Does atheism lead to anything positive?

[Vonsalza]

Ok so you don’t seem to like the words I use…

I do have a disdain for retcons as they’re always performed with an agenda that is never purely academic.

The recent innovations to the word “atheist” are motivated by that same spirit. Atheists have a claim that they do not want to be bothered with proofing. If you don’t like that, eschew your atheism.

The classic agnostic is the only guy in the room who gets to be right by-default.

If your deity gets upset about this, again, not my problem because it should know how to change that for me and has yet to do so.

If the deity exists, I see no reason why it should have to play by your or my rules.

You attitude here betrays the failure in your logic. Per hypothesis testing, if you fail to prove the existence of the deity, you do not reject in favor of “no deity”. You reject in favor of “null”, which is “undefined”. Which also is “agnostic”.

 

[STT]

Still ex nihilo. Otherwise, what caused it? No effects without causes…

No, there is nothing before beginning so the beginning is the only point which is not caused. That is a feasible scenario similar to another scenario that God is not caused.

Your insistence that there couldn’t have been any state of existence prior to the BB is under critique as we speak.

There is no time before BB therefore you cannot find a theory which provides change from nothing to something.

Theories of the emergent, pre-BB universe have been tossed around for the last decade or so.

Dream on. All physical theory to the best of our knowledge needs time in order to show the change in the system. In 2004, after winning the Nobel Prize in physics, David Gross expressed this viewpoint:

Everyone in string theory is convinced…that spacetime is doomed. But we don’t know what it’s replaced by. We have an enormous amount of evidence that space is doomed. We even have examples, mathematically well-defined examples, where space is an emergent concept…. But in my opinion the tough problem that has not yet been faced up to at all is, “How do we imagine a dynamical theory of physics in which time is emergent?” …All the examples we have do not have an emergent time. They have emergent space but not time. It is very hard for me to imagine a formulation of physics without time as a primary concept because physics is typically thought of as predicting the future given the past. We have unitary time evolution. How could we have a theory of physics where we start with something in which time is never mentioned?

To me it is impossible to imagine a formulation…

 

[vz71]

I’m not proposing anything at all. I’m trying to work out if you can differentiate between something that is designed, that is, something that is not natural, and something which is entirely natural.

So a proposal that existence is evidence for God is met with arguments against design.
Since design was not in my proposal at all, it is a red herring.
Seems we are working hard not to address the question.

 

[Bradski]

So a proposal that existence is evidence for God is met with arguments against design.
Since design was not in my proposal at all, it is a red herring.
Seems we are working hard not to address the question.

The discussion was about the difference between that which is natural and that which is designed. It was you that threw in creation to deflect from that. But from which we know that you believe existence itself to be unnatural.

And I would suggest that you are not making a proposal in any case. You are making a statement. And neither statement or proposal that God is responsible for existence is not evidence that God is responsible.

 

[Bradski]

That’s correct, I’m the one asking because your argument requires that you define your terms if you want a rational response.

I think terms have been quite clear throughout the discussion. Natural means as a result of natural laws (whether laid down by God or not) and unnatural in the context of the discussion means occurring as a result of design.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The problem with atheism is that it is an end unto itself. Even atheists who have refined arguments such as Dave Rubin, Sam Harris or TJ Kirk fall drastically short against natural law.

 

[vz71]

The discussion was about the difference between that which is natural and that which is designed. It was you that threw in creation to deflect from that. But from which we know that you believe existence itself to be unnatural.

And I would suggest that you are not making a proposal in any case. You are making a statement. And neither statement or proposal that God is responsible for existence is not evidence that God is responsible.

You might want to read the thread again.
Your statement is mistaken and demonstrably so.

I simply pointed out existence is proof for God.

Even if one wishes to claim natural processes at work, all that has been done is kicking it down the road a piece.
One still has to eventually answer for where it all came from.

 

[Bradski]

You might want to read the thread again.
Your statement is mistaken and demonstrably so.

I simply pointed out existence is proof for God.

This is patently untrue.

There is nothing at all in the statement that there is something we describe as existence from which you can deduce that a specific and personal god is responsible. And I really mean nothing at all. You can certainly start with the rather obvious point that there is something described as existence from which further proposals can be assumed which can lead in a nice tight circular argument to God, but that is NOT what is under discussion. Whether God is responsible or not is not the point of discussion either.

The point is that you believe that the whole of existence has been designed by God. That means, by that very statement, that nothing is natural. So there is really no point in people like Behe wasting his time pointing out that in his opinion, some things cannot have happened naturally. That they were designed.

At which point you can slap yourself on the forehead and declare Behe to be an idiot. Doesn’t he realise that it is ALL designed? Behe’s response would be to point out that almost everything of which we are aware appears to be the result of natural causes. That is, NOT designed. His whole career is based on the fact that he thinks he has found a tiny set of examples where the natural processes were not enough and God had to step in and specifically design it. So maybe you accept that argument. Who knows? You won’t take a position.

It seems that making galaxies and universes and life existence itself simply by allowing natural laws (which you would say he instigated) doesn’t get everything exactly as God would have liked. So he has to drop in now and then at various points of evolution and tweak a few things to correct the system He himself set up.

It’s like a computer programmer designing some software which he says will result in a perfect system. But then sheepishly drops into your office now and then because it’s not working out perfectly. That I can understand. We are all fallible. But I thought God was omniscient. Seems not…

 

[o_mlly]

… Natural means as a result of natural laws (whether laid down by God or not) and unnatural in the context of the discussion means occurring as a result of design.

To avoid confusion with your use of the term “natural law” as the term is used within moral philosophy, I presume you mean the physical laws of nature (PLN).

Your definition presumes that all PLN are known. If all PLN are not known then it is impossible to discriminate natural things from unnatural things. I submit that no one knows all the PLN.

And we are back to square one. If there are any laws at all then there must be a lawmaker. What do you got, if not God?

 

[Bradski]

To avoid confusion with your use of the term “natural law” as the term is used within moral philosophy, I presume you mean the physical laws of nature (PLN).

Your definition presumes that all PLN are known.

No, it does not. If we knew everything about the pnysical laws of nature, then that would make us omniscient. I’d say that we are not. There is a lot we don’t know.

Guess what fills the gap…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here’s one, Bob. And I’d suggest all the other atheists who post here wouod include themselves as well.

QUOTE]

Ha ha that’s a good one. When have you ever been open to Theism?

 

[Vonsalza]

No, there is nothing before beginning so the beginning is the only point which is not caused.

This is true by assertion, rather than true via evidence. It is no-less a religious statement than “God did it”.

There is no time before BB therefore you cannot find a theory which provides change from nothing to something.

No observable time before the BB as time is unobservable without some sort of displacement to mark it.

Dream on. [In response to the broaching of the topic of pre-BB emergent universe theory]

Enjoy your flat-Earth and your alchemy.

To me it is impossible to imagine a formulation…

Your inability to comprehend a reality has no bearing on the existence of that reality.

 

[Vonsalza]

No, it does not. If we knew everything about the pnysical laws of nature, then that would make us omniscient. I’d say that we are not. There is a lot we don’t know.

Guess what fills the gap…

“God of the Gaps” is an old, tired canard. Mr. Bradksi, I expect better from you.

I think we both know that most learned theists would argue that God is the “God of the Gaps” as well as the “God of the things between the Gaps”.

 

[o_mlly]

No, it does not. If we knew everything about the pnysical laws of nature, then that would make us omniscient. I’d say that we are not. There is a lot we don’t know…

At last we agree! Our logic is unassailable.

“Bradski’s First Premise” (BFP):
Natural things exist only through the physical laws of nature (PLN).
Unnatural things exist outside the PLN.
The entailment of BP:
If, and only if, one knows all the PLN then one can discriminate between natural and unnatural things.
“Bradski’s Second Premise” (BSP):
No one knows all the PLN.
Conclusion Certain:
Therefore, no one can discriminate between natural and unnatural things.

Good try, though.

 

[STT]

This is true by assertion, rather than true via evidence. It is no-less a religious statement than “God did it”.

You need time to go from nothing to something. Time however is an element of universe so you cannot go from nothing to something.

No observable time before the BB as time is unobservable without some sort of displacement to mark it.

Time has to have a beginning. To argue, assume that time is eternal. This means that time spans from eternal past to eternal future. It however take forever to reach from eternal past to now. This is impossible therefore time has to have a beginning.

Enjoy your flat-Earth and your alchemy.

I don’t understand your position. Do you believe that time is eternal or emergent?

Your inability to comprehend a reality has no bearing on the existence of that reality.

Quite opposite I think I understand the problem well.

 

[Vonsalza]

You need time to go from nothing to something. Time however is an element of universe so you cannot go from nothing to something.

Time hasn’t been shown to be unambiguously elemental. It seems to actually be quite derivative.

Time has to have a beginning. To argue, assume that time is eternal. This means that time spans from eternal past to eternal future.** It however take forever to reach from eternal past to now. This is impossible therefore time has to have a beginning.**

Your hidden premise of “If it’s impossible to reach the edge of infinity past, then infinity past cannot exist” is unsound. In addition, you self-contradict by acknowledging the potentially infinite future. We are no more capable of reaching that.

I don’t understand your position. Do you believe that time is eternal or emergent?

It is a derivative. It is no more “eternal or emergent” than the reality of a mile or kilometer.

Quite opposite I think I understand the problem well.

Spoken like a true believer. Like flat-Earth-ers.

 

[STT]

Time hasn’t been shown to be unambiguously elemental. It seems to actually be quite derivative.

What do you mean with derivative?

Your hidden premise of “If it’s impossible to reach the edge of infinity past, then infinity past cannot exist” is unsound.

It is not.

In addition, you self-contradict by acknowledging the potentially infinite future. We are no more capable of reaching that.

There is no potential infinite future. We can never reach it either.

 

[Bradski]

Natural things exist only through the physical laws of nature (PLN).
Unnatural things exist outside the PLN.

That’s quite reasonable.

If, and only if, one knows all the PLN then one can discriminate between natural and unnatural things.

But that’s not correct. We definitely do not know all the laws of nature but that doesn’t mean we can’t tell the difference between an iPad and a chicken. If you don’t have enough information to make a determination, or enough knowledge to interpret the information, then the only correct response to the question: ‘Was it designed?’ is to say: ‘I don’t know’.

Otherwise we get people believing things like Thor makes thunder and God designed your eyeball.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If I design a program that incorporates a true random number generator that determines outcomes then those outcomes are “natural” to my program logic and I remain the designer.

Just an FYI, when a software system needs a “true random number” the number is generated from an entropy source outside the software (Intel tends to use thermal noise). The state of the entropy source can be read by the software, but is not generated by the software. See “Hardware Random Number Generator.”

 

[Vonsalza]

What do you mean with derivative?
It is not.
There is no potential infinite future. We can never reach it either.

Oh good lord…

So since we can’t write the last digit of “pi”, then “pi” must not exist?

Back to the drawing board with you.