A Sincere Question for Atheists

[wolpertinger]

ktm:

More torture of the English language follows. It’s this torture that gives me so many problems with atheism, in part:

Why not instead say “I have no reason to believe that God does not exist.”

Why should the first statement be any more valid that the second?

From my perspective, both statements are equally valid. The difference is the principle of parsimony - absent definitive knowledge to determine the truth of two mutually exclusive propositions, it is more reasonable to prefer the option with the least amount of assumptions. If I may say so, the other sections of this site demonstrate that theistic belief introduces problems of its own.

 

[squirt]

wolpertinger:

If I may say so, the other sections of this site demonstrate that theistic belief introduces problems of its own.

Like what/who exactly is this God that I believe in? Or what can be known about this God? Or what does God expect of me, if anything? Or …

yup … an endless set of problems …

At least it keeps me from being bored.

 

[The_Barrister]

wolpertinger:

It is and remains your definition and I reject it. Is it acceptable to you if I redefine Catholicism in a manner that willfully misrepresents what Catholics self-identify with?

Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s what we believe. You are free to believe what you wish to believe.

 

[ktm]

wolpertinger:

From my perspective, both statements are equally valid. The difference is the principle of parsimony - absent definitive knowledge to determine the truth of two mutually exclusive propositions, it is more reasonable to prefer the option with the least amount of assumptions.

Her: “Honey, I love you.”

Me: “It’s unreasonable to believe that you love me when the alternate proposition, that you don’t love me, has fewer assumptions. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you love me.”

Her: “I want a divorce.”

I dispute the idea that the second statement (I doubt God doesn’t exist) is less likely of being true simply because it contains more assumptions or propositions than the first.

Further, if stated another way, “God exists” is a simpler statement than “God does not exist” or “God probably does not exist” or “God might not exist”. So your Occam’s razor argument can be turned right back on you depending on the language you use.

 

[wolpertinger]

The Barrister:

Taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s what we believe. You are free to believe what you wish to believe.

You see, there are two sides to this - what you believe and where you let that belief take you. Since you mentioned the Inquisitions, has the Catholic Church irrevocably abandoned that institution? And proactively, anything similar to it? I’m not baiting here, I simply don’t know.

 

[wolpertinger]

ktm:

Her: “Honey, I love you.”

Me: “It’s unreasonable to believe that you love me when the alternate proposition, that you don’t love me, has fewer assumptions. Therefore, I have no reason to believe you love me.”

Her: “I want a divorce.”

I like the parody, even though it fails as a close analogy. As far as it goes, she should definitely dump him as a lost cause

 

[squirt]

The Barrister:

Atheism “rejects or denies the existence of God.” CCC 2125.

Here’s a place where the original French version and the English version of the CCC have different nuances. Where the French says “En tant qu’il rejette ou refuse l’existence de Dieu” which is similar to “in so far as (or to the extent that) it rejects or refuses the existence of God”, the English version says “Since it rejects or denies the existence of God,” …

The French wording doesn’t use “puisque” which has the implication of since=because, but “en tant que” which doesn’t have that same implication.

 

[ktm]

wolpertinger:

You see, there are two sides to this - what you believe and where you let that belief take you. Since you mentioned the Inquisitions, has the Catholic Church irrevocably abandoned that institution? And proactively, anything similar to it? I’m not baiting here, I simply don’t know.

ACK this thread is getting off topic, even moreso than the other things you and I have been discussing. My original intent was to get an answer to the question of where matter originated from. I guess your particular answer is “I don’t know” or “I don’t think we can know”, which is sufficient for me really. All I wanted was an answer to this question, which you gave. So thanks for that.

 

[rossum]

ktm:

If God doesn’t exist, who or what created all the matter-energy in the universe?

I am Buddhist, so not strictly an atheist. For answers to scientific questions I ask scientists. There is a good readable summary (no maths) of current scientific ideas on the origin of the Big Bang here: The Myth of the Beginning of Time. It is not a complete answer, but in time it will be a better answer.

As for the religious aspect of the question:

The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. … Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.

(Malunkyaputta sutta, MN 63)

rossum

 

[Kevan]

The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. … Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.

Can’t argue with that…

 

[The_Barrister]

wolpertinger:

You see, there are two sides to this - what you believe and where you let that belief take you. Since you mentioned the Inquisitions, has the Catholic Church irrevocably abandoned that institution? And proactively, anything similar to it? I’m not baiting here, I simply don’t know.

Riiiiggggghhhhhtttt.

 

[wolpertinger]

Riiiiggggghhhhhtttt.

Since the opening poster has more or less concluded this thread, I’ll simply thank you all for the exchange and bow out.

I really need to relearn French…

 

[AnAtheist]

You have asked a question that is very important to me too, therefore I have studied physics and cosmology.

It isn’t easy to answer, as you can imagine, but I try to explain my stance in a nutshell.

A law natural law is the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg). It says that certain pairs of physical values cannot be exactly measured simultanously. The more accurately measure one value the more uncertain becomes the other one.

One of those pairs is time and energy. In a very short fraction of time, the energy uncertainty can become so great that energy-matter conversion is possible and particles come into existence out of nothing and disappear shortly after. The effects of those virtual particles can be measured, e.g. the vacuum’s impedance.

At the beginning of the universe we have a infinitesimal fraction of time, and therefore a HUGE energy uncertainty. That’s the big bang. The universe is one big quantum fluctuation.

 

[AnAtheist]

ktm:

I don’t understand the difference between:

1. I don’t believe God exists.
2. I lack belief that God exists.
3. I have a lack of faith that God exists.
4. I believe God does not exist.

Me too.
All the 4 things mentioned above apply to me.

 

[AnAtheist]

Kevan:

Something is eternal. Scientists presume that matter is eternal, we affirm that God is eternal.

Not every scientist presumes matter is eternal. I certainly don’t.

Just as we do not feel threatened when someone barks “Well, if everything has to have a designer, then who designed God? Huh? Huh?” likewise the atheist cares nothing about the origin of matter, since he considers it an internally incoherent question.

:yup: That is the main problem with Aquin’s presumptions.

I, like Barrister, think that the question of design is much more compelling. We know quite a bit about matter and we know that it doesn’t become organized via random processes. But it is organized. Therefore it became organized by an intentional process (or act!) :twocents:

Gravity organises matter. Gravity, a purely non-intelligent process, forms structures (planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, clusters) out of chaotic gas clouds. That we know for sure, as we can observe it in action.

 

[wolpertinger]

AnAtheist:

A law natural law is the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg). It says that certain pairs of physical values cannot be exactly measured simultanously. The more accurately measure one value the more uncertain becomes the other one.

Tread carefully about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

What it really says is that the previously held view that to more closely observe the natural world we can build a better instrument is sadly mistaken.

In other words, it profoundly states that there is a limit to scientific discovery and insight. Whether there is a sharp horizon or an ever-murkier boundary, there are places that science cannot go. Therefore, science has delivered a powerful argument to the agnostics.

 

[AnAtheist]

wolpertinger:

Tread carefully about Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

What it really says is that the previously held view that to more closely observe the natural world we can build a better instrument is sadly mistaken.

In other words, it profoundly states that there is a limit to scientific discovery and insight. Whether there is a sharp horizon or an ever-murkier boundary, there are places that science cannot go. Therefore, science has delivered a powerful argument to the agnostics.

So what? Facts are facts, and I cannot ignore them. I am not an atheist because I *want *to or because I don’t *want *God to exist, as many or most christians often think. If I find scientific evidence for a god, I am going to be its determined follower. So far that hasn’t happened. I regard the likelihood of gods existing so low, that I call myself AnAtheist. That doesn’t mean I completely rule out the possibility, that would be very unscientific. If that makes me an agnostic in your or some others’ eyes, fine with me.

The principle makes a negative assertion, i.e. complete knowledge of something is impossible. Presuming a god to fill the gaps of science is a positive assertion. There is no direct link from the 1st assertion to the 2nd.

The principle proves that something ***can ***come from nothing without divine interference. To look for a god who knows about the missing, inaccessible information, is a stance derived exactly from the previously held view, you talked about.

 

[ktm]

AnAtheist:

The principle proves that something ***can ***come from nothing without divine interference. To look for a god who knows about the missing, inaccessible information, is a stance derived exactly from the previously held view, you talked about.

I must this is the first time I ever heard this statement, that something can spring from nothing without some kind of help from outside. Do I understand you correctly? How can a statement like that be verified?

 

[wolpertinger]

AnAtheist:

So what? Facts are facts, and I cannot ignore them.

What about epistemology?

[quoteThat doesn’t mean I *completely rule out the possibility, that would be very unscientific.
Given the way you present your case, that clarification is welcome.

If that makes me an agnostic in your or some others’ eyes, fine with me.

This is not what I said.

The principle makes a negative assertion, i.e. complete knowledge of something is impossible. Presuming a god to fill the gaps of science is a positive assertion. There is no direct link from the 1st assertion to the 2nd.

Granted. But the opposite is true, as well – it is impossible to disprove that god hides in the gaps.

The principle proves that something ***can ***come from nothing without divine interference. To look for a god who knows about the missing, inaccessible information, is a stance derived exactly from the previously held view, you talked about.

Since I don’t understand quantum mechanics (who does…), I’ll let this stand with the single objection that something reverts to nothing just as quickly.

I have to cut this short (do I hear somebody shout THANK YOU), so maybe later.

 

[AnAtheist]

ktm:

I must this is the first time I ever heard this statement, that something can spring from nothing without some kind of help from outside. Do I understand you correctly?

Absolutely.

How can a statement like that be verified?

That’s the tricky part.
It is impossible to create an environment where we could observe “nothingness”. At least the observer has to exist, there goes the “nothingness”.
The only point in time accessible to us, where nothing existed is just before the big bang, if the term “before” makes sense in this context, if we follow the view that time itself came into being with the big bang. All we can do is looking for hints, how the big bang happened. There are plenty of those hints (background radiation, expanding universe, …).
As I said, the existence of virtual particles is a hint, if not evidence, for the possibility of something coming from nothing. If you want to get deeper into the topic, you have to study relativistic quantum electrodynamics.