Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[PRmerger]

I agree. For this reason I consider classical theism to offer assertions but no explanation.

What is the explanation that is lacking here:

Whatever begins to exist needs an explanation.
The universe began to exist…
Therefore it needs an explanation.

 

[Nixbits]

It’s the corollary to the atheist’s “God of the Gaps” objection. “Science of the Gaps” --“we don’t know now, but Science will figure it out”.
It’s a faith-based assertion, which is especially egregious coming from someone who eschews faith-based assertions.

But I don’t think that I’ve ever claimed that science will figure it out. If I did then I mis-spoke. However, there are many areas in which I think it reasonable to suggest that science may figure it out or, at the very least, shed more light on it.

You can see how the Believer would be head-scratching that an atheist could consider to be true the idea that something can come from nothing… unless the atheist is a believer in magic, right?

I would tend to agree. But, again, I don’t think that I’ve ever claimed that such a thing is possible, only that I don’t think it justified to assert that it is impossible. It’s the same old issue of the difference between delivering a verdict of not guilty (i.e. guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt) and asserting innocence.

 

[Nixbits]

What is the explanation that is lacking here:
Whatever begins to exist needs an explanation.
The universe began to exist…
Therefore it needs an explanation.

I agree. I hope to one day learn what the explanation is and to understand the evidence that supports it.

 

[PRmerger]

But I don’t think that I’ve ever claimed that science will figure it out.

Fair enough.

Then science is inadequate, isn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. I hope to one day learn what the explanation is and to understand the evidence that supports it.

Right now, theism has the answer to the above, then, no?
Atheism does not.

Theism =+1
Atheism = 0

 

[PRmerger]

But, again, I don’t think that I’ve ever claimed that such a thing is possible, only that I don’t think it justified to assert that it is impossible.

So I suppose, since there’s NO EVIDENCE whatseover that this could occur–something coming from nothing–it’s permissible for me to be an atheist on this issue, yes?

I propose: I will not believe that something can come from nothing unless you present evidence to suggest that it has occurred. Empirically based, peer-reviewed, reproducible evidence, please!

And I also propose: anyone who suggests that it’s possible for something to come from nothing is making a faith-alone based assertion.

 

[Nixbits]

Fair enough.Then science is inadequate, isn’t it?

No, I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion.

 

[Nixbits]

Right now, theism has the answer to the above, then, no?
Atheism does not.
Theism =+1
Atheism = 0

Wow! Has there been some sort if time loop? It seems like you’ve just reiterated your earlier position without taking any apparent account of the intervening discussion. You can’t seriously expect me to agree with you.

My opinion is that theism has not provided an answer with any explanatory power to the question of how the universe came into existence. Atheism does not attempt to answer the question. So the ‘score’ is Theism : 0. Full stop.

 

[Nixbits]

So I suppose, since there’s NO EVIDENCE whatseover that this could occur–something coming from nothing–it’s permissible for me to be an atheist on this issue, yes?

Of course.

I propose: I will not believe that something can come from nothing unless you present evidence to suggest that it has occurred. Empirically based, peer-reviewed, reproducible evidence, please!

That’s perfectly reasonable. You might find that applying this approach to other beliefs would be equally beneficial.

And I also propose: anyone who suggests that it’s possible for something to come from nothing is making a faith-alone based assertion.

Hmm. If they are only suggesting that it’s possible, then it’s hardly an assertion based on faith. Faith is complete trust or confidence in something or someone. This would be more like putting forward a scientific hypothesis to see if it can stand up to scrutiny. That’s not at all a faith-based position.

 

[fladreamer]

A theist. It just isn’t a defensible position to hold that an universe as mind-boggingly vast as ours could have come about without an outside agent creating it and setting it in motion. Most atheist’s arguments about the inexistence of a Creator/God have to do with the character of God, or rather the incongruence between what some Christian religions proclaim as God’s attributes and the reality of evil and suffering, on a global scale and individually. Faith, on the other hand, is utterly different from sheer belief in the existence of God. Someone could very well be certain of God’s/a supreme being’s existence yet not trust that being, doubt his omnibenevolence or his omnipotence.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course.

Excellent.

That’s perfectly reasonable. You might find that applying this approach to other beliefs would be equally beneficial.

And yet you haven’t done so.

Why is that?

One has to wonder why you are assuming a faith-based belief here?

“Something can come from nothing even though it’s never EVER been demonstrated!”

Hmm. If they are only suggesting that it’s possible, then it’s hardly an assertion based on faith.

Of course it is.

If I say it’s possible for God to exist, despite the fact that there were no evidence for God’s existence, would you not call that a faith based assertion?

 

[PRmerger]

No. Just because science doesn’t have all the answers yet, it doesn’t mean it’s inadequate. Every year scientists learn more and get smarter and have more answers. It’s a cumulative process.

Yoohoo! Nixbits?

You wanted to know what the Science of the Gaps fallacy is?

Right here. DaddyGirl just embraced that nonsense hook, line and sinker!

“We don’t know now, but we will…because…Science.”

“Science may not know now, but Science will in the future, man!” = another faith based assertion embraced, ironically, by the Atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

This is true. But that’s not the job of atheism.

Of course it is. Atheism should provide answers to the atheist. Otherwise, why be an atheist?

And atheism is sorely lacking on providing explanations for how something could come from nothing.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t think that’s a logical conclusion.

If science can’t answer one of the most basic questions of humanity–why is there something rather than nothing–then the logical conclusion is that that it’s inadequate to the task.

We must look for other disciplines then, no?

 

[PRmerger]

Wow! Has there been some sort if time loop? It seems like you’ve just reiterated your earlier position without taking any apparent account of the intervening discussion. You can’t seriously expect me to agree with you.

Well, right. I don’t expect you to agree with me.

But I am planting seeds.

#thingsthatmakeyougohmmmm

There’s been quite a few atheists who have been converted by these logical arguments.

My opinion is that theism has not provided an answer with any explanatory power to the question of how the universe came into existence. Atheism does not attempt to answer the question. So the ‘score’ is Theism : 0. Full stop.

Atheism is then needs to be discarded for something that can provide answers to the question, eh?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Just because science doesn’t have all the answers yet, it doesn’t mean it’s inadequate. Every year scientists learn more and get smarter and have more answers. It’s a cumulative process.

It is a logical non sequitur to claim that because scientists learn more every year and “get smarter” that they will necessarily answer the salient questions regarding, say, why there is something rather than nothing. That question is very likely beyond the scope of science which means despite getting smarter every year they may never arrive at answers to a whole host of important questions because like the drunk searching for his keys under a lamppost because “the light is better over here,” there is no necessary connection between a particular light (science) and the keys (questions) you are seeking.

Speaking of looking for stuff, I am considering starting a club of rational pack rats where actually having found answers and stuff is mandatory – no promissory notes allowed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Atheism is then needs to be discarded for something that can provide answers to the question, eh?

If atheism doesn’t even rise to the level of looking for answers, but merely engages in naysaying (i.e., sometimes phrased as ‘atheism is merely a lack of belief,’) it seems a rather useless preoccupation to be an atheist.

I’ve always thought that self-proclaimed “atheists” are amateurs at the craft. They aim their skepticism outwardly at those they disagree with, but never seem to target their own beliefs, which remain unperturbed, safely ensconced in their brains free from any hint of skepticism or doubt because… well, “only those beliefs I don’t currently hold leave room for doubt.”

On the other hand, atheists serve as appropriate (though, increasingly less competent) foils for theism in that they keep theists on their toes regarding the development of sound apologia. This has been quite obvious over the past few decades as more and more defenders of theism have brought forth better explicated defenses of faith while the so-called “arguments” for atheism have languished in the hands of what are, at best, mediocre thinkers.

It is rather embarrassing, actually, to watch some of the best-known atheists such as Krauss, PZ Myers, Dawkins, Grayling, Dennett and Harris get systematically demolished by far more accomplished thinkers from the theist camp. A prime example is the debate between Grayling and Rabbi Daniel Rowe. If a reasonable person views the debate with a modicum of impartiality it becomes pretty clear that atheistic “objections” to theism are beginning to get a little thin.

youtu.be/MTezZFZH098

Of course, for those living in atheistic echo-chambers recognizing this fact requires at least some degree of self-scrutiny and critique – which being willfully skeptical ONLY of opposing views does not and cannot permit by intention and design.

 

[PRmerger]

If atheism doesn’t even rise to the level of looking for answers, but merely engages in naysaying (i.e., sometimes phrased as ‘atheism is merely a lack of belief,’) it seems a rather useless preoccupation to be an atheist.

I’ve always thought that self-proclaimed “atheists” are amateurs at the craft. They aim their skepticism outwardly at those they disagree with, but never seem to target their own beliefs, which remain unperturbed, safely ensconced in their brains free from any hint of skepticism or doubt because… well, “only those beliefs I don’t currently hold leave room for doubt.”

On the other hand, atheists serve as appropriate (though, increasingly less competent) foils for theism in that they keep theists on their toes regarding the development of sound apologia. This has been quite obvious over the past few decades as more and more defenders of theism have brought forth better explicated defenses of faith while the so-called “arguments” for atheism have languished in the hands of what are, at best, mediocre thinkers.

It is rather embarrassing, actually, to watch some of the best-known atheists such as Krauss, PZ Myers, Dawkins, Grayling, Dennett and Harris get systematically demolished by far more accomplished thinkers from the theist camp. A prime example is the debate between Grayling and Rabbi Daniel Rowe. If a reasonable person views the debate with a modicum of impartiality it becomes pretty clear that atheistic “objections” to theism are beginning to get a little thin.

youtu.be/MTezZFZH098

Of course, for those living in atheistic echo-chambers recognizing this fact requires at least some degree of self-scrutiny and critique – which being willfully skeptical ONLY of opposing views does not and cannot permit by intention and design.

Oh, yes!

I remember the astonishment I felt several years ago when atheists were crowing because of an urn that was found containing the putative bones of Jesus.

For some reason, there was a peculiarly low level of skepticism and self-scrutiny for this.

#thecredulousatheist

 

[Bradski]

DaddyGirl just embraced that nonsense hook, line and sinker!

“Science may not know now, but Science will in the future, man!” = another faith based assertion embraced, ironically, by the Atheist.

That’s an inaccurate parody of DaddyGirl’s position, and I think that you knew that when you wrote it. You’d be foolish to say that science WILL find all the answers.

Another equally foolish position would be to suggest that we stop looking for natural answers because some people have determined the answers to be supernatural. Not that I’m suggesting that you are saying that. Although you can stop if you like.

In fact, that might be a good question to ask. Let’s assume that everything came from nothing. Should we stop all investigations into how that occurred?

 

[Bradski]

It is a logical non sequitur to claim that because scientists learn more every year and “get smarter” that they will necessarily answer the salient questions regarding, say, why there is something rather than nothing.

Again, no-one is saying that. But let us know when you think we should stop looking.