Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt? Or is it a preference?

I think the general consensus among non-extreme forms of atheism is that it is not necessarily unreasonable to be a theist, but there is enough reasonable doubt that it is not unreasonable to be an atheist either. This is to say that i have come across friendly forms of atheism or agnosticism that would say that Theism and metaphysical naturalism are two equally plausible sides of the existential fence, but ultimately there is no absolute evidence for either side. Therefore the side of the fence you happen to be on is largely due to personal experiences and psychological predispositions rather than evidence.

Is this true?
 
IWantGod said:
Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt? Or is it a preference?

I think the general consensus among non-extreme forms of atheism is that it is not necessarily unreasonable to be a theist, but there is enough reasonable doubt that it is not unreasonable to be an atheist either. This is to say that i have come across friendly forms of atheism or agnosticism that would say that Theism and metaphysical naturalism are two equally plausible sides of the existential fence, but ultimately there is no absolute evidence for either side. Therefore the side of the fence you happen to be on is largely due to personal experiences and psychological predispositions rather than evidence.

Is this true?
Click to expand...
I think a rational being cannot be dishonest with himself. Therefore, their doubt is reasonable. I strongly doubt that one can prove “the First Cause is intelligent” only by logic. They say, the singularity was just there. How could you use the logic to disprove this?
 
IWantGod said:
Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt? Or is it a preference?
Click to expand...
  1. I’m happy to see a post dealing with “non extreme” atheism/agnosticism.
  2. I’m biased (obviously) but yes, I side with reasonable doubt. New Atheism aside I’d even say it’s closer to what some here call indifference. You believe what you want and I’ll do the same. Proving responsibility of such topics is difficult at best.
 
STT said:
They say, the singularity was just there. How could you use the logic to disprove this?
Click to expand...
The singularity isn’t just there. What we call a singularity is simply the irreducible point from which our space-time proceeds. We don’t know much about it otherwise. It’s still involves a procession of change and a transformation of nature, and this is what Thomist’s are concerned with when they make their inferences.

Even if we were to think of a singularity as an extension of a 2 dimensional plane that fluctuates 3 dimensional space-time into existence, we are still taking about change and a transformation of nature.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
The singularity isn’t just there. What we call a singularity is simply the irreducible point from which our space-time proceeds. We don’t know much about it otherwise. It’s still involves a procession of change and a transformation of nature, and this is what Thomist’s are concerned with when they make their inferences.
Click to expand...
As you said the universe is caused from the previous point which to the best of our knowledge is unknown. How could we possibly judge whether the singularity has a creator or not if we don’t know what is its true nature?
 
STT said:
How could we possibly judge whether the singularity
Click to expand...
Scientifically we cannot know. But that doesn’t mean we cannot know that the general existence of change requires a cause. We can know because we know that the alternative is impossible. Change cannot come from nothing (change understood as necessarily involving an actualisation of potential). We can judge that physical reality is essentially a natural progression of possible states, and therefore we can judge that it’s cause is not essentially a physical being. This knowledge however has nothing to do with the scientific question of what came before the big-bang. For all we know our universe is one among many, a potentially infinite group of beings which in turn could have proceeded from the transformation of some other physical nature. But in any case we are still dealing with something that is in a continuous state of transformation or change.

The bottom-line is that such a nature, regardless of what form it takes, is not a self-existing self-explanatory act of existence precisely because it is a progression of possibilities rather than something that just exists. That’s why we argue for the existence of an uncaused-cause or an ultimate reality, not in a physical sense, but in an existential sense, and it is necessary because physical reality could not exist otherwise. And the laws of physics could not exist unless something determines how it works and that would require an intelligence.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
It’s a mind set.
Click to expand...
If it’s just a mind set, then how do you justify it?
Click to expand...
I don’t. You do.
 
Who says the singularity was just there? I think you might be applying your own, dare I say metaphysical, ideas to what this singularity might have been.
 
IWantGod said:
Scientifically we cannot know. But that doesn’t mean we cannot know that the general existence of change requires a cause. We can know because we know that the alternative is impossible. Change cannot come from nothing ( change understood as necessarily involving an actualisation of potential ). We can judge that physical reality is essentially a natural progression of possible states, and therefore we can judge that it’s cause is not essentially a physical being. This knowledge however has nothing to do with the scientific question of what came before the big-bang. For all we know our universe is one among many, a potentially infinite group of beings which in turn could have proceeded from the transformation of some other physical nature. But in any case we are still dealing with something that is in a continuous state of transformation or change.

The bottom-line is that such a nature, regardless of what form it takes, is not a self-existing self-explanatory act of existence precisely because it is a progression of possibilities rather than something that just exists. That’s why we argue for the existence of an uncaused-cause or an ultimate reality, not in a physical sense, but in an existential sense, and it is necessary because physical reality could not exist otherwise. And the laws of physics could not exist unless something determines how it works and that would require an intelligence.
Click to expand...
What is your proof for “any thing which is subject to motion needs a sustainer”?

Moreover, one can argue that if God is true then there is a point that only God existed. This makes God subject to time. Moreover, this also leads to a regress in time since you need time to create time.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
Bradskii:
I don’t. You do.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that you don’t feel a need to rationally justify it?
Click to expand...
I need to justify a mind set? I need to justify why I feel as I do? No. I don’t.

My tendency is a general and probably genetic disposition to the material. My specific beliefs are in response to that with which I am presented.
 
tafan2 said:
Who says the singularity was just there?
Click to expand...
Almost all atheist who are scientist. I however can prove that time cannot be created since creation of time out of nothing requires time. Therefore, time should have existed at the singularity.
tafan2 said:
I think you might be applying your own, dare I say metaphysical, ideas to what this singularity might have been.
Click to expand...
No. I don’t know what singularity is. Nobody knows.
 
Not for sure the relevance of your first statement. I also suspect it’s not true. I know several atheists personally, most of them are not scientists. I suspect the number of atheists in the world far outnumbers the number of scientists.

As to creation requiring time, that is not at all obvious. Indeed creation, it seems to me, almost has to take no time at all. If something is created out of nothing (the definition of creation), it seems it would have to happen in an instant.
 
tafan2 said:
Not for sure the relevance of your first statement. I also suspect it’s not true. I know several atheists personally, most of them are not scientists. I suspect the number of atheists in the world far outnumbers the number of scientists.
Click to expand...
I said, almost all atheist who are scientist.
tafan2 said:
As to creation requiring time, that is not at all obvious. Indeed creation, it seems to me, almost has to take no time at all. If something is created out of nothing (the definition of creation), it seems it would have to happen in an instant.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that creation requires time. There is a change in existence if the act of creation is true. There is a before and after in any change. Therefore time is required for act of creation.
 
tafan2 said:
Yes, and I said that my experience would indicate you are wrong. Will reply to the rest later.
Click to expand...
So, you are basically saying that there are atheists who are scientist and they believe that something caused the singularity.
 
Well, the variety of beliefs among Atheists is as varied as those among religious folks. You’d have to ask a specific Atheist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top