Main Reason For Atheism

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

Is it more plausible, less plausible, or equally plausible than the existence of a creator God?

Ultimately that is the discussion that needs to take place. That is the discussion I was trying to get to in my arguments about human nature. To answer the question of how mankind has acquired the ability to reason, free will, and a conscience that enables us to decide between conflicting instincts, one must answer with faith…either faith in naturalism (there must be a naturalistic answer) or faith in God (God created makind with these attributes).

Either way it is a faith answer which science can neither prove nor disprove. The question then becomes, “which is more reasonable to believe?” And to answer that question one must consider the circumstantial evidence because there is not one single piece of evidence which by itself can prove either of the faith based answers.

It is kind of like a court case. A suspect may be charged with murder. The prosecuter may say the suspect was seen at a bar the night before the murder in an argument with the victim, but this by istelf does not prove the suspect murdered the victim. He may argue that the suspect has a history for violence, but it doesn’t prove the case. He may argue that the suspect’s car was seen parked a block away from the house in which the victim was murdered, but that too is inconclusive by itself. He may even be able to say a the suspect’s fingerprint was found on the door of the
house. None of these singularly prove the case. But when one considers the convergence of those evidences, a compelling case has been made and the question posed to the jury will be “is there any reasonable doubt that the suspect murdered the victim?”

Since the topic of this thread is “the main reason for atheism” I would like to see the convergence of evidences in the case for atheismm, as presented by atheists. Then, the “defendents” (theists) can attempt to prove their case by arguing against the prosecution, and we will can all act as the jury and deliberate the reasonableness of the arguments.

That, in my opinion, would be productive and interesting dialogue.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I disagree on presumption #1 of the Kalam argument, “everything that begins has a cause”.

how does the scientific enterprise proceed, then, if not by a quest for causes? how does one design experiments without the causal principle? why does one design them?

if not everything that begins to exist has a cause, how do you tell when things do have a cause? hume was at least correct in this, after all: causation is never actually perceived - only regularity. so if you can’t actually ***experience ***causes, and you believe that causation is not universally exemplified in all contingent states of affairs, how do you differentiate between caused and uncaused events?

abandoning the causal principle seems about as reasonable as abandoning a belief in the past or the external world.

AnAtheist:

And even if that was true, the argument shows only that the universe has a cause, that had no begin. To identify that cause with Allah (Kalam was Muslim afaik, but that of course is irrelevant) is a far fetch. And, what some people do, to formulate this identification as a presumption, is the same as stating “God exists” without any argument.

ah, but the reasoning doesn’t go from “uncaused cause” to “the god of traditional monotheism”. it goes from “uncaused cause” through “noncorporeal”, “freely choosing”, “personal”, “singular”, and so on, until the gap between the god of natural theology and the god is very, very narrow.

AnAtheist:

Every argument for or against a god I have heard so far is not finally decisive, for every argument there is someone brought up a more or less reasonable argument against it. Weighting all those arguments brings us back to the plausibility issue.

true enough. but then, as i say, there isn’t anything recognizable as a “finally decisive” argument for anything. and yet, for all that, we go on forming beliefs and having knowedge…

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

I feel quite the same sensation when talking to some theists.

You crack me up Yes, I suppose that sensation would not necessarily be limited to the experience of theists.

…a little levity never hurts a thread, huh?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

You are right, AnAtheist, to complain about the plausibility issue.

I do not complain about it.

How plausible is it, without a shred of scientific evidence, that our universe bubbled out of another?
Is it more plausible, less plausible, or equally plausible than the existence of a creator God?

It is more plausible than an omnipotent god, creating a vast universe 13bln years ago, for the sole purpose of bringing forth humans roughly 100000 years ago, creating an afterlife, in which every single human is judged, rewarded and/or punished by a certain moral code, that that very god only told to a handful of people 2000 years ago, and the necessity of the self-sacrifice of that god to himself, to save us from a fate he created for us in the first place.

Why?

Because it needs only a few simple assumptions and not a whole bunch of complicated (and weird, but that’s a matter of opinion) ones.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

I To amount evidence for or against “God”, we must make sure that we are talking about the same thing. In discussions like this one, some philosophical concept of the divine and the very personal Christian God are often interchanged. The Kalam argument is a perfect example.

Agreed. John Doran is hitting on this point as well.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

It is kind of like a court case.

That’s fun. You have four witnesses in court, each tells the story differently, sometimes they outright contradict each other. Then none witnessed the case personally, thus their testimonies are all hear-say. What will the court decide?

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

abandoning the causal principle seems about as reasonable as abandoning a belief in the past or the external world.

If everything was linked in a prefect cause and effect chain, all of the universe would be predetermined by the first cause. There would be no room for true randomness (in contrast to a pseudo random event, that seems random, because we cannot figure out the cause), and thus no room for Free Will, as an act of Free Will must be caused by something else and thus is not free any more. That reduces humans to mere materialistic robots predetermined by the First Cause, and then, following what you propose later on, ultimately by God (regardless of his omniscience btw). Is human free will unreasonable then?

ah, but the reasoning doesn’t go from “uncaused cause” to “the god of traditional monotheism”. it goes from “uncaused cause” through “noncorporeal”, “freely choosing”, “personal”, “singular”, and so on, until the gap between the god of natural theology and the god is very, very narrow.

I like to see how you conclude from “noncorporeal” to “freely choosing” and from “personal” to “singular”.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ChrisW

If the position of An Atheist is that “there is no God” then we should be able to focus the discussion on the evidence he believes proves his statement and, for the time being, consider the evidence suporting belief in God as irrelevent to the immediate topic matter (the main reason for atheism). Does that make sense?
It certainly does. Thanks for the clarification. But I don’t think you will make any headway with AnAtheist because he consistently refuses to offer scientific or philosophical proof.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

That’s fun. You have four witnesses in court, each tells the story differently, sometimes they outright contradict each other. Then none witnessed the case personally, thus their testimonies are all hear-say. What will the court decide?

Are you saying you could not build a pursuasive case for your position?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*It is more plausible than an omnipotent god, *

It is no more plausible at all without a shred of scientific proof than the existence of God would be for an atheist without a shred of scientific proof.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

If everything was linked in a prefect cause and effect chain, all of the universe would be predetermined by the first cause. There would be no room for true randomness (in contrast to a pseudo random event, that seems random, because we cannot figure out the cause), and thus no room for Free Will, as an act of Free Will must be caused by something else and thus is not free any more. That reduces humans to mere materialistic robots predetermined by the First Cause, and then, following what you propose later on, ultimately by God (regardless of his omniscience btw). Is human free will unreasonable then?

no, i do not believe it is. but how you reconcile free choices with universal divine causation depends on who you ask: aquinas says something different from molina, for example. aquinas says something like that free choices are caused by god in keeping with their nature as undetermined by the immediately prior state of the universe; molina basically says that god’s causal power isn’t universal - or, more specifically, that the freedom of our choices places the creation of certain worlds outside of god’s power in the way that creating square circles is beyond his power.

for my own part, i find the question fascinating, since the apparent conflict is between propositions all of which seem equally certain to me…

AnAtheist:

I like to see how you conclude from “noncorporeal” to “freely choosing” and from “personal” to “singular”.

it’s not a logical sequence…

the uncause caused must be personal because if it was simply the eternally present necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of the universe, the universe would have existed for an actually infinite number of temporal moments, which is impossible (as shown in the course of the main argument). thus, since the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, the cause of the universe cannot be operating mechanistically. but since the universe is caused by the uncaused cause, the only other plausible explanation is that the uncaused cause chose to create it.

and the only things that can freely choose are personal beings - beings that are like persons.

the rest of the attributions go from “necessity” through “simplicity” through to “maximally perfect”. but the way is fairly long and difficult, and i haven’t the time to go through the reasoning here.

try the prima pars of the summa theologiae, and book of the summa ontra gentiles, both by aquinas. his terminology is slightly antiquated, as one might expect, but the entailments are clear and wholly capable of serious defense.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Originally Posted by AnAtheist
That’s fun. You have four witnesses in court, each tells the story differently, sometimes they outright contradict each other. Then none witnessed the case personally, thus their testimonies are all hear-say. What will the court decide?

False Analogy.

If you are talking about the Four Evangelists, you will not find substantive differences among them. They all attest to Jesus as divine. They all attest to the miracles. They all attest to the great commandments of Jesus.

The court will decide on the preponderance of evidence that the story is true and believable and that no four people could have concocted such a true and beautiful religion by lying their heads off.

Talk about plausible!

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Are you saying you could not build a pursuasive case for your position?

Yes. What case would that be? No murder was committed?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

False Analogy.

Really?

If you are talking about the Four Evangelists, you will not find substantive differences among them.

Perhaps not, but I can find enough “minor” inconsitencies to raise doubts. Et in dubio pro reo.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

for my own part, i find the question fascinating, since the apparent conflict is between propositions all of which seem equally certain to me…

Indeed.

the uncause caused must be personal because …] the only other plausible explanation is that the uncaused cause chose to create it.

That has some merit, but doesn’t it take time to choose something? Doesn’t it take *time *to think and to actually do something?
I suppose we agree, that there is no ***before ***the universe. So when is the decision made to create the universe? As the beginning of the universe is the very first possibility of doing something, the beginning cannot have a cause. Which is still compatible with the proposition, the beginning has no beginning, it is the beginning, and thus need not to be caused.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Perhaps not, but I can find enough “minor” inconsitencies to raise doubts. Et in dubio pro reo.

“A thousand difficulties do not equal one doubt.” G.K. Chesterton

For example:

That there is total absence of proof that our universe bubbled out of another … yet all those difficulties of proof do not stop you from regarding it as plausible.

That what the four evangelists said about Jesus is plausible because of eye witnesses has a lot fewer difficulties than proving this universe bubbled out of another … yet you find the Gospels virtually implausible?

Again, your reasoning serves your purpose … which is that you **do not want **to believe in God, and you have ordered your intellect to find escape hatches from such belief.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

Yes. What case would that be? No murder was committed?

No. A case to justify the faith that says there must be a naturalistic answer for everything. I presume this is your belief if you reject God, for what other alternative is there? Either everything we observe came about by natural means, or if you cannot prove that thesis, then you must admit the possibility of surpernatural causes.

Are you posing your belief as a negative statement merely to escape having to justify what it means? To say God doesn’t exist is a negative, no doubt, but what that statement means is a positive belief that everything came about by natural means. Am I missing something here?

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

That there is total absence of proof that our universe bubbled out of another … yet all those difficulties of proof do not stop you from regarding it as plausible.

It is a Gedankenexperiment, which leads to the known universe. That is plausible.

That what the four evangelists said about Jesus is plausible because of eye witnesses has a lot fewer difficulties than proving this universe bubbled out of another … yet you find the Gospels virtually implausible?

Yes, first the Gospel writers are not the eye witnesses, they’ve just repeated what others have witnessed. In court that is called hear-say and of little value. Ask a lawyer.
Secondly, they are repeating those witnesses differently, you need pages of apologetics to determine, who was at the empty grave, who was at the cross, when Jesus died, what Jesus said, when he died, etc. That may all be unimportant for the Christian message, but in court contradicting (ven slightly) witnessing to the same case is of little value.
Thirdly (now outside the court), what happens in the Gospels does not comply with the known universe. Like people do not walk on water, rise from the dead, …
That makes it implausible.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Either everything we observe came about by natural means, or if you cannot prove that thesis, then you must admit the possibility of surpernatural causes.

I cannot prove, that everything we observe came about by*** natural ***means.
But I can prove, that nearly everything we observe has a ***natural ***cause.
I still cannot prove, that anything came about by supernatural means.
Why should I introduce something new and unbased in my theory? Even if I admit, that there might be some unknown supernatural causes, why should I bother to believe in or even to worship them? Esp. when all that is said about those causes by other people looks illogical, impossible, weird, or unsound.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

Yes, first the Gospel writers are not the eye witnesses, they’ve just repeated what others have witnessed. In court that is called hear-say and of little value. Ask a lawyer.
Secondly, they are repeating those witnesses differently, you need pages of apologetics to determine, who was at the empty grave, who was at the cross, when Jesus died, what Jesus said, when he died, etc. That may all be unimportant for the Christian message, but in court contradicting (ven slightly) witnessing to the same case is of little value.
Thirdly (now outside the court), what happens in the Gospels does not comply with the known universe. Like people do not walk on water, rise from the dead, …
That makes it implausible.

But then to do that you have to make them all out to be liars, don’t you? Not only the Evangelists, but the apostles who informed them (John certainly was an apostle and witness). Then you have to make out that Peter lied extravagantly to Mark, and that Jesus made false claims to all of them.

Again, false analogy. Faith is not a court of law. The same standards do not and cannot apply.

You want to put Jesus on trial?

Good luck.