Ask the Atheist

[wcknight]

PLP

Have you ever wondered what happens or what will happen after the last moment of your physical life ?

IF as you say God doesn’t exist, you (and anyone else) simply ceases to exist… since all goes to nothingness, your whole life was basically meaningless.

OR if God does exist, what do you say to Him ???

… oops sorry, I made a mistake ???

 

[PLP]

Vanny:

PLP, I know you don’t believe there’s anything to pray to…But have you ever tried praying for the gift of faith, or for God to reveal Himself to you(the Holy Spirit)?

In order to pray, one has to believe in the existence of someone to pray to. Otherwise, I suppose you’re just wishing. But if I were to already believe, I wouldn’t need to pray for faith.

I certainly do wish that if a god existed that he/she/it would reveal itself to me. Sans faith, I don’t see what more I can do.

I don’t believe true Christian faith(or any montheistic faith) has to contradict modern science or be afraid of any scientific discoveries…

Groovy!

I personally don’t believe in Darwinian evolution, but if it were discovered to be definitavely true- it wouldn’t shake my faith because I’d figure well that’s the way God decided to created the universe and people.

Well, it is true, scientifically true. Just so you know.

God exists outside of our 3 dimentional universe and outside of time so 15 billion years or so to us are meaninless to God.

What does this mean though? Outside of the universe?

I do believe in some sort of evolution(but with definate guidance from the Almighty).

If so, (according to JBS Haldane) he appears to have an inordinate fondness for beetles.

I also have some atheist(mostly agnostic) friends and relatives- I pray for them - but we agree to disagree.

Groovy.

 

[PLP]

martino:

You mentioned that the believer (in God) has the burden of proof because it is a positive statement.

That’s not precisely what I said. I said that the Argument from Design is a positive argument and bears a burden of proof. In other words, if you are going to use the argument from design, you must also show that the world is, in fact, designed.

You are saying that there is no God, which means you must have knowledge of all that does exist before you can exclude God.

I’m saying that I do not believe that a god exists. No, I don’t have knowledge of the whole universe; it’s logically possible that (if you’ll pardon the expression), a god is hiding behind the couch. Belief, even knowledge, does not require absolute certainty. In fact, if it did, we could not say we believed anything, since even that which appears to be immediately before our eyes might be hallucination, imagination, delusion or illusion.

The more things you have to consider the more difficult this type of reasoning becomes. Here is another example: Let’s say that we are in a crowded football stadium and I make the claim that there is no one by the name of John Smith present in this stadium. For me to make that statement requires that I know the names of everyone that is present in that stadium before I can say that none of them is named John Smith. Would you believe me if I made a statement like that without then having me demonstrate that I know everyones name.

This is not an apt analogy. A more apt analogy would be to say (at the football game), “There are no teams playing baseball in this stadium today.” Would you still require me to know everyone’s name before asserting that truth?

I’m not saying it’s logically impossible for a god to exist. I’m saying that I’ve seen no evidence (I’ve checked pretty carefully) to support the idea that a god exists and that lack of evidence rationally justifies my own disbelief. Of course, if additional evidence were to come to light, I would reevaluate my conclusions in the light of that evidence.

 

[PLP]

wcknight:

Have you ever wondered what happens or what will happen after the last moment of your physical life ?

Sure I’ve wondered. I conclude from the scientific evidence that when you’re dead, you’re dead. I suppose I’ll find out for sure in good time.

IF as you say God doesn’t exist, you (and anyone else) simply ceases to exist… since all goes to nothingness, your whole life was basically meaningless.

I enjoy my life. That’s more than enough meaning to satisfy me.

OR if God does exist, what do you say to Him ???

… oops sorry, I made a mistake ???

I’d say what Bertrand Russell would have said, “You should have given me more evidence.”

 

[PLP]

Wow! Page 3! Again, if there’s anyone I’ve missed from pages 1 & 2, please re-post your questions.

 

[Vanny]

What does this mean though? Outside of the universe?

Well, yes, I don’t understand it but He created the universe by the Big Bang or whatever and matter and time and he is outside it. And I hate beetles, but they have their place in the chain of life and their purpose whatever it may be. If I had my druthers there wouldn’t be any insects (or rodents) but I’m not God!

I

 

[PLP]

Vanny:

I don’t understand it…

Neither do I. I don’t know what it means to believe to be true something I don’t understand.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Note:

This thread has been moved to the Apologetics Forum.

 

[IanS]

I remember when I was in eighth grade my Science teacher telling us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Well, if that’s the case then where did all matter come from? At one point and time something had to be made out of nothing in some way. I don’t care if you’re talking 6,000 years ago or 60 billion years ago.

Also, how can things as complicated at the perfect order of the universe, DNA, cellular life or human thought be some sort of cosmic mishap. For instance, lets say I were to take a clock, completely disassemble it into a hundred or so pieces, put it in a box, and bury it in the ground . One hundred years later someone digs it up, or even a thousand or a million. What do you think the chances are they will find a perfectly assembled running clock? There is no way a clock could form itself by chance, right? Can you think of any possible scenario where the clock would be unearthed in perfect running order? If so, what is the probability? Yet the structure of something a simple as any plant is 1000 times more complicated than a clock and yet I’m supposed to believe it’s just some accident that happened by chance with no intelligence whatsoever behind it?

I recently heard that science discovered that if the speed of light slowed by just two miles an hour, the Earth’s atmosphere would become unstable and dissipate.

I guess I just see far, far, far, too many implausible, insurmountable, probabilities coming together in perfect union at one time to be just some kind of weird happenstance.

That’s like the same person winning the lottery every week for 50 years straight.

 

[steveandersen]

IanS:

I remember when I was in eighth grade my Science teacher telling us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Well, if that’s the case then where did all matter come from? At one point and time something had to be made out of nothing in some way. I don’t care if you’re talking 6,000 years ago or 60 billion years ago.

How long ago were you in 8th grade

Since time is a property of the universe there technically wasn’t a “before” so the energy/matter we see has “always” been here

Quantum mechanics allows for some pretty funky things. I don’t understand it but there are theorized mechanisms for the spontaneous generation of something from nothing

IanS:

Also, how can things as complicated at the perfect order of the universe, DNA, cellular life or human thought be some sort of cosmic mishap.

why would you think they are a mishaps?

IanS:

For instance, lets say I were to take a clock, completely disassemble it into a hundred or so pieces, put it in a box, and bury it in the ground . One hundred years later someone digs it up, or even a thousand or a million. What do you think the chances are they will find a perfectly assembled running clock? There is no way a clock could form itself by chance, right? Can you think of any possible scenario where the clock would be unearthed in perfect running order? If so, what is the probability? Yet the structure of something a simple as any plant is 1000 times more complicated than a clock and yet I’m supposed to believe it’s just some accident that happened by chance with no intelligence whatsoever behind it?

That old watchmaker chestnut isn’t applicable. Clearly there are differences between natural living organisms and made things. Biochemical processes are deterministic.

After all would you say “if you put two cells with half a set of chromosomes each in a uterus, what is the chance that 9 months later they would have assembled themselves into a baby?”

IanS:

I recently heard that science discovered that if the speed of light slowed by just two miles an hour, the Earth’s atmosphere would become unstable and dissipate.

That doesn’t sound quite right I would need to look at it more to understand. Do you have a reference?
But in any event, how is this germane?

IanS:

I guess I just see far, far, far, too many implausible, insurmountable, probabilities coming together in perfect union at one time to be just some kind of weird happenstance.

That’s like the same person winning the lottery every week for 50 years straight.

Hardly the same thing. you’ll need to provide some numbers to make that statement

But if it is improbability that you are worried about than what about conception? The odds of a particular combination of genes that would produce you (rather than another brother or sister or no baby at all) seem very unlikely…why is it only the improbability of evolution that you have a problem with?

 

[martino]

PLP:

This is not an apt analogy. A more apt analogy would be to say (at the football game), “There are no teams playing baseball in this stadium today.” Would you still require me to know everyone’s name before asserting that truth?

Im not really understanding your analogy. there is no relation to the names of the people and the sport that is being played; how is this a better analogy? In your analogy it would be obvious to everyone that baseball is not being played at the football game; are you saying that it should be obvious to all that God doesn’t exist?

I’m not saying it’s logically impossible for a god to exist. I’m saying that I’ve seen no evidence (I’ve checked pretty carefully) to support the idea that a god exists and that lack of evidence rationally justifies my own disbelief. Of course, if additional evidence were to come to light, I would reevaluate my conclusions in the light of that evidence.

if lack of evidence for the existence of God compels you to belief He doesn’t exist; then what about the lack of evidence for any other theory that contradicts His existence? you cannot believe any off those either, which would leave you to conclude that at this time there is no evidence as to how we got here. you wouldnt even be able to say that it happened by “chance” because there is no evidence of that either.
to me, the fact that we exist and after all our research we cannot come up with any explanation as to how we got here; that in itself is at least circumstancial evidence for the existence of God.

simply put: there are no other theories that even attempt to explain how life began. what caused the first effect, what made the first movement? its a mystery for sure!!!

 

[PLP]

IanS:

I remember when I was in eighth grade my Science teacher telling us matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Well, if that’s the case then where did all matter come from? At one point and time something had to be made out of nothing in some way. I don’t care if you’re talking 6,000 years ago or 60 billion years ago.

If it is true that matter (mass-energy) cannot be created, then it follows logically that matter was not in fact created, period. It just is. If matter cannot be created, then the assertion that God can create matter is logically contradictory. If, on the other hand, a God can create matter, then matter can be created. But if matter can be created, we have no grounds for introducing a god to create uncreatable matter.

This argument, like all first cause/prime mover arguments is logically inconsistent.

Also, how can things as complicated at the perfect order of the universe, DNA, cellular life or human thought be some sort of cosmic mishap.

It is a matter of opinion whether the universe, DNA, etc. are “perfectly” ordered. If you just mean the universe, etc. is the way it is, then “perfectly ordered” is not really meaningful. If you have a more specific meaning in mind, you’ll have to describe it precisely.

For instance, lets say I were to take a clock, completely disassemble it into a hundred or so pieces, put it in a box, and bury it in the ground . One hundred years later someone digs it up, or even a thousand or a million. What do you think the chances are they will find a perfectly assembled running clock?

There is no way a clock could form itself by chance, right? Can you think of any possible scenario where the clock would be unearthed in perfect running order? If so, what is the probability?

An infinitesimally small chance. Amazingly enough, we’ve never actually seen such a thing happen.

Yet the structure of something a simple as any plant is 1000 times more complicated than a clock and yet I’m supposed to believe it’s just some accident that happened by chance with no intelligence whatsoever behind it?

You’re not “supposed” to believe anything; you can believe anything you wish. Aside from the obvious exceptions, it’s no skin off my nose whatever you believe.

If you wish to know what scientists actually do say about evolution and the history of the development of terrestrial organisms, I’d be happy to help out. I’ll give you one tip: Your clock analogy is completely inapt and has nothing whatsoever to do with evolutionary science.

I recently heard that science discovered that if the speed of light slowed by just two miles an hour, the Earth’s atmosphere would become unstable and dissipate.

My baloney detector goes PING.

I guess I just see far, far, far, too many implausible, insurmountable, probabilities coming together in perfect union at one time to be just some kind of weird happenstance.

That’s like the same person winning the lottery every week for 50 years straight.

As noted earlier, you’ll have to quantify this probability; show your work. That evolution (or indeed any science) is counterintuitive is not evidence that it’s false.

 

[IanS]

First, I thought this was “Ask the Atheist”. Frankly, I’m a little tired of arguing with some of the agenda-filled Catholics on these forums.

steveandersen:

How long ago were you in 8th grade

About 23 years ago

Since time is a property of the universe there technically wasn’t a “before” so the energy/matter we see has “always” been here

Quantum mechanics allows for some pretty funky things. I don’t understand it but there are theorized mechanisms for the spontaneous generation of something from nothing:

Unacceptable. Matter is a seeable touchable thing that IS subject to time. So it had to come into existence at some time.

why would you think they are a mishaps?

Umm… I don’t. That’s my point.

That old watchmaker chestnut isn’t applicable. Clearly there are differences between natural living organisms and made things. Biochemical processes are deterministic.

Where does the biochemical processes come from? Why does it happen? When did it originate?

After all would you say “if you put two cells with half a set of chromosomes each in a uterus, what is the chance that 9 months later they would have assembled themselves into a baby?”

Chances are pretty good. So why?

Hardly the same thing. you’ll need to provide some numbers to make that statement

I can’t provide the numbers. Again, That’s my point.

But if it is improbability that you are worried about than what about conception? The odds of a particular combination of genes that would produce you (rather than another brother or sister or no baby at all) seem very unlikely…why is it only the improbabliity of evoluiton that you have a problem with?

I’m talking origins NOT evolution, which I don’t have a big problem with.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

*Atheism is not an ethical position. Ethically, I’m a secular humanist. I believe whatever it is we call good is knowable somehow by human beings, empirically and naturally. **No god is required to have ethical beliefs.

---

I don’t think any theist would disagree with the sentence I have bold printed. Where the theist would disagree would be whether you have the correct ethical beliefs and all the ethical beliefs you would have if you were a theist.

There are too many moral dilemmas produced by the atheist position. There is no final authority for what is right or wrong. Morals then become what any individual or party says they are. The human Intellect and Will, being the slippery characters they are, often find a way to slip around what is known to be good empirically and naturally, as you put it*.*

Can you show me a way out of this dilemma of moral relativism that seems to naturally flow from atheism? Or do you embrace moral relativism?

 

[PLP]

martino:

Im not really understanding your analogy. there is no relation to the names of the people and the sport that is being played; how is this a better analogy? In your analogy it would be obvious to everyone that baseball is not being played at the football game; are you saying that it should be obvious to all that God doesn’t exist?

Don’t stretch the analogy too far! I’m saying only that it’s not necessary to know everyone’s name at the stadium to determine that they’re not in fact playing baseball; likewise it is not necessary to know every fact in the universe to have a rational belief that no God actually exists.

if lack of evidence for the existence of God compels you to belief He doesn’t exist; then what about the lack of evidence for any other theory that contradicts His existence? you cannot believe any off those either, which would leave you to conclude that at this time there is no evidence as to how we got here.

I’m always intrigued when self-described theistic believers argue for radical agnosticism. If you really believed this argument, you would not be a theist.

All I can say is that I evaluate any proposition which is demonstrable in principle against the demonstrated evidence. If the evidence is present, I believe. If the evidence is absent, I disbelieve. If the evidence is equivocal, I am uncertain. To the extent that the existence of God is demonstrable in principle, the evidence is positively absent: I see the contrary of what I would expect to see if the proposition were true.

I evaluate a proposition which is not demonstrable in principle according to logic and Occam’s razor. If the proposition is internally logically contradictory, I reject it. If the proposition is dispensible, I dispense with it. Again to the extent that the existence of God is not demonstrable in principle, I’ve found the ideas either internally logically contradictory or dispensible.

you wouldnt even be able to say that it happened by “chance” because there is no evidence of that either.
to me, the fact that we exist and after all our research we cannot come up with any explanation as to how we got here; that in itself is at least circumstancial evidence for the existence of God.

“How we got here” is a vague question. As we have a pretty good scientific explanation of “how we got here” starting from the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang right up to the present, I must conclude that you are talking about an “ultimate” theory of the origin of the universe. See the first paragraph of my earlier post to IanS.

simply put: there are no other theories that even attempt to explain how life began. what caused the first effect, what made the first movement? its a mystery for sure!!!

Well, there are several theories that attempt to explain how life began. It’s not yet solved by any means, but we have no reason yet to exclude a natural origin for life.

 

[PLP]

***No god is required to have ethical beliefs.

---

I don’t think any theist would disagree with the sentence I have bold printed. Where the theist would disagree would be whether you have the correct ethical beliefs and all the ethical beliefs you would have if you were a theist.

That is most definitely true. Many theists hold that there is an ethical duty to believe in the existence of a god, and I do not.

There are too many moral dilemmas produced by the atheist position.

Like what? My life is pretty much free from fundamental moral dilemmas.

There is no final authority for what is right or wrong.

Indeed. Not even the theists have agreed upon a final authority that provides actual answers. Heck, not even all Catholics actually do what the Pope or the Church tells them to do. The theists are not exactly batting 1.000 on the final authority front.

Morals then become what any individual or party says they are.

As I hold to a (somewhat idiosyncratic) version of moral subjectivism, I won’t argue with you there. But see my earlier posts on the subject: Moral subjectivism (at least my version) does not hold that having a subjective opinion establishes objective truth, it says only that subjective facts–what people do and do not subjectively approve of–are the only facts we have to work with in constructing laws and social ethics.

The human Intellect and Will, being the slippery characters they are, often find a way to slip around what is known to be good empirically and naturally, as you put it*.*

Well… as a subjectivist, I hold that each person’s intellect and will are what establishes what that person approves and disapproves of; there is nothing else to use intellect and will to “slip around”. (Except, perhaps, the subjective opinions of one’s neighbors.) A person’s subjective opinions are, of course, naturally and empirically determinable.

There are atheist moral objectivists, though, who hold that there are indeed fundamental objective moral facts independent of subjective opinion. But even such atheist moral objectivists hold that, whatever these facts are, they must be somehow determined naturally.

Can you show me a way out of this dilemma of moral relativism that seems to naturally flow from atheism? Or do you embrace moral relativism?

In my opinion, for a moral fact (i.e. the presence of approval or disapproval) to be objectively true, it must be stated relative to one or more actual people. It is objectively true that I myself disapprove of killing people for money. It is objectively true that most Americans approve of democracy. Those statements are facts by virtue of being stated relative to the opinions of actual people.

There is no “dilemma” in this sort of moral relativism.

 

[TNT]

JUST HAVING FUN WITH PLP; NO POLEMICS FROM ME!

    QUESTIONS:

1. DOES SOMETHING COME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

ANSWER: NO…SELF-EVIDENT.
This is foundational for all that follows

1. IF NOTHING COMES FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THEN OF THE FOLLOWING ONE MUST BE TRUE TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER:

A. The eternity of Matter [EOM]
B. The eternity of an immaterial intelligence Who created matter. …Eternity of God. [EOG]

Since objectively neither has been proved in the scientific sense, then whichever one chooses, is by FAITH.

Therefore the atheist has a Faith system the same as the theist.

The only difference is WHAT they have faith IN:
EOM
EOG

Since an essential characteristic for a religion is FAITH in what cannnot be proven scientifically nor by compelling reason, then atheism is a religion with FAITH as its foundation.

The other essential characteristic for a religion is a superior substance to himself.
Since men all die, decay away, but matter is eternal [EOM] then matter is superior in substance to a mere configuration of that matter (man).

So, atheism has all the necessary characteristics of a religion.
Atheism can therefore be defined in its belief system as a religion.

Does a religion necessarily require an external worship to a superior substance? NO.
Buddhists do not necessarily give external worship to a superior substance (the arrival or condition of Nirvana) . All of their rituals are directed at more a perfect self-realization.

Does a religion necessarily require a formal ritual?
NO.
The quaker religion merely meets, has talks, which may or may not refer even to their superior substance (god), goes home…no ritual, no sacraments, not even baptism.

Since one who is not agnostic (I don’t know, ie no faith in anything), has to have a religion:
I simply chose the [EOG] religion since [EOM] religion appears to me to be much closer to irrational mental behavior.

 

[martino]

PLP:

Don’t stretch the analogy too far! I’m saying only that it’s not necessary to know everyone’s name at the stadium to determine that they’re not in fact playing baseball; likewise it is not necessary to know every fact in the universe to have a rational belief that no God actually exists.

I agree that its not necessary to know everyone’s name to determine that the athletes are not playing baseball, we dont need their names to determine anything…except for this…whether or not any of them is named John Smith.

“How we got here” is a vague question. As we have a pretty good scientific explanation of “how we got here” starting from the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang right up to the present…

do we really have evidence that the Big Bang took place or what happened in the fraction of a second thereafter? what is the evidence? without demonstrable evidence you would be forced to disbelieve the Big Bang theory and what happened immediately after…see your quote below.

All I can say is that I evaluate any proposition which is demonstrable in principle against the demonstrated evidence. If the evidence is present, I believe. If the evidence is absent, I disbelieve. If the evidence is equivocal, I am uncertain.

also…

Well, there are several theories that attempt to explain how life began. It’s not yet solved by any means, but we have no reason yet to exclude a natural origin for life.

your reason for excluding them would be the same reason to exclued God or design theories. i thought we were to exclude theories that are not supported by demonstrable evidence (Occams’s razor). you are saying that for some reason these theories cannot be excluded even though there is no evidence for them.

before there was a requirement that demonstrable evidence be present or else the theory must be dispenced. why is there a different standard for these theories that attempt to explain how life began?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

PLP

I said:

*There are too many moral dilemmas produced by the atheist position. *

You said:

Like what? My life is pretty much free from fundamental moral dilemmas.

No it isn’t. There being no God, your dilemma is that you can never be sure whether your moral code is right or wrong.

I said:

*There is no final authority for what is right or wrong. *

You said:

Indeed. Not even the theists have agreed upon a final authority that provides actual answers. Heck, not even all Catholics actually do what the Pope or the Church tells them to do. The theists are not exactly batting 1.000 on the final authority front.

That all Catholics do not obey is not proof that they do not have a final authority. The Church formally teaches that it is the final authority, regardless of what individual rebels in the Church may teach.

 

[steveandersen]

martino:

…do we really have evidence that the Big Bang took place or what happened in the fraction of a second thereafter?

Yes.
People just don’t propose stuff without data after all.

martino:

what is the evidence?..

You mean besides the background radiation (which was found where theory predicted it)?

You would have to talk to a physicist. The evidence is there it is just beyond my expertise.