The absurdity of atheism

[buffalo]

I just could not accept that as any kind of satisfactory answer. Not only does it make zero sense, but it is a logical fallacy and seeks to avoids any sort of real questioning.

It is they easy way out.

I can tell you this - the Catholic proposition is anything but easy.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I can tell you this - the Catholic proposition is anything but easy.

This is one of my main issues with the god conclusion.

The premise is that A is too complex to have developed without the interference of a controlling intelligence.

So it is posited that B designed A.

The problem with the above is obvious, and this is a logical fallacy.

B is at least as complex as A. So if the issue with A is complexity, we cannot possilbe explain away that complexity with more complexity. If we do were are left with the exact same complaint about complexity. B can’t of developed for it is too complex.

If you claim that B can of developed without the interference of a controlling intelligence. Then regardless of the means we can apply this to A.

So in short. If it is possible for complexity to arise on its own, **no matter what the method, you can apply that method **to A

So the origional premise “that A is too complex to have developed without the interference of a controlling intelligence.” does not hold.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

When we look at the universe there is not ONE case of anything starting complex. Complexity is always gained incrementally from simplicity, even every single case bar none.

We are no different, our complexity grew incrementally from simple origins. This is backed up by mountains of evidence.

 

[Fran65]

…Not only does it make zero sense, but it is a logical fallacy…

Can you explain why it doesn’t make sense?

In terms of questioning, there are still many questions to be asked - just see my signature for example (Hi Wan!)

One thing I’ve been reading today about today is the idea of a mathematical basis for the universe. If the universe is a magnificent mathematical model (as many physicists suggest), then that model has to be held in a mind of some kind - as that is (as far as we know) the only place a mathematical model can be held (being abstract not concrete). This suggests that perhaps this mind is the ‘mind’ of God.

There are then thousands of questions generated by this idea - how is matter produced by a mathematical model? What is the scope of this model? How is it constructed? What are its fine details? etc. Positing God as the mind in which these universe/mathematical model or multiuniverses are held does not mean that we have answered all of these questions.

Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because I am theist and Catholic that I am fundamentalist and/or seek to end questioning.

 

[Fran65]

Well, isn’t that convenient! No explanation necessary - it just is. End of discussion…

No, its not the end of the discussion. Please see my last post to CD.

That would be a nice progression, once I’ve seen evidence that he exists. But first things first. Evidence of existence is the initial step, I think.

Okay, you want evidence of God’s existence to your satisfaction. I understand that. I’m also sorry that it hasn’t been provided. However, you seem very interested in the God question and that’s a great place to be. Have you read the poem the Hound of Heaven?

Your condescension may make you feel superior, but your statement is inferential, unintelligent and irrelevant.

I’m sorry if I appear condescending. Its not at all what I intend. Nor do I feel or think that I’m superior. I try to approach and treat people as equals. Internet postings are limited in terms of communication, and without NVCs they can appear more harsh than they are meant.

Could you explain to me why my statement is unintelligent and irrelevant?

Cheers

 

[Fran65]

. You can’t know, you can only believe you know. I think this is one of the differentiators between theists and atheists - theists claim to ‘know’ stuff that logically, they can’t possibly know, whereas atheists only claim to ‘know’ stuff for which there is evidence. This is why atheism is, rationally speaking, a much stronger position than theism.!

So are you saying that you don’t know if there is a God? or are you saying that you know that there is not a God (because there is no evidence that satisfies you)?

By the way, I’m using know in the sense of an inner conviction, a belief and a trust in that fact. (And to Catholics, God’s existence is a fact in the same way as my typing on this keyboard is a fact). I’ve always ‘known’ that God exists, right from very early childhood. I went through a period of questioning, and God knows I’m still learning, but that ‘sense’ (inadmissible to you of course ) of God’s presence has never really left me. And before you go there, as a psychologist, I do know all of the neuroscientific and psychological explanations that you may offer for that!

.
Also, I find all this ‘knowing’ quite ironic given your signature!

I’m certain that you can see the difference between saying that we know that there is a God, and saying that there is still a lot that we don’t know about Him. We know, for example that dark matter exists (theoretically), but there is still a lot that we don’t know about dark matter.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Can you explain why it doesn’t make sense?

In terms of questioning, there are still many questions to be asked - just see my signature for example (Hi Wan!)

One thing I’ve been reading today about today is the idea of a mathematical basis for the universe. If the universe is a magnificent mathematical model (as many physicists suggest), then that model has to be held in a mind of some kind - as that is (as far as we know) the only place a mathematical model can be held (being abstract not concrete). This suggests that perhaps this mind is the ‘mind’ of God.

There are then thousands of questions generated by this idea - how is matter produced by a mathematical model? What is the scope of this model? How is it constructed? What are its fine details? etc. Positing God as the mind in which these universe/mathematical model or multiuniverses are held does not mean that we have answered all of these questions.

Please do not make the mistake of assuming that because I am theist and Catholic that I am fundamentalist and/or seek to end questioning.

I did explain, see my post two above yours.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

One thing I’ve been reading today about today is the idea of a mathematical basis for the universe. If the universe is a magnificent mathematical model (as many physicists suggest), then that model has to be held in a mind of some kind - as that is (as far as we know) the only place a mathematical model can be held (being abstract not concrete). This suggests that perhaps this mind is the ‘mind’ of God.

I don’t agree, if we were not here to observe the universe that would have no effects on the cosmos.

We can model the aspects of the universe mathematically… that means anyting but the universe is a mathematical model in the mind of a deity.

 

[tonyrey]

Because it is not relevant.

Your criterion of relevance is based on your physicalism. It is not self-evident that intangible realities are explained by physical causes. There is no reason to suppose physical reality is the sole reality nor the primary reality.

You are assuming that human beings are animals…
Well, yes. Do you dispute this??

Do you regard animals as having the power of reason, free will and the same rights as human beings? If not why not.

What do you regard as evidence for the existence of your mind?
The fact that I am here, experiencing life.

Exactly. Your experiences are in your mind.

There is no evidence of intelligent design in the universe (other than that produced by man). There is the illusion of design, which is adequately explained in most cases.

That is a gratuitous assertion.

Where it is not explained, there is no reason to postulate a supreme being.

Is there reason to postulate a multitude of inanimate, purposeless objects as the fundamental reality?

Both - I am an originator of my children, and a product of evolution. I am a link in the chain of evolution, for which masses of evidence exists.

Do you originate your decisions or do they have physical causes? If you are a link in a chain you cannot have free will or responsibility for your thoughts…or anything else…

Until you can prove that humans get their intelligence from processes which lack intelligence there is no evidence that your hypothesis is correct.
What hypothesis? Burden of proof, my friend. I have made no definitive statement regarding where humans get their intelligence, so I have no obligation to provide proof. Why do theists always get this bit wrong?

Why do you always fail to understand that the best available explanation is preferable to no explanation?

1. Atheism presupposes a Godless universe.
2. It is necessary to explain all the events in the universe by physical causes if atheism is to have a comprehensive explanation of reality. Otherwise it is ab-surd.
3. You have conceded that physical reality may not be the sole reality.
4. Since intangible realities have not been explained in terms of physical causes it is reasonable to postulate an intangible Reality.
5. You reject this explanation because you are committed to physicalism for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
6. That is your implicit explanation of reality even though you are reluctant to admit it.
7. You contradict yourself by stating that NeoDarwinism is the best explanation of intelligence…

What is the evidence that you have a mind? Mindless processes?
Previously answered, and an irrelevant question anyway.

It has not been answered and it is not irrelevant because the mind is an intangible reality.

Do you not regard thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions as evidence of your mind and the minds of others?
Yes. What’s your point (as if I didn’t know)

The point is that intangible realities and not physical objects are evidence of the existence of the mind.

Again you are assuming that human beings are merely animals.
And there is literally tonnes of evidence to support that ‘assumption’ (although ‘fact’ is a better word).

Do you treat yourself and your family as animals?

Moreover it is not a question of logical necessity but of probability. Does the existence of intelligence in animals necessitate the truth of NeoDarwinism?
No, but there is no better explanation. In fact, there is no reasonable alternative explanation.

Is it reasonable to conjure up reason out of irrational processes? Now you are going for the best available explanation rather than no explanation at all.

I have pointed out that is a false dilemma.
I must have missed that. Can you remind me?

Evolution by Design - not evolution by the blind process of natural selection and random mutations.

I am saying this applies to all mental activity: thoughts, choices, values, purposes and decisions.
But only to mental activity? Why so? Why not physical attributes?

They are also evidence. I specified mental activity because you stated or implied that mental activity is not evidence…

How do you explain the existence of energy in the universe? Do you have recourse to an infinite regress? Do you regard it as an ultimate reality? Do you regard it as having emerged from a void? Or do you have no explanation whatsoever?
There are several theories, I believe. Nobody knows for sure. That clearly doesn’t mean that God exists, and anybody who thinks it does is not only suffering from delusion, but also an unforgivable lack of common sense.

You are misinterpreting my statements. I am simply saying that an infinite regress of energy sources is literally absurd. So is an infinite regress of rational beings.

 

[tonyrey]

*You seem to regard NeoDarwinism as the only theory of evolution. *The only one that actually works. Name another and I’ll explain why it doesn’t work.

Evolution by Design.

Where do you obtain the power of reason which enables you to design? From processes which lack that power? Where did those processes come from? And how did they acquire that power? Accidentally? That explanation seems highly implausible to say the least…
Ah, here we agree. It is implausible. The start of evolution is implausible. Particularly when considered against timescales that we humans can conceptualise. But by definition, the alternative hypothesis that says, “God did it” is even more implausible. It absolutely has to be, not least by virtue of the fact that we have evidence for one but not the other.

“absolutely”? There is no physical evidence for, and no physical explanation of, the origin of intelligence, free will and purposeful activity. You are once again arbitrarily rejecting as evidence intangible realities everyone experiences. How can you prove you have made a particular decision? By the use of an EEG machine?

The topic is the absurdity of atheism not Design but I shall give you a summary this evening because I know you need ammunition!

 

[Fran65]

Hi CD,

We know from the way that the universe and the way that eveything within it behaves, that everything has a cause, there are no effects without causes.

This means that something must have caused the universe because it behaves like a thing that has been caused, for example it changes over time. The unverse, from our observations is a set of effects. We know that every effect has a cause, so the universe cannot (logically) have caused itself. A thing cannot be both its cause and its effect.

This means, based on our knowledge of cause and effect and there has to have been an uncaused cause: God. he is the only thing (logically) that is not the effect of something else and therefore we no longer have the problem of infinite regression. God is the ‘backstop’ if you like.

In this argument, A is God (cause) and B is the universe (effects).

There is an argument regarding the complexity of the universe and the simplicity of God that Aquinas puts forward, however, I don’t have time right now to go into depth on it. Just that simplicity means that God is not made up of parts, as He is eternal and does not change or move. If He were made up of parts (i.e. physically complex) He would have to both move and change because that is the way that things made up of separate parts work, in other words he would not be God as he would not then be eternal and would be subject to change. I think that’s the ‘gist’ of it.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps you could summarise, or point me towards a small synopsis somewhere?

There is some repetition in these three posts but they will give you an idea of my views:

“So it is with the parts of the universe: each creature exists first for its own proper activity and well-being; second, lower creatures are for the higher, as plants and beasts are for men; third, each is for the integrity of the whole; last, the whole universe with all its parts is ordered to God as to its end, by copying and sharing forth divine goodness to the glory of God.” - St Thomas Aquinas

In other words there is a hierarchy of purposes in the universe. Evolutionary development, of which St Thomas was unaware, is further evidence for the continuity of purpose in the world. He did not regard the individual parts of the universe as perfectly good in themselves but only as contributing to the perfection of the whole. He specifically states that “a bodily creature is good in its nature, not unboundedly so, but in a partial and contracted manner. Hence the conflict of one thing with another, though both in themselves are good”. That is why evil is an inevitable consequence of Design.

Design implies that there are definite purposes in life. Each of us has a particular vocation for which we have specific talents and abilities. We have an obligation to develop our potentialities to the best of our ability because life is a gift. We persevere in the search for truth and meaning because the universe is rational and everything ultimately fits into an intelligible pattern. Purpose is not a rare phenomenon but the dominant feature of existence. Good fulfils purpose and evil frustrates it. Justice reflects the intrinsic worth of every person and after death we shall all receive exactly what we deserve. We are all free, equal, brothers and sisters with a right to life because we exist by Design. We exist in order to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love - ourselves or others.

Even if we knew nothing about the Designer there is no evidence whatsoever that Design can exist without a Designer. Evidence for design is evidence for a designer. We know that from our direct experience of both. Design is the result of conscious, rational, purposeful activity and not due to unconscious, irrational, purposeless events.

We also know that the Designer of this vast and magnificent universe must have immense insight, power and creativity. We associate insight, power and creativity not with the brain but with the mind. Physicalists believe the mind cannot exist without the brain but there is no rational basis for this assumption. There is no evidence that the brain is conscious of itself, has insight into its own activity, has free will or the power to control itself. That is why human beings have always distinguished the mind from the brain.

Our primary data are our thoughts, feelings and sensations. We infer that the body exists from the evidence of our senses but the fundamental reality is our intangible stream of thoughts, emotions and decisions. The power of the mind and the intangible nature of all that we consider most precious - truth, goodness, freedom and love - imply that a Designer is the only adequate explanation of the Design in the universe. The pursuit of the truth in both philosophy and science presupposes the existence of purpose, the power of intelligence and the intelligibility of the universe:

"The highest formal unity, which is based on concepts of reason alone, is the systematical and purposeful unity of things, and it is the speculative interest of reason which makes it necessary to regard all order in the world as if it had originated in the purpose of a supreme wisdom. Such a principle opens to our reason in the field of experience quite new views, how to connect the things of the world according to teleological laws and thus to arrive at their greatest systematic unity…

For the purely speculative use of reason, therefore, the Supreme Being, remains, no doubt, an ideal only but an ideal without a flaw, a concept which finishes and crowns the whole of human knowledge and the objective reality of which, though it cannot be proved can neither be disproved in that way." (Immanuel Kant)

I should add that Kant is not referring to the empirical evidence for Design.but to the metaphysical concept of the Supreme Being - which remains the most powerful, elegant, adequate, economical, fertile and inspiring explanation of our existence.

Intelligent Design is the most powerful, comprehensive and fertile explanation of the immensely complex universe, the exquisite richness and variety of nature, the origin and infinite value of life, the progressive development of living organisms, the existence of rational beings with their power of self-determination, their transcendence of their environment, their ability to distinguish good and evil, and their capacity for love and self-sacrifice. The success of science demonstrates the superiority of intelligence over blind forces like random mutations and natural selection.

Design explains the order and intelligibility of the universe - for which no other explanation has been given. It accounts for all the most important aspects of existence: truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, justice, love, the right to life and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. Belief in Design is a glorious vision of reality which is in accord with the deepest yearnings and the highest aspirations of the human spirit. It interprets evolution not as the descent of man but as the ascent to God. It is verified by the power and ultimate responsibility of each individual for his or her destiny. To reject Design implies that rational, free, conscious, moral persons have been produced by the blind interplay of irrational, determined, unconscious and amoral forces. To deny the primacy of intelligence is to undermine the validity of reason - the logical consequence of which is total scepticism and nihilism.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Fran65:
**Hi CD,

We know from the way that the universe and the way that eveything within it behaves, that everything has a cause, there are no effects without causes.**

Define cause? I would say everything has an explanation.

This means that something must have caused the universe because it behaves like a thing that has been caused, for example it changes over time. The unverse, from our observations is a set of effects. We know that every effect has a cause, so the universe cannot (logically) have caused itself. A thing cannot be both its cause and its effect.

But we only know about the observable universe. So it is pointless to posit about anything outside it. If you want to apply the laws of our universe to that that is outside it, i am fine with that, but that will include your god.

**This means, based on our knowledge of cause and effect and there has to have been an uncaused cause: God. he is the only thing (logically) that is not the effect of something else and therefore we no longer have the problem of infinite regression. God is the ‘backstop’ if you like.
**

I don’t like. See above, you can’t have it both ways.

**In this argument, A is God (cause) and B is the universe (effects).

There is an argument regarding the complexity of the universe and the simplicity of God that Aquinas puts forward, however, I don’t have time right now to go into depth on it. Just that simplicity means that God is not made up of parts, as He is eternal and does not change or move. If He were made up of parts (i.e. physically complex) He would have to both move and change because that is the way that things made up of separate parts work, in other words he would not be God as he would not then be eternal and would be subject to change. I think that’s the ‘gist’ of it.**

Well then if he is without physical form that would make him even more complex, this only compounds the problem.

 

[Fran65]

Charles Darwin;5508407/:

Define cause? I would say everything has an explanation.

A cause is anything that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results. Identifying what has produced that effect and why it has produced those effects is an explanation. For Catholics, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe and ourselves.
Charles Darwin;5508407/:

But we only know about the observable universe. So it is pointless to posit about anything outside it. If you want to apply the laws of our universe to that that is outside it, i am fine with that, but that will include your god…

But what we’re trying to explain is the observable universe! I see what you mean about physical laws only applying in the universe, but that doesn’t mean that they have to apply outside the universe.
Charles Darwin;5508407/:

I don’t like. See above, you can’t have it both ways.

Well, we disagree, and as explained in my previous post, we (Catholics/Theists) can have it both ways.
Charles Darwin;5508407/:

Well then if he is without physical form that would make him even more complex.

What makes you say that? Complex is defined as a whole that is made up of difficult to analyse but related parts. If you mean complex as difficult to understand, then I agree!

 

[Fran65]

the Supreme Being - which remains the most powerful, elegant, adequate, economical, fertile and inspiring explanation of our existence.

Thank you Tony for an excellent synopsis!

 

[Charles_Darwin]

A cause is anything that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results. Identifying what has produced that effect and why it has produced those effects is an explanation. For Catholics, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe and ourselves.

But what we’re trying to explain is the observable universe! I see what you mean about physical laws only applying in the universe, but that doesn’t mean that they have to apply outside the universe.

Well, we disagree, and as explained in my previous post, we (Catholics/Theists) can have it both ways.

What makes you say that? Complex is defined as a whole that is made up of difficult to analyse but related parts. If you mean complex as difficult to understand, then I agree!

Well science is moving on with the explanation of the obserable universe, but we still know very little about it. The point is simple, since we have such little observable evidence on the subject it is pointless to speculate, as any explanation will be just that, blind specluation.

As for god being the explanation for the existence of the universe. If that was all god is then i too would believe in god, for i do beleive the universe has a natural explanation. But that is not what you believe, you believe god is an omnipotent superbeing that came to earth, performed miricles, died on a cross and came back to life etc. If that is not a discription of a complex being, i don’t know what is.

 

[wanstronian]

Lots of supposition, false logic, and non sequiturs to respond to here, as well as some dogma-based assertions from ancient priests which have no real place in a modern discussion.

I have to do some work now, but will try and respond to Tony and Fran later on this afternoon.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Lots of supposition, false logic, and non sequiturs to respond to here, as well as some dogma-based assertions from ancient priests which have no real place in a modern discussion.

I have to do some work now, but will try and respond to Tony and Fran later on this afternoon.

:yawn:

 

[Fran65]

If that was all god is then i too would believe in god, for i do beleive the universe has a natural explanation.


Charles Darwin;5509768:

But that is not what you believe, you believe god is an omnipotent superbeing that came to earth, performed miricles, died on a cross and came back to life etc. If that is not a discription of a complex being, i don’t know what is.

We were discussing the existence of God. What you are referring to here is Christianity, which is a separate discussion.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles Darwin;5509768:

If that was all god is then i too would believe in god, for i do beleive the universe has a natural explanation.



We were discussing the existence of God. What you are referring to here is Christianity, which is a separate discussion.

Ah ok, then well in that case. We need to define what we mean by a god.