The absurdity of atheism

[Bradski]

So far as we can prove, we are a product of one Big Bang.

I’d be interested to see that proof. You could make a name for yourself.

Previous universes (the ones that didn’t work as far as life is concerned) would have been created before this one. That is, before the last Big Bang. I say ‘last’ because it is literally impossible to know what happened previously. There cannot be any proof. You are making an unfounded assumption.

And again, be careful of the circular argument that says God got it right the first time because He is omnipotent as He got it right the first time.

 

[tonyrey]

What is Russell’s rational, purposeful foundation for existence in an irrational, purposeless universe? Camus and Sartre were more consistent in recognising its absurdity.

“stimulated” gives the same away. In other words we are still cogs in the machine of nature and not responsible for our thoughts or actions. If we are simply naked apes we have no choice in the way we respond .

Also, what do you mean by an irrational universe? Order does not imply a rational consciousness. Order is merely conceptual.

If order is merely conceptual it would be no different from chaos! Do you really believe the progressive development of purposeful, rational beings can be explained entirely by a fortuitous series of purposeless, mindless events?

No one has ever explained why the universe is orderly nor why it has become more complex. “Physical necessity” is not an explanation.
God exists because existence is intrinsically valuable, purposeful and meaningful. God Is Existence! The Jews has this remarkable insight that the Deity is “He Who Is”, the foundation of everything that exists. Things that exist by Chance are valueless, purposeless and valueless because they exist for no reason whatsoever.

Stop right there. On what basis do you assert that an atheist would argue that existence of the singularity was ever solely by chance and hence meaningless? If anything, their argument would be akin to the theist’s argument for God. They would argue that the singularity existed because it existed, just as the Jewish argument that God exists because he exists. I don’t see the difference here.

The atheist’s singularity is impersonal, irrational, mindless, valueless, purposeless, meaningless and incapable of love, development and fulfilment. How does that compare with the Jewish concept of God as a personal, rational, moral, purposeful and creative Being capable of love, development and fulfilment? It is a superior and a more adequate explanation in every respect which corresponds to the way we live - which is the best test of any theory: “By their fruits…”.

The only fundamental difference here is that the atheist would argue that life itself gains its meaning from the individual person via external devotion and stimulation. Meanwhile, the theist might argue that meaning comes from God. In either case, meaning of some sort is found. Whether or not the meaning is true is almost an arbitrary matter and of personal opinion.

“stimulation” again gives the game away! The cogs in the machine are having a whale of a time with their impersonal opinions. “arbitrary” sums up life in a mindless universe perfectly. We can think what we like but we are all wrong. There is no criterion of anything…

Atheists are inconsistent and incoherent because they use reason to prove everything is ultimately unreasonable - including truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

Maybe if they are a nihilist. But most atheists aren’t nihilist or Nietzschites. Most atheists believe in an objective morality, justice, etc.

And that is precisely where their scheme of things is inconsistent and incoherent. What is the rational foundation of their values? Human opinions? There is not one jot of evidence that matter is intrinsically moral or conscious of anything. If only matter exists nothing matters…

 

[Aloysium]

. . . both atheists and theists use metaphysics in some way to make up for the lack of indubitable proof.

As a Christian, you are doing far more. You are growing in the Way, becoming ever more Christ-like, on the journey to everlasting joy with all creation in communion with God, from which springs all this wonder.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is certainly possible to interpret reality as absurd from an atheistic point of view. I don’t think, however, that atheism is an intrinsically absurd view in and of itself. Existence itself very well could be a “brute fact.” Morality very well could be a human construction or agreement. International law is based on this notion. Modern democratic governments were designed by those who espoused “social contract” theory. I am not an atheist because I believe God is the ultimate “brute fact,” but this is due to faith.

Further, anyone could easily start a thread called “The absurdity of Christianity.” I won’t do that, because it would be unnecessarily antagonistic. But, nonetheless, the internal coherence of traditional Christianity is certainly questionable.

Can an atheist construct a coherent world-view? I think so! Our values are ultimately illusions, but that doesn’t have to mean we can’t cherish them. There is a debate on youtube between the ethicist Shelley Kagan and William Lane Craig. It’s worth watching because the debate ventures into this idea that human life is absurd because morality has no ultimate or cosmic significance. Sure, it’s possible our morality doesn’t mean anything to an indifferent universe, but it means everything to us.

I don’t personally find this solution satisfying. Personally, I believe that evil people can’t possibly “get away with” everything they’ve done and that’s that. I also can’t believe that all the good people have done will be ignored or scorned forever. We need someone to balance this out for us, we can’t do it ourselves. This is one of the main reasons I believe in God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’d be interested to see that proof. You could make a name for yourself.

Previous universes (the ones that didn’t work as far as life is concerned) would have been created before this one. That is, before the last Big Bang. I say ‘last’ because it is literally impossible to know what happened previously. There cannot be any proof. You are making an unfounded assumption.

And again, be careful of the circular argument that says God got it right the first time because He is omnipotent as He got it right the first time.

What is circular about God getting it right the first time? That’s the WHOLE story! What makes you think there were previous Big Bangs? Any evidence?

 

[Bradski]

What is circular about God getting it right the first time? That’s the WHOLE story! What makes you think there were previous Big Bangs? Any evidence?

God must be omnipotent because he made everything there is. But who says He got it right the first time? Where is the evidence that there was only one big bang and that we are the result?

As I said, there is no way to prove that there have not been an infinite number of big bangs spanning eternity. An infinite number of universes being created and then eventually ceasing to exist. Some lasting billions of years, some a second or so. Some suitable for life, some not. Saying that there has only been one is an assumption. And one without any basis.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

God must be omnipotent because he made everything there is. But who says He got it right the first time? Where is the evidence that there was only one big bang and that we are the result?

This is what I said:

“So far as we can prove, we are a product of one Big Bang.”

I did not say there were not other Big Bangs. I said there is only one we can prove because we are a product of it. You cannot prove there is an infinity of Big Bangs. So as far as we can prove, God got it right with the only Big Bang we can prove. The proof is in our pudding.

This forum is not a science fiction forum. You are welcome to spin your own brand of metaphysics with innumerable science fiction scenarios, but so far as the science goes, you are stuck with one universe and one Big Bang.

Even if an infinity of universes does exist, you have not necessarily gotten rid of God, for the simple reason that it is not beyond the omnipotence of God to create an infinity of universes, though why he would do so begs explaining.

What also begs explaining is why, without God, there would be an infinity of universes.

And if many of these universes do not produce life, which in an infinity of universes would likely be the case, what is there reason for being?

Now if you ask what is the reason for God to be, we would answer that God does not need a reason to be, because God is Being itself, the source and fountain from which all other beings flow. There is no “cause” of God because even the principle that we recognize as causality was created by God. How can God be subject to a principle of his own Creation?

 

[Bradski]

God got it right with the only Big Bang we can prove.

Precisely my point.

Let’s say that there’s a piece of software code available in the office that makes everyone’s job a lot easier. It works perfectly every time. Whoever wrote it must really know their stuff. A Code Guru. What a guy, to be able to bang something like this out.

Well, it happens to be some code I wrote years ago. Someone must have ‘borrowed it’ from the company at which I was working back then and it’s been passed around ever since. Did I know my stuff? Am I the Code Guru? Well, the proof is in the pudding, isn’t it?

Except that when wrote it I was just learning how to do it. I had no real idea what I was doing. Far from throwing out this little gem in a few minutes it had taken me multiple attempts to get it right and many hours of work. And when it was working, I really wasn’t exactly sure why.

But as far as anyone is concerned, the programmer got it right the first time. They couldn’t prove otherwise.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The trouble you are causing in this forum.

You were probably kidding, but as the person who was instrumental in getting the atheism discussion ban lifted, I want to be clear that atheists are encouraged to engage in polite disagreement with us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

God must be omnipotent because he made everything there is. But who says He got it right the first time? Where is the evidence that there was only one big bang and that we are the result?

As I said, there is no way to prove that there have not been an infinite number of big bangs spanning eternity. An infinite number of universes being created and then eventually ceasing to exist. Some lasting billions of years, some a second or so. Some suitable for life, some not. Saying that there has only been one is an assumption. And one without any basis.

1. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a big Crunch has ever occurred. Without that, what reason do you have to believe that an oscillating universe is the best model?
2. Even assuming an oscillating model is correct, how did anything come into existence at all? It simply exists? Eternally? Don’t think so, because…
3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that we are running out of usable energy. If the universe was infinitely old, then it would have run out of energy long ago, and would be a cold, dead place with no heat or light. But heat and light do exist. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

Now, if a big crunch somehow “recharges” the batteries of the universe, then I’d be interested to hear (or read) anything you might want to share.

William Lane Craig explains why the Oscillating Universe Theory fails here:

youtube.com/watch?v=y0y2KO0g6yc

Big article here:

The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe
by William Lane Craig
reasonablefaith.org/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe

 

[ThinkingSapien]

as the person who was instrumental in getting the atheism discussion ban lifted

Thanks for your efforts!

 

[inocente]

Very good. Now you have just shown yourself quote mining to prove, perhaps without your even knowing it, that the vast kingdom of Protestantism, divided as it is, will be ruined.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” - John 17:20-21
“Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16).

“I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith you were called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long suffering, forbearing one another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all” Saint Paul (Ephesians 4:2-6).

Only just spotted this, sorry.

You made the exact same quotes in some old threads, e.g. here, right down to putting two references in parentheses but not the other, right down to getting one of the references wrong. Take it you cut and pasted it as a block then, don’t know from where.

The verses appear to be from the King James Version, with a few alterations. Strange you use an archaic Protestant translation. Might be more kosher to use a modern version.

Also, instead of responding to the points made, you fall back on sectarianism. Seems it’s one of your tells. Careful playing poker, you might be easy to read when you try to bluff.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Only just spotted this, sorry.

You made the exact same quotes in some old threads, e.g. here, right down to putting two references in parentheses but not the other, right down to getting one of the references wrong. Take it you cut and pasted it as a block then, don’t know from where.

The verses appear to be from the King James Version, with a few alterations. Strange you use an archaic Protestant translation. Might be more kosher to use a modern version.

Also, instead of responding to the points made, you fall back on sectarianism. Seems it’s one of your tells. Careful playing poker, you might be easy to read when you try to bluff.

A few things:

#1: Charlemagne is one of most prolific posters, so it wouldn’t be surprising if he reuses old posts to address repeated questions. The fact that it’s copy paste doesn’t negate it relevance.

#2: You seem to be asserting that a more modern translation would be more accurate. This is not necessarily true, and if different translations hold different meanings then there is a fundamental misunderstanding at work.

#3: Perhaps he reverted to pointing out the inherent problems in Protestantism because he’d already responded to the points made, and his responses were ignored. This is a common occurrence on these forums.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Only just spotted this, sorry.

You made the exact same quotes in some old threads, e.g. here, right down to putting two references in parentheses but not the other, right down to getting one of the references wrong. Take it you cut and pasted it as a block then, don’t know from where.

The verses appear to be from the King James Version, with a few alterations. Strange you use an archaic Protestant translation. Might be more kosher to use a modern version.

Also, instead of responding to the points made, you fall back on sectarianism. Seems it’s one of your tells. Careful playing poker, you might be easy to read when you try to bluff.

I notice you sidestep the problem of Christian unity. The only thing that unites all Protestants is that they in common Protest the Catholic Church.

That should tell you something right there; that they don’t want what Christ wanted … Christian unity, neither with the Catholic Church nor with each other.

 

[inocente]

I notice you sidestep the problem of Christian unity. The only thing that unites all Protestants is that they in common Protest the Catholic Church.

That should tell you something right there; that they don’t want what Christ wanted … Christian unity, neither with the Catholic Church nor with each other.

Didn’t sidestep, flatly refused. Sectarianism is off-topic and boring to boot.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Didn’t sidestep, flatly refused. Sectarianism is off-topic and boring to boot.

Refusing to acknowledge valid points is the same thing as sidestepping them…

 

[Bradski]

1. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a big Crunch has ever occurred. Without that, what reason do you have to believe that an oscillating universe is the best model?

I didn’t say it was.

It happens that this universe, just like Goldilocks’ porridge, is just right (well, discounting the fact that only a tiny fraction is suitable for life and we can’t access almost 100% of it). But previous universes don’t have to be exactly the same.

It’s just an assumption that God got it right the first time. There is zero evidence for that assumption. Notwithstanding that it seems there’s a little too much of everything when you consider that we cannot and will not have access to most of it. To all intents and purposes, all of it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I didn’t say it was.

It happens that this universe, just like Goldilocks’ porridge, is just right (well, discounting the fact that only a tiny fraction is suitable for life and we can’t access almost 100% of it). But previous universes don’t have to be exactly the same.

It’s just an assumption that God got it right the first time. There is zero evidence for that assumption. Notwithstanding that it seems there’s a little too much of everything when you consider that we cannot and will not have access to most of it. To all intents and purposes, all of it.

So, because you will not experience 90% of the world in your lifetime, the rest of it is just superfluous and unnecessary?

“Too much” or “too little” is a wholly subjective position.

Why are you so hung up on this notion of God “getting it right the first time?” Even if there had been five billion universes prior to this one, that wouldn’t change His relationship to our universe. If there’s a multiverse, all that does is push the question of creation up a level, it doesn’t circumvent the necessity of a creator. If you try to claim that, in this multiverse, there could be a universe that is not subject to the laws of physics as we understand them, I would counter by pointing out that that is a much less grounded statement of faith than the declaration that there is a creator. While there is no physical evidence for or against an external creator, there is evidence against the notion of something coming from nothing.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I didn’t say it was.

It happens that this universe, just like Goldilocks’ porridge, is just right (well, discounting the fact that only a tiny fraction is suitable for life and we can’t access almost 100% of it). But previous universes don’t have to be exactly the same.

It’s just an assumption that God got it right the first time. There is zero evidence for that assumption. Notwithstanding that it seems there’s a little too much of everything when you consider that we cannot and will not have access to most of it. To all intents and purposes, all of it.

I thought you didn’t believe in God.

 

[Bradski]

So, because you will not experience 90% of the world in your lifetime, the rest of it is just superfluous and unnecessary?

Well, if I were the only person on the planet, then it would be something of a waste of space.There is quite possibly an infinity of information beyond the observable universe which is forever beyond our reach. It is literally impossible to access it, let along get to it. Why do you think God made stuff that to all intents and purposes, as far as we are concerned, doesn’t exist?

Why are you so hung up on this notion of God “getting it right the first time?” Even if there had been five billion universes prior to this one, that wouldn’t change His relationship to our universe.

It is an assumption that He got it right the first time. Maybe it took Him 5 billion attempts to get it right.

I thought you didn’t believe in God.

It’s not convenient to preface everything I say with: ‘Assuming that God exists for the purpose of this discussion…’. Just mentally include it at the beginning of whatever I write.