Atheism is irrational

[Dee_Dee_King]

I also take issue with the assumption that anything natural or anything that can be explained through science and reason must have a cause, whereas the supernatural is exempt from this requirement. If you can explain why the supernatural does not have to have a cause, I would be much obliged. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that there is no real reason for this distinction.

the problem isn’t the assumption but your question. it’s meaningless. supernatural in this sense is exempt from this requirement because supernatural is defined as that which is not due to creation, or that which is not caused. so to ask why God doesn’t need a cause is meaningless because he is defined as that without cause. your question doesn’t make any sense and is absurd.

this is like asking, “why can’t darkness be bright?” because darkness is defined as the absence of light.

the conclusion that there must be a first mover is unavoidable–there must be a cause for all change. if this first mover is truly first, it can’t change because it would require something to precede it to change it–making it chageable. so it is absurd to ask why the first mover can’t have a cause.

when you use empiriometric evidence to disprove God–the first mover–you end up cutting the branch you are sitting on so to speak because physical sciences depend on sensible being. if you take being out of it, you take away your ability to measure anything. even mathematics depend on being–that of beings of reason.

the most obvious thing to us is that there is an is. this is primary and must first be acknowledged for us to say anything logical about the universe. the reason and cause of this is is God who sustains existence itself.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

There is no need for a causless cause, or first mover.

I think it’s been clearly established in this thread (or another) that religion jumps back to explain something new that crops up one science has explained natural causes. Some people posting here believe that the bing bang was the start of everything and that God caused it. If this is a matter of belief then you know you are right. Of course people have been killed for suggesting the world is not the centre of the universe with everything revolving around it. To actually kill someone for believing that the earth moves round the sun suggests to me absolute unquestioning certainty that you are right.

Like Suat I think that scientific answers to the big bang are out there. I also don’t think it is likly that I will live to see causes found. While I’m no research scientist (only 18) I do try to keep up with current scientific theories. Currently there are a number of theories explaining the bing bang.

For example, prehaps the universe is ‘created’ and ‘destroyed’ in cycles. The singularity may have been produced by the universe imploding. This avoids the problem of a cold universe, because energy would have been clumped back up together as it were, before spreading out.

Our ideas about the singularity come from observing red shift in distant galaxcies. Model expansion backwards you get to the singularity. It would seem you can’t model further until you accept that at its most basic and fundamental level, we don’t know what space time is actually made of. If it is made of loops you can model back beyond the singularity. This is a current scientific theory and I don’t pretend to understand it, but maybe someone here could clarify the finer details.

Atheism is not irrational, and it is certainly more rational then religious believe. Do you believe that it was a rational to murder people because they believed the earth moved round the sun? Do you believe that believing the earth to be the centre of the universe was a rational veiw? When those veiws predominated it would have been neigh on impossible to conceive that they might be wrong. If you believe God is the cause of the big bang, you are making the same mistake.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

I will even admit that I do not think that a reason for existence can ever be proven to exist or not to exist.

I agree that a reason for existance can ever be proven to be right or not, but I really don’t see why there is a need for one. Humans seem so hung up on this self centred supiriority complex. Why is it so difficult to accept that there is no purpose of our existance?

We are not special, we are just lucky. I’m glad I exist but my life has no purpose beyond what I choose in terms of my interactions with other people and the environment around me.

 

[Suat]

it’s meaningless. supernatural in this sense is exempt from this requirement because supernatural is defined as that which is not due to creation, or that which is not caused.

I disagree with this description, and I think that your religion does as well. God is not the only supernatural being that Catholics believe in, correct? There are also angels and the devil, maybe some others. All of those supernatural beings are believed to have been created by God, and they far outnumber God in terms of population size . Therefore, you must make an exception to the rule in order to justify the existence of God.

so to ask why God doesn’t need a cause is meaningless because he is defined as that without cause. your question doesn’t make any sense and is absurd.

Is it meaningless to call a description into question? Your religion has described God as uncaused, this goes against what is described for all other supernatural beings that you believe in. What reason do you have any reason to change the description in this one case? I do not think that there is a reason, this is an issue that you must accept on faith.

this is like asking, “why can’t darkness be bright?” because darkness is defined as the absence of light.

I disagree. You are comparing two different things here, a word with a concept or being. Darkness and bright/light are both words that have static, universal definitions. Concepts or beings are described by words, and those descriptions can change or be modified over time. It would be more like holding a sphere and calling it either a sphere or a cube. If you call it a sphere and it embodies all the qualities of a sphere, then fine. But you cannot describe it as a cube and then say that questioning the description is nonsense when, in reality, the object does not fit under the definition of cube.

there must be a cause for all change. if this first mover is truly first, it can’t change because it would require something to precede it to change it–making it chageable. so it is absurd to ask why the first mover can’t have a cause.

This argument is not very convincing evidence for the existence of a God. This has been gone over already in the thread.

 

[Mirdath]

The link didn’t work, was it supposed to be to a specific post? Just tell me what number it was.

It was to the thread in general – my points are scattered over a few posts. It’s still a short thread though.

Surely the how is a scientific question, and pretty much completely out of bounds for metaphysics and theology! Why should that be such a big surprise?

I don’t know, why were you saying how and why are so closely related then?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

I disagree with this description, and I think that your religion does as well. God is not the only supernatural being that Catholics believe in, correct?

we are using different understandings of supernatural vs. natural. angels and devils are part of the natural world. they are immaterial beings created by God. their essences are distinct from their existence unlike God. effects caused by them are natural but are outside physical or mathematical explanation.

i shouldn’t say that supernatural is that which isn’t caused because supernatural by definition is an effect. creation’s existence was initially a supernatural act or effect.

What reason do you have any reason to change the description in this one case? I do not think that there is a reason, this is an issue that you must accept on faith.

because of the first law of knowledge which is called the principle of contradiction: something can’t be and not be at the same time and in the same way. for God to have a cause means that he is the first mover and not at the same time and in same way–obviously a contradiction.

This argument is not very convincing evidence for the existence of a God. This has been gone over already in the thread.

we can’t argue about terminology. God is what he is. we can argue on the methodology or string of logic of how we come to believe in God.

there are only three possibilities for the origin of change in the world.

1. 
   *]change goes to infinity
   *]in a circle
   *]has a beginning.
   
   we’ve already disproven the first possibility. using a circle doesn’t explain how the universe as a whole started to change. change must have an ultimate origin outside of itself.
   
   to be consistent you must show why #1 or #2 are true. show why we don’t need a first mover or an uncaused cause to explain the origins of creation.
   
   by attacking the concept of God or the first mover, you by default hold #1 or #2 to be true. this is why it’s meaningless to question the origins of God. It’s like saying nothing isn’t something.

 

[ribozyme]

For example, prehaps the universe is ‘created’ and ‘destroyed’ in cycles. The singularity may have been produced by the universe imploding. This avoids the problem of a cold universe, because energy would have been clumped back up together as it were, before spreading out.

One model, the cyclic model (which involves the collision of branes, requires a beginning as the cycles cannot extend indefinitely into the past. See: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Jake Ellison

Atheism is not irrational…

It certainly** is** because it assumes a fact for which there is no evidence … that God does not exist.

Do you believe that it was a rational to murder people because they believed the earth moved round the sun?

Do you believe it was rational for the atheist Stalin to murder theists because they believed in God?

 

[BlazingBolt]

I was once an atheist. One question I have on this subject is that in my experience, becoming an atheist is something we decide. Is this how it was with you too? I theorize that all people are naturally born with some sense that their is a God of some sort but that some people end up rationalizing for themselves that their is no God. If my theory is true, and historically across all cultures their seems to be a belief in some higher power, then atheism is unnatural. So how long have you people been atheists and how old were you when you became one?

 

[Valke2]

we are using different understandings of supernatural vs. natural. angels and devils are part of the natural world. they are immaterial beings created by God. their essences are distinct from their existence unlike God. effects caused by them are natural but are outside physical or mathematical explanation.

i shouldn’t say that supernatural is that which isn’t caused because supernatural by definition is an effect. creation’s existence was initially a supernatural act or effect. because of the first law of knowledge which is called the principle of contradiction: something can’t be and not be at the same time and in the same way. for God to have a cause means that he is the first mover and not at the same time and in same way–obviously a contradiction. we can’t argue about terminology. God is what he is. we can argue on the methodology or string of logic of how we come to believe in God.

there are only three possibilities for the origin of change in the world.

1. 
   *]change goes to infinity
   *]in a circle
   *]has a beginning.
   
   we’ve already disproven the first possibility. using a circle doesn’t explain how the universe as a whole started to change. change must have an ultimate origin outside of itself.
   
   to be consistent you must show why #1 or #2 are true. show why we don’t need a first mover or an uncaused cause to explain the origins of creation.
   
   by attacking the concept of God or the first mover, you by default hold #1 or #2 to be true. this is why it’s meaningless to question the origins of God. It’s like saying nothing isn’t something.

1. 
   Why assume the prime mover survived the prime move? Or did anything after the prime move?
   
   For that matter why not assume that something did not come out of nothing? You can’t say that such an assumption is illogical unless you are willing to say believe in God is illogical. Certainly, it is as rational to say that the universe was created out of nothing, as it is to say that God has always existed, that he did not come into being at any point in time.

 

[Valke2]

I was once an atheist. One question I have on this subject is that in my experience, becoming an atheist is something we decide. Is this how it was with you too? I theorize that all people are naturally born with some sense that their is a God of some sort but that some people end up rationalizing for themselves that their is no God. If my theory is true, and historically across all cultures their seems to be a belief in some higher power, then atheism is unnatural. So how long have you people been atheists and how old were you when you became one?

I don’t ever recall believing in a God before I was 40. However, that may be because religion is a system that one learns. Without religion, there is no structure with which one can easily define God. In other words, the belief in God may have fallen in the category of things I didn’t know that I didn’t know before I came to my beliefs through my religion.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

For that matter why not assume that something did not come out of nothing? You can’t say that such an assumption is illogical unless you are willing to say believe in God is illogical. Certainly, it is as rational to say that the universe was created out of nothing, as it is to say that God has always existed, that he did not come into being at any point in time.

God’s logic is not ours. What baffles us is how God can be causeless if the universe is not. God can be causeless because God created the principle of causality that we are familiar with, and therefore God is not subject to it.

 

[Valke2]

For that matter why not assume that something did not come out of nothing? You can’t say that such an assumption is illogical unless you are willing to say believe in God is illogical. Certainly, it is as rational to say that the universe was created out of nothing, as it is to say that God has always existed, that he did not come into being at any point in time.

God’s logic is not ours. What baffles us is how God can be causeless if the universe is not. God can be causeless because God created the principle of causality that we are familiar with, and therefore God is not subject to it.

That’s a fine position. However, it is no more rational than atheism.

 

[Atreyu]

There is no need for a causless cause, or first mover.

I think it’s been clearly established in this thread (or another) that religion jumps back to explain something new that crops up one science has explained natural causes. Some people posting here believe that the bing bang was the start of everything and that God caused it. If this is a matter of belief then you know you are right. Of course people have been killed for suggesting the world is not the centre of the universe with everything revolving around it. To actually kill someone for believing that the earth moves round the sun suggests to me absolute unquestioning certainty that you are right.

Like Suat I think that scientific answers to the big bang are out there. I also don’t think it is likly that I will live to see causes found. While I’m no research scientist (only 18) I do try to keep up with current scientific theories. Currently there are a number of theories explaining the bing bang.

For example, prehaps the universe is ‘created’ and ‘destroyed’ in cycles. The singularity may have been produced by the universe imploding. This avoids the problem of a cold universe, because energy would have been clumped back up together as it were, before spreading out.

Our ideas about the singularity come from observing red shift in distant galaxcies. Model expansion backwards you get to the singularity. It would seem you can’t model further until you accept that at its most basic and fundamental level, we don’t know what space time is actually made of. If it is made of loops you can model back beyond the singularity. This is a current scientific theory and I don’t pretend to understand it, but maybe someone here could clarify the finer details.

Atheism is not irrational, and it is certainly more rational then religious believe. Do you believe that it was a rational to murder people because they believed the earth moved round the sun? Do you believe that believing the earth to be the centre of the universe was a rational veiw? When those veiws predominated it would have been neigh on impossible to conceive that they might be wrong. If you believe God is the cause of the big bang, you are making the same mistake.

What definitely is irrational is to be atheist simply because some theists haven’t been the best people in the world… As an aside, the Catholic Church is more of a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. Of course some people are going to do some stupid things!

 

[Suat]

we are using different understandings of supernatural vs. natural. angels and devils are part of the natural world. they are immaterial beings created by God. their essences are distinct from their existence unlike God. effects caused by them are natural but are outside physical or mathematical explanation.

If they are outside of physical and mathematical explanation, then they are not natural. Supernatural is that which is above or outside the explanation of the natural.

God to have a cause means that he is the first mover and not at the same time and in same way–obviously a contradiction.

Obviously not a problem if he does not exist to be the prime mover .

there are only three possibilities for the origin of change in the world.

1. 
   *]change goes to infinity
   *]in a circle
   *]has a beginning.
   
   we’ve already disproven the first possibility.

1. 
   I do not agree. Neither the atheists nor the agnostics on this thread have been convinced that there must have been a prime mover or that an infinite regression, if it is necessary, is not possible.
   

   using a circle doesn’t explain how the universe as a whole started to change. change must have an ultimate origin outside of itself.

   Why must change originate outside of itself? Nuclei change all the time, their nucleons rearrange; they decay, giving off photons or charged particles. These changes are based upon self-contained properties of the nuclei and do not require interaction with outside forces. Why does change need to come from outside the system only?
   

   to be consistent you must show why #1 or #2 are true. show why we don’t need a first mover or an uncaused cause to explain the origins of creation.

   Well, one, it is possible for something to be created out of nothing. It happens all the time for subatomic particles. Granted, this is on a completely different scale. In that case, I would like to point out that argument 1 assumes that, without a prime mover, time extends infinitely into the past. However, we know that this is not true, time only extends back 13.7 billion years, give or take a few. Before that, it become much more difficult to try to argue that an infinite regression is necessary. Do you need to worry about changes to infinity without the existence of time? Can you even talk about a beginning or end or change prior to the existence of time?
   

   by attacking the concept of God or the first mover, you by default hold #1 or #2 to be true.

   No, what I said was that even if 1 and 2 where not true, you are no closer to the goal of proving that God was the creator.
   

   this is why it’s meaningless to question the origins of God. It’s like saying nothing isn’t something.

   I do not think that it is meaningless to question the origins of something that has no evidence for its existence. That is like saying that it is meaningless to question the existence of unicorns. Well, why should I not question their existence?

 

[Valke2]

What definitely is irrational is to be atheist simply because some theists haven’t been the best people in the world… As an aside, the Catholic Church is more of a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. Of course some people are going to do some stupid things!

excellent!

 

[Mirdath]

What definitely is irrational is to be atheist simply because some theists haven’t been the best people in the world… As an aside, the Catholic Church is more of a hospital for sinners rather than a hotel for saints. Of course some people are going to do some stupid things!

I’m completely with you on this

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

For that matter why not assume that something did not come out of nothing? You can’t say that such an assumption is illogical unless you are willing to say believe in God is illogical.

according to the first law of logic, something can’t come out of nothing because it would be and not be at the same time in the same way. besides, we can only know about nothing in relation to something.

it is entirely logical to conclude that there was an uncaused caused. logic and reality demand it. we’ve been through this. you avoid to show how #1 and #2 are logical, the only other possible origins of creation

If they are outside of physical and mathematical explanation, then they are not natural

then being and existence are not natural because there is no physical or mathematical reason that explains them. both physics and mathematics depend on being. being is primary. being is analogical and heterogeneous, on many levels. no being, no math, no physics.

you can’t come up with an equation that creates its own necessity.

I do not agree. Neither the atheists nor the agnostics on this thread have been convinced that there must have been a prime mover or that an infinite regression, if it is necessary, is not possible.

so what? truth exists outside of our self

Why must change originate outside of itself? Nuclei change all the time, their nucleons rearrange; they decay, giving off photons or charged particles.

if something were to change itself, it would both be and not be at the same time and in the same way. it would be one thing and another with respect to the same thing.

nuclei change because of some force acting on them such as the weak nuclear force. the reason that radioactive decay even occurs is because of supernovas and the neutron flux that created unstable elements.

it is possible for something to be created out of nothing. It happens all the time for subatomic particles.

this is impossible according to the first law of logic. something would be and not be in the same way at the same time. you can’t use reason and logic to conclude there is no reason and logic. all quantum mechanical observations were based on the fact that the universe is orderly and we can understand it. if existence comes from nonexistence, then there would be no order or truth.

I do not think that it is meaningless to question the origins of something that has no evidence for its existence.

neither do i. but God’s primary and obvious evidence for existence is existence.

 

[Atreyu]

I don’t know, why were you saying how and why are so closely related then?

Is this in reference to me saying:

me:

I suppose I have been confusing two issues by introducing the why of existence, along with the existence of a first cause. Yet these two topics are very closely linked, wouldn’t you agree? A first cause without cause explains the why of the existence of the Universe. Without this first cause without cause, the why of the existence of the Universe is left completely unexplained. I find this position intellectually dissatisfying.

I haven’t mentioned the “how” here. I was trying to break up the issue of the “why” with the issue of evidence for the first-cause-without-cause. As I see it, if the Universe did not have a start, then that does away with the first-cause-without-cause issue, because in this case there is no first cause. However, this doesn’t in any way explain the “why” of existence. And I’m not talking about our existence; I’m talking about any existence. It seems to me to be more reasonable to believe that the Universe had a start, because that is the simpler answer. But if the Universe had a start, then there must have been a first-cause-without-cause. Then, if this is true, the characteristics of this first-cause explain the “why” of existence (but it’s a slightly different story).

I suppose my point is that atheists have two issues to answer. First of all, I really think that they need to show that the Universe has always existed, so that there was no first cause. Secondly, they need to explain why the Universe exists in the first place; instead of nothing. This is how I see things, and unless these questions can be answered, then I will say that atheism is unreasonable. Especially considering I think that both of the questions are actually impossible to answer, instead of being yet-to-be-solved questions.

 

[Mirdath]

Is this in reference to me saying:

Yes.

I suppose my point is that atheists have two issues to answer. First of all, I really think that they need to show that the Universe has always existed, so that there was no first cause. Secondly, they need to explain why the Universe exists in the first place; instead of nothing. This is how I see things, and unless these questions can be answered, then I will say that atheism is unreasonable. Especially considering I think that both of the questions are actually impossible to answer, instead of being yet-to-be-solved questions.

There was a beginning, it’s the Big Bang. What happened before that is unknown as yet – which doesn’t mean it had to have been done by God. That’s just a red herring – in fact, so’s your second ‘issue’. It exists; what’s the point of trying to figure out why? Leave that to the philosophers and theologians and let them hammer something out.

Religion hasn’t done squat to answer the question of how the universe physically came to be (okay, God said ‘let there be light’, but what actually happened to make that light?) and it’s pretty thoroughly torn by disagreements on the question of why existence.

This is one of the things I really admire about atheism, and which makes me think of it as a more reasonable position: atheists generally aren’t afraid to admit they might be wrong about something (here I discount strong atheism a la Dawkins). They don’t try to antagonize scientific thought and effort with only the justification of ‘my religion says it’s this way instead!’. Not that all religious people do act like that, of course – but it does seem to be far more common.