolls into claim 3 that you make, which you have compounded with another argument from ignorance. Once again, just because we don't know something does not mean you get to insert your god as a stopgap and demand that it be considered valid. If you get to do that then you have to accept my claim that a time traveling spaceman with green skin named Steve created the universe, because that's just as valid as your god is.

And with claim 4, so what? Sometimes we get lucky. I could have never been born, since it was highly unlikely that my parents would ever meet, coming from opposite ends of the country and meeting in a small liberal arts college that my dad only attended as an afterthought. They could have never gotten married, but they did! ANd they could have had other children since hundreds of millions of genetic possibilities are thrown out when a couple has sex, and only a minority of fertilized embryos come to term, the chances against me existing are astounding. So what? I exist. And you still have the problem that even if we don't have a proper explanation you don't get to insert your god just because you can't imagine anything else, or because the odds of an event happening are very low.

And with claim 5 we have the big one. The reason I am currently an atheist. You claim that your god is more probable than all the other posited explanations.

What is a god? How do you define it? What are the characteristics and abilities of this god?

I haven't got a single theist to tell me this. Not. One.

Until you do this, then we can't even talk about what is more probable. I put it another way in another thread, but I'll repost. If your definition of god is logically impossible, then your god CAN NOT exist and therefore is NOT more likely than any other explanation.

But you are STILL just putting your god into a place where you don't have a current explanation for something, and that is not satisfactory. You need to provide some reason for your doing so, and all you've done is express your personal incredulity at the current scientific theory. Well I'm sorry to tell you that YOUR personal inability to understand it does NOT mean a damn thing about the validity of the science, and it CERTAINLY does not mean that your god is probable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
29-05-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Atheistic arguments
You say that you don't believe that the universe started from nothing therefore a god is the "logical" answer.

So how did god come into existence?

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too"? - Douglas Adams Bechased
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: