Atheism

[Tulkas]

Right before i was about to post a reply, something amazing came up in my life. Not amazing good by any means, quite the oppsoite, in fact, amazingly ironic.

I just found out, someone i know very well might be on their deathbed as a result of a car accidnet, all happening within the past 20 minutues. Logic tells me this is just an April fools joke, what are the chances right?

But my emotion and my heart tell me that this is real, hearing the cries of the voice in the phone as the news was delivered to me, was simply unbearable. Breaking down to cry, i began to examine what i was doing. This event, might determine if i in fact deside to put aside my beliefs and examine christanity.

This is no joke, no hypothetical example, LITERALLY seconds before i was about to click enter, and finish my post, i got a phone call. Now i am sitting here waiting. I guess time will tell.

 

[AnAtheist]

Genesis315:

Let me ask you something (this may come across as condescending, but I’m just curious. I apologize ahead of time). The arguments you make against Christianity, do you think you are the first to make them? These objections have been posed for a very long time and theologians have dealt with them well enough that the Church is still standing strong. I always get the feeling when reading an atheist website that the authors think they have stumbled across some big secret and they are revealing the sham of religion. It’s always old news and arguments that have been dealt with before–usually by people much smarter and more qualified than the posters here–especially me . Do atheists think all Catholics–even guys like Aquinas–are ignorant of their arguments (granted, many are)?

Hi, you didn’t ask me, but you won’t mind I guess, when I throw something of my experience in. You are right, most if not all insights we atheists have (or think we have) were brought up by somebody else in history, and an army of theologians have dealt with them already.
But we live in a Christian environment, at least when I was in school. Nowadays it’s half Muslim I guess. I was teached all the Christians myths as if they were real and history (ok, for you people they are), and for my part it took some time to figure out, that there is something wrong with it. It is safe to say, that this is the case for most atheists. At one stage in life they all say “hey, there’s something wrong, because [insert arbitrary reason here]” and to all of them it seems like they found something new, simply because they haven’t heard of it before. Nobody makes a research before you notice an error in a fixed worldview.
It works the other way as well. When I was 12, I followed Pascal’s Wager without ever having heard of it. I just had the uncomfortable feeling, there might be some truth in the hell story, better pray to the big boss.

 

[Darrel]

Tulkas:

Of the Creation of the Universe:

If the universe needed a creator then the creator would need one and that one would require one and so on and so forth. If you say that he was always here then that means the universe could have always been here.

Why is it any more absurd from u saying god has already existed, for me to say the Universe always existed. If we are going to defy time without having a creater for a creater and so on, we might as well extend it both ways, dontcha think?

We know through science that there are physical laws in the universe. In this universe we can safely say that all things begin and all things end. Be it flesh or a star in space, all things pass.

If it is true that the very universe exist it must exist from a start point. That in no way means that the one who created it operates under the simple laws of physics he weaved into this reality.

Time would seem to be a non issue in an eternal place. We need time for the measure of decay i.e.: we are born we die. To say the universe could be eternal is nonsense due to the fact that everything in it begins and ends.

What exist outside of this universe would be God and Heaven. Science seems to assume that we need evidence of God as if he only exists in the universe he created. All laws of science are irrelevant when you look at God. He made everything we examine and we know nothing of what is on the other side of what we would call the fabric of space or time.

If there is an actual fabric in space does it not seem reasonable to assume there is some ‘place’ on the other side of it? In this place there may not be things like time or space or distance or decay. If space is a substance with a temperature i.e.: absolute zero. Then we must assume that this universe in its entire mass exists within something else. That would indicate creation in my opinion. Not to mention the mathematical precision of the universe or the set of perfect variables required to even have the existence of life of Earth. I would love to know the mathematical probability that the universe created it’s self and that life on Earth was an accident in this self creation. I don’t think the internet could hold the zeros.

-D

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

This is not the way the game is played. Rather than atheists, you should refer to sceptics. The sceptics do not deny that the supernatural exists, but to be convinced of its existence they demand evidence that meets their standard of proof, i.e. cold, hard, physical evidence. But as it happens, physical evidence implies a physical phenomenon, thereby transforming the supernatural into the previously unknown natural.

For some inexplicable reason, the believers in the supernatural complain bitterly that the rules are rigged against them.

but it’s not “the” rules - it’s their rules.

and my only complaint - and it’s not even that, really - is that the skeptics apply those rules arbitrarily, using them as a reason to disbelieve in the supernatural while ignoring that many other things that they believe also transgress those rules.

 

[Laurel]

Tulkas:

Yes, atheists do things becasue it is the right thing to do, who decides if it is good? Well, I am my own church. Thus, i decide. But how can i, an individual decide how something is good without the help of a church and a pope! Oh my whatever will i do!

Once again lets try to understand this belief a bit…Well, this is a simple example of how I, and probably many atheists may judge what is good. While these are not orignally mine, nevertheless they are good examples worth taking note to:

• Good is what one can get away with (might makes right).
• Rational self-interest is the basis for good.
• Service to others is the basis for good.
• Mortal pleasure is the basis for good.
• Lessening of suffering (in self and/or others) is good.

That sounds a lot like pre-destination to me, being good for it’s own sake, but even those who believe that believe in God.

 

[SamCA]

Genesis315:

Can you present a proof that the supernatural does not exist? There is enough evidence of the supernatural that it would meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in any court of law.

Could you direct me to some of it? This isn’t me being snarky, I’m really fascinated by esoteric science. Most of it’s bunk, but every now and then you come across something that really makes you stop and think – Princeton’s Global Consciousness Project, say, or some of the more compelling UFO stuff. If you can point me to any empirical, halfway verifiable evidence of miracles, I’d really love to take a look.

 

[SamCA]

john doran:

but it’s not “the” rules - it’s their rules.

and my only complaint - and it’s not even that, really - is that the skeptics apply those rules arbitrarily, using them as a reason to disbelieve in the supernatural while ignoring that many other things that they believe also transgress those rules.

Like what, out of curiosity?

 

[Genesis315]

SamCA:

Could you direct me to some of it? This isn’t me being snarky, I’m really fascinated by esoteric science. Most of it’s bunk, but every now and then you come across something that really makes you stop and think – Princeton’s Global Consciousness Project, say, or some of the more compelling UFO stuff. If you can point me to any empirical, halfway verifiable evidence of miracles, I’d really love to take a look.

Haha, no problem. Check post #75. You can do your own research from there.

 

[SamCA]

Darrel:

We know through science that there are physical laws in the universe. In this universe we can safely say that all things begin and all things end. Be it flesh or a star in space, all things pass.

If it is true that the very universe exist it must exist from a start point. That in no way means that the one who created it operates under the simple laws of physics he weaved into this reality.

Time would seem to be a non issue in an eternal place. We need time for the measure of decay i.e.: we are born we die. To say the universe could be eternal is nonsense due to the fact that everything in it begins and ends.

In its current form, yes. However, as you have noted, time (probably) only exists in the context of our current universe, which is to say that time itself began when the universe came to be in its current form.

However, if we consider the idea that the universe may have existed in some other form before its current one – say, a quantum singularity in which everything that currently makes up our universe was comprised of a single point of space and time – then you could reasonably argue that the universe could have existed eternally in that form.

We can definitely show, scientifically, that the universe has not existed eternally in its current form, but that does not necessarily mean that it hasn’t always existed.

I would love to know the mathematical probability that the universe created it’s self and that life on Earth was an accident in this self creation. I don’t think the internet could hold the zeros.

I’ve been reading about this, and apparently there is some question of just how unlikely our universe is. Stephen Hawking – who is hardly a rabid atheist, and has pondered these questions himself more than once – has recently argued that our universe is actually exactly the sort of thing most likely to arise from a Big Bang, with a likelihood perhaps as high as 98%.

This, of course, could be entirely incorrect. But one must admit that Stephen Hawking does tend to know what he’s talking about (and even to admit when his earlier theories were wrong, a quality worth its weight in gold in cutting edge science…)

 

[john_doran]

SamCA:

Like what, out of curiosity?

most generally, they insist upon a a higher degree of certainty from the arguments used in support of supernatural phenomena than they expect for things like a belief in other minds or the mind-independence of the world, or the past, or…

basically, you either need deductive (cartesian) certainty for all beliefs, or for ***none *- you can’t make arbitrary applications of your epistemology only to those subjects which suit you.

 

[eptatorata]

]
you can’t make arbitrary applications of your epistemology only to those subjects which suit you.

I am not well read on epistemology, but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals that there are different schools of thought amongst the philosophers on that topic. If I read it correctly, a foundationalist can indeed declare a belief foundational if he or she considers it frivolous to question it.

And I recall having read that absolute certainty has been de-emphasized in modern Western philosophy.

 

[john_doran]

eptatorata:

I am not well read on epistemology, but a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals that there are different schools of thought amongst the philosophers on that topic. If I read it correctly, a foundationalist can indeed declare a belief foundational if he or she considers it frivolous to question it.

A) you’re right - there’s a number of schools of thought on epistemology.

B) foundationalism does not allow the (reasonable, anyway) “declaring” of a belief to be foundational because it is thought by someone that questioning it is frivolous.

C) my point is one about self-consistency: there needs to be a reason to apply different standards of proof to beliefs of different kinds. and, in my experience, there’s never one forthcoming when it comes to the claims made by skeptics that there’s not enough evidence for theism, but there is enough for belief in, e.g., an external world, other minds, the past, etc…

eptatorata:

And I recall having read that absolute certainty has been de-emphasized in modern Western philosophy.

you’re right. but you’d never know it from the exchanges i have with agnostics, atheists, and any other kind of skeptic. or, more precisely, absolute certainty is only de-emphasized when we’re talking about things in which those particular people actually believe, but for which beliefs they lack the kind of certainty they insist people like me need to have in order to justify my beliefs.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Sam

*We can definitely show, scientifically, that the universe has not existed eternally in its current form, but that does not necessarily mean that it hasn’t always existed.
*
Nor does it mean that it has existed eternally.

Those who believe that, do so mainly because they are atheists and cannot abide the idea of a created universe.

They can abide the idea of an eternal universe, but not an eternal Creator.

Another atheist dilemma … that they have to believe in something they cannot prove.

 

[eptatorata]

john doran:

you’re right. but you’d never know it from the exchanges i have with agnostics, atheists, and any other kind of skeptic. or, more precisely, absolute certainty is only de-emphasized when we’re talking about things in which those particular people actually believe, but for which beliefs they lack the kind of certainty they insist people like me need to have in order to justify my beliefs.

Fair enough - it must cut both ways. All I can say is that from where I come from, a particular claim may be so outlandish that suspension of disbelief is too much to ask for. The price I gladly pay for this is that I have to grant the other side the same priviledge. Just because I consider a claim to be way outlandish doesn’t mean that somebody else cannot reach another conclusion and I’m fine with agreeing to disagree. Until and unless one side tries to convince the other, of course.

 

[eptatorata]

Gilbert Keith:

Those who believe that, do so mainly because they are atheists and cannot abide the idea of a created universe.

This is a prejudiced statement. You are entitled to your personal opinions, but if you phrase it as a factual statement, then I’m afraid I have to ask you for proof.

 

[SamCA]

Gilbert Keith:

Nor does it mean that it has existed eternally.

Those who believe that, do so mainly because they are atheists and cannot abide the idea of a created universe.

That is not the only reason to believe it. There’s also Occam’s good old razor. Given that we must believe that something existed eternally(*), we could posit a created universe and an eternal creator, or an eternal universe.

Given that either could be true, the more parsimonious choice is the simpler one.

They can abide the idea of an eternal universe, but not an eternal Creator.

I can abide the idea just fine. I don’t think there’s a Creator, but I’m quite willing to entertain the notion that I could be wrong.

(*) I suppose that’s not the only alternative, on reflection. We could also believe that something – either the Creator or the Universe, or whatever – sprung spontaneously from nothing, too.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Sam

That is not the only reason to believe it. There’s also Occam’s good old razor.
Not fair! Occam was a Franciscan priest. You cannot hijack his principle and use it for atheism!

Get your own principle!

Gilbert

 

[SamCA]

Gilbert Keith:

Not fair! Occam was a Franciscan priest. You cannot hijack his principle and use it for atheism!

Get your own principle!

Gilbert

He shouldn’t just leave his razors lying around if he doesn’t want any random heretic who comes along to use them.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Occam’s Razor was designed to apply only to the natural order. Occam never intended it to be used as a weapon in the war between science and religion.

And since no weapon can truly be wielded against God, the atheist has to be very careful that he does not use Occam’s Razor on himself.

When the atheist assumes the universe is uncreated and eternal, he may be invoking Occam’s Razor. But since he cannot prove the universe is uncreated and eternal, he is no better than any theologian to takes any article of truth on faith.

A dull razor indeed!

 

[SamCA]

Gilbert Keith:

Occam’s Razor was designed to apply only to the natural order. Occam never intended it to be used as a weapon in the war between science and religion.

He probably never explicitly intended it to apply to all sorts of questions – but the thing is, Occam came up with such a useful insight that it’s bound to be used all over the place.

When the atheist assumes the universe is uncreated and eternal, he may be invoking Occam’s Razor. But since he cannot prove the universe is uncreated and eternal, he is no better than any theologian to takes any article of truth on faith.

Nobody who knows what Occam actually argued would use Occam’s Razor to prove the universe is eternal. But his point about the simpler explanation usually being true is a good one. Given the choice between an eternal universe and an eternal creator, all things being equal, Occam’s Razor points to the former.

That doesn’t mean it’s proven. There are lots of times when the simpler explanation turns out to be false. But it does weigh in on the likelihood.