How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[Anony_Mous]

Lol. I ought to rephrase it “I am not religious because there is no evidence that any of it is true.”

What is worldly true can be found with worldly facts and knowledge as evidence.
What is divinely true can be found with faith and ‘knowing’ (truth without understanding) as evidence.

Divinity is not of this world. How can a person who relies of worldly facts and knowledge understand divinity? Their needs to be a change of focus from head to heart.

If nothing changes, nothing changes.

 

[Solmyr]

I simply cannot fathom how thinking individuals can swallow the idea that something magically can come from nothing.

No “thinking” individual would “swallow” that idea. This is simple a misrepresentation of what the atheist worldview is. Don’t commit the usual fallacy of creating a straw man, and then burn it to the ground. Not a good idea.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Not surprising. He seemed to think that not believing in God was a pretty grim situation. Honestly, it sounds like he’s making the right move.

Yes, but I think he wrote the articles I quoted while he was an atheist. He came to the conclusion that only serious existentialists have the right morality when it comes to atheism. They realize that without God nothing means anything, and ultimately their lives are meaningless, but they keep trying to do good none the less. (People such as Camus, Sartre, eg.)

I have to agree with him. That is why I ultimately turned back to God and Catholicism. Existentialism seemed to bleak for me. That, and I really always had the sense of that great mysterious force who I call God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

The quote, or indeed the whole article, may or may not be valid. However, in order for them to be relevant to this thread, it must comment on the validity of atheism.

I naturally assumed you were posting things that were on topic, and therefore that the conclusion you were drawing from the quote was that atheism was not valid. If that is in fact the case, then your argument is essentially:

1: Quote: If atheism is true, it is far from being good news

2: I don’t want to hear any bad news

3: (Therefore) atheism is false

An argument of that form is an appeal to consequences, as described in the link I provided. That you don’t like the outcome (i.e. you’ll receive bad news) has no bearing on the ultimate validity of atheism.

Whatever, dude.

 

[PRmerger]

No “thinking” individual would “swallow” that idea. This is simple a misrepresentation of what the atheist worldview is. Don’t commit the usual fallacy of creating a straw man, and then burn it to the ground. Not a good idea.

Do you believe that something can come from nothing?

It would appear, if you are an atheist, that you do so.

 

[Bradski]

I have to agree with him. That is why I ultimately turned back to God and Catholicism. Existentialism seemed to bleak for me. That, and I really always had the sense of that great mysterious force who I call God.

I think that you have to have that sense. Otherwise it makes no sense to me to simply ‘swap sides’ as it were.

I can understand Christians losing their faith. They may have started life as cultural Christians, if I can use that term. And later realised that they didn’t really believe. That they were paying lip service to it. There was no initial thought processes that they went through to become Christians.

But it seems to me that to nominate as an atheist, you have had to at least gone through the process of deciding whether any given religion (and ultimately all of them) are true or not. There must have been some internal dialogue at the very least where the arguments for and and against have been worked through.

If you come up as being unsure, then declare yourself an agnostic and keep searching. But if you discover that the arguments against faith hold sway, then I’m not sure how you go about re-evaluating them at some later stage. If they were valid the first time you investigated them, then they would be valid. Period. Not valid…for the time being.

Either you had convinced yourself that the arguments were valid when you really didn’t believe them to be so - some sort of self deception going on here, or you are choosing to ignore them at some stage. In which case you are deceiving yourself in an case.

 

[Solmyr]

Do you believe that something can come from nothing?

It would appear, if you are an atheist, that you do so.

In a sense. I believe that new concepts and ideas come from “nothing”. There is no causative precursor to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. It was not “caused” in any sense of the word. It was created by Beethoven “ex nihilo”. Every genuinely “free action” is uncaused (otherwise it would not be “free”). So uncaused actions are “dime a dozen”.

But that is NOT the question at hand. Your assertion seemed to be that atheists believe that the universe “magically appeared” out of nothing. This “picture” has many problematic aspects. First, it treats “nothing” as an objective, ontological entity, rather than a concept. “Nothing” does not exist, except as a concept. So the assertion: “something came out of nothing” is a nonsensical proposition.

Next, the atheist view is that the universe is an existential primary, it is the foundation of every explanation. Explanations can only appear within the universe. There is no space, no time, no causation OUTSIDE the universe. This whole “imaginary” problem of “something came out of nothing” is just a leftover from the old and obsolete Newtonian worldview, which “imagined” the universe as a “bubble” of something drifting in the space of nothing and this drifting happens in the absolute space and time.

This worldview has been made obsolete by Einstein’s general relativity. There is no “absolute” space or time. Space and time are the attributes of the universe. So, to answer your question, the atheist view is that the universe simply exists. It exists necessarily, it cannot not-exist. Since this is exactly your view about your God, this approach should not be surprising. There is of course one major difference. The universe DOES exist, of that there can be no doubt. Its existence is empirically established. The same cannot be said about God.

If you believe that God exists, that is your business. The problem is that God’s existence has no explanatory value. The “God said: let there be light and there was light” explains nothing. So instead of having one unexplained starting point (the universe simply exists) you have two points: “God simply exists” and he “magically created the universe” by waving his imaginary hand. And that IS really “magical”.

 

[PRmerger]

In a sense. I believe that new concepts and ideas come from “nothing”. There is no causative precursor to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. It was not “caused” in any sense of the word.

I think the fact that you must use quotation marks to set up your argument sets it up for failure right there, Sol. :sad_yes:

 

[Solmyr]

I think the fact that you must use quotation marks to set up your argument sets it up for failure right there, Sol. :sad_yes:

I was hoping for something more substantive than that. I tried to explain why your “something came out of nothing” is NOT what atheists believe. I guess, I wasted the time to explain.

 

[PRmerger]

I was hoping for something more substantive than that. I tried to explain why your “something came out of nothing” is NOT what atheists believe. I guess, I wasted the time to explain.

You cannot explain how something comes from nothing, unless you equivocate on “nothing” and make it “something.”

And you also have to equivocate on what “caused” means as well.

#fail

 

[PRmerger]

I was hoping for something more substantive than that. I tried to explain why your “something came out of nothing” is NOT what atheists believe. I guess, I wasted the time to explain.

If that’s not your argument, then you have to believe that the universe was not created. It did not have a beginning.

That means you have to deny a whole lot o’ science to believe that.

Science deniers don’t seem to go with atheists…except, curiously, when it comes to the origins of the universe.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[Solmyr]

You cannot explain how something comes from nothing, unless you equivocate on “nothing” and make it “something.”

That is what YOU keep doing, and if you had bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen it. I explicitly explained that the proposition of “something comes for nothing” is a nonsensical one. Yet you keep repeating it and moreover, you wish to put it into my mouth. Not a good idea. Which part of “nothing is only a concept and not an ontological entity” don’t you understand?

If that’s not your argument, then you have to believe that the universe was not created. It did not have a beginning.

The word “beginning” is exactly as non-applicable as the word “outside” would be when applied TO the universe. Beginning implies “time”, and time cannot be defined FOR the universe.

That means you have to deny a whole lot o’ science to believe that.

Since science only deals with events INSIDE the universe, you are simply mistaken.

Why don’t you go back to the actual argument I made, read it a few times, and THEN come back? Picking and choosing a few sentences here and there is not conducive to a constructive conversation.

 

[PRmerger]

That is what YOU keep doing, and if you had bothered to read my whole post, you would have seen it. I explicitly explained that the proposition of “something comes for nothing” is a nonsensical one. Yet you keep repeating it and moreover, you wish to put it into my mouth. Not a good idea. Which part of “nothing is only a concept and not an ontological entity” don’t you understand?

The word “beginning” is exactly as non-applicable as the word “outside” would be when applied TO the universe. Beginning implies “time”, and time cannot be defined FOR the universe.

Since science only deals with events INSIDE the universe, you are simply mistaken.

Why don’t you go back to the actual argument I made, read it a few times, and THEN come back? Picking and choosing a few sentences here and there is not conducive to a constructive conversation.

Simmer down a bit, Sol. I’m just having some fun with you here, trying to get you see the failure of your apologia.

No need to get one’s knickers in a knot, 'kay?

Either the universe had a beginning (which is what almost all mentally sane physicists believe) or it has always existed.

Which is your position?

 

[PRmerger]

Just because someone doesn’t believe in any gods, it doesn’t necessarily mean they think something can “magically” come from nothing.
There can be more options than just those two.

.

What other option is there?

The universe began to exist. 1.2 billion years ago.

That is almost, er, universally accepted by any mentally competent scientist.

Whatever begins to exist needs a cause.

Therefore, the universe needs a cause.

What’s your answer for this?

 

[PRmerger]

Totally.
The way he was talking, I thought he was on the ledge and ready to jump.
I hope he feels happier now.

I find this comment bemusing and amusing.

Really? It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, what he believes, as long as he’s happy?

Think about this.

Remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes?

He was perfectly, smittenly happy, wasn’t he, thinking he had the best duds in the kingdom.

But the point of the story (or, one of the points, at least) was that he was a FOOL, right, for thinking he was parading around in finery when he was actually* buck nekkid!*

Or imagine if your adult son was deliriously happy believing in Santa Claus. It not only made him happy, but a really, really good person to boot because of this belief!

Would you be ok with your mentally competent son believing in Santa (and here I mean the jolly old elf who lives in the North Pole)?

No?

I didn’t think so.

 

[Solmyr]

Either the universe had a beginning (which is what almost all mentally sane physicists believe) or it has always existed.

Quote me some scientists, who proclaim that “out of sheer nothing” the universe just popped into existence a few billion years ago. You will fail.

The phrase “always existed” is exactly as inapplicable here as pointing to the North Pole and asking: “what is to the north from the North Pole”? You cannot just pile up words and expect them to have a meaning. As for the Big Bang, scientists admit that the current physics is simply inadequate to penetrate the first fractions of a second. None of them believes that the universe “popped” into existence. If you wish to argue, you really should acquaint yourself with what the scientists ACTUALLY say…

It is rather sad that you keep on refusing to read what I actually said, and attempt to change the subject.

The universe began to exist. 1.2 billion years ago.

Nope. Incorrect.

Whatever begins to exist needs a cause.

Unsupported metaphysical assumption.

 

[PRmerger]

Quote me some scientists, who proclaim that “out of sheer nothing” the universe just popped into existence a few billion years ago. You will fail.

Right.

No one asserts that because he knows how absurd it sounds.

But, of course, it’s the only conclusion one can conclude when one denies God’s existence.



So you can see why we Believers are scratching our heads at the cognitive dissonance.

Atheists have to embrace some really ludicrous ideas in order to remain atheists.

 

[Bradski]

Totally.
The way he was talking, I thought he was on the ledge and ready to jump.
I hope he feels happier now.

Hey!
“Rational Rat Pack” at the bottom of your posts!
I take credit for coining that one
I must be a professional writer!

Credit all yours, Shirley McC.

And in regard to the ‘beginning’ of the universe…when we say that everything came into existence, including time, at some given point, that means OUR everything and our time. No-one knows what is/was on the other side.

Maybe on ‘the other side’ there is an infinity, just like some beleive that outside the observable universe there is an infinity.

Or maybe a few gods did it and then ceased to exist.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe on ‘the other side’ there is an infinity, just like some beleive that outside the observable universe there is an infinity.

Evidence for this, please.

 

[Bradski]

Evidence for this, please.

Neither of us have any. We are reduced to wishful speculation. But as you said somewhere, if you have no evidence I am wrong, then why wouldn’'t you believe it?