The Absurdity of Atheism

[Solmyr]

That someone was looking after us.

I am sorry, but I must contradict you. If there would be no horror, no pain, no misery, no suffering, it would be considered normal. We need some “contrast” to see something as “extraordinary”.

As some say, without darkness we would not be aware of the light… the question is: “who cares”? It is not better to be sick and to recover, rather than to be healthy. It is not better to be hungry and then to get food, rather than being well-fed all the time.

To advocate the opposite is called “sour grapes”, or to “make a virtue out of necessity”.

 

[ffg]

That someone was looking after us.

What conclusion would you reach if countless people suffer and die horribly?

One thing that might be agreed is that if there is a God he would never want suffering for His creation, if He loves creation.

But, this is where people pick the logic they like better, rather than apply logic consistently.

People who have children do effort to keep their kids safe (hopefully), but it is inevitable that they will trip and fall.

If God was always there to catch each person, I don’t think it would work with the above logic, since Freedom would be in question.

There are quite a few questions left unanswered that help us hold the above logic, plus the freedom we seem to have as a reality, and might help us to see that as suffering is a reality, there are folks who have exampled how to do it well.

That does not mean suffering is a good, it is garbage, but because it exists doesn’t mean God is absent. Perhaps it means God can comfort like a parent after a tragic event.

Like it sounds like I have to do right now. Though by the cry, I can tell the suffering is probably out of being rejected when asking for something the little guy couldn’t have, like garbage for breakfast.

Take care,

Mike

 

[inocente]

I seriously doubt you expect anyone to accept this on your authority alone.

So on whose authority?

Hang on, you want to disprove an argument from ignorance (aka fallacy) with an argument from authority (aka fallacy)?

The fact that we don’t yet know how to calculate the values of physical constants represents current gaps in our knowledge, and so purported universal fine-tuning is a classic god-of-the-gaps as described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hang on, you want to disprove an argument from ignorance (aka fallacy) with an argument from authority (aka fallacy)?

The fact that we don’t yet know how to calculate the values of physical constants represents current gaps in our knowledge, and so purported universal fine-tuning is a classic god-of-the-gaps as described by Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

So … on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s authority?

Yes, physicists tell us what they know and the verdict is pretty much in.

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job.” Paul Davies

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.” Arno Penzias, Nobel prizewinner

“It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence.” Carl Sagan

“Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Steven Weinberg

“In fact a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.”
Stephen Hawking

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking

“Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” Stephen Hawking

Fine tuning of the universe is hardly a myth except by your authority, which isn’t much.

 

[Lucretius]

So … on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s authority?

Yes, physicists tell us what they know and the verdict is pretty much in.

The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job.
Paul Davies

---

Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.
– Arno Penzias, Nobel prizewinner

It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence.
– Carl Sagan

---

Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.
– Steven Weinberg

---

---

In fact a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.
Stephen Hawking

---

The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Stephen Hawking

---

Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.
Stephen Hawking

Fine tuning of the universe is hardly a myth except by your authority, which isn’t much.

When J. R. R. Tolkien subcreated Middle Earth, do you think he had in mind that world’s universal constants? It’s mathematical skeleton?

No, he had in mind the story. God might be like a mathematian and engineer, but He is like an artist’s first and foremost

Whatever God is doing, the constants aren’t His highest concern. Is there such a thing as an ideal gas, frictionless surfaces, etc.? If God had mathematics in mind, why are many real constants irrational numbers?

Modern physics works in abstractions from the real world, not the real world in itself.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

The truth is that, whatever nature is doing, mathematics isn’t the primary goal. The existence of irrational numbers in nature in particular, as well as other truths, are evidence.

An irrational number is just one which can’t be expressed as a fraction. Can’t see how that’s evidence for anything.

Our mathematical laws are like looking at a creek a mile from its source: we see the after effects of something, but we have to get to the spring to truly understand what is going on, and modern physics can’t do this job, probably because modern physicists aren’t interested in nature as such, or they want to force nature to fit their mathematic mechanics (even though Einstein and quantum mechanics should have trashed this view by now).

Math is just a way of expressing order. Wherever there is order, it can be expressed mathematically. Mechanics is a name for the math of motion, whereas the mechanistic universe was an old philosophical idea, long since put to rest. To get closer to the spring we have to understand chaos theory and the like.

I’m guessing you’re an Eng Lit major .

 

[Lucretius]

An irrational number is just one which can’t be expressed as a fraction. Can’t see how that’s evidence for anything.

It means that nature doesn’t have right angles, natural numbers, ideal gases, and frictionless surfaces in mind.

Math is just a way of expressing order.

I think you mean something more like proportion, because there are many kinds of order that aren’t quantitative, like the order of a King and his subjects.

Wherever there is order, it can be expressed mathematically. Mechanics is a name for the math of motion, whereas the mechanistic universe was an old philosophical idea, long since put to rest. To get closer to the spring we have to understand chaos theory and the like.

Even then, these things are far from the spring. Modern people have forgotten essential facts about nature, like teleology and quality.

What I’m saying is that our mathematic models and theories, that is, contemporary physics, are abstractions: they are the skeleton of nature, but not her flesh and blood

I’m guessing you’re an Eng Lit major .

I was once a Chemical engineering major, but now I’m lost and confused

I do have a personal interest in biology and philosophy and science. Are you a physicist?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[inocente]

On the other hand, why couldn’t Aquinas agree that it was possible for God to make a universe in which water does not freeze?

After all, God must have made many planets on which there isn’t even any water.

For water to never freeze, the molecular forces would have to be different, which would mean that the atomic forces would have to be different, and so on, meaning that the fundamental particles would have to be different, meaning water as we know it could not exist.

Aquinas didn’t know any of that of course, so he might ague more simply that if the nature of something is changed then it won’t be the same thing anymore - it wouldn’t be water.

 

[Lucretius]

Aquinas didn’t know any of that of course, so he might ague more simply that if the nature of something is changed then it won’t be the same thing anymore - it wouldn’t be water.

That exactly how St. Thomas views it. To him, water isn’t reducible to molecular forces, or even to molecules. Is a molecule of H2O wet, for example? Wetness is a quality that emerges from a bunch of H2O “coming together” (influencing each other, whether through their electromagnetic forces or otherwise).

To change the constants would make the thing something like water, maybe, but certainly not water.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[tonyrey]

As I said in an earlier post, many atheists are humble, open-minded, and also very fulfilled in their lives.

But also, on the flip side…many theists can be self-important and close minded…and not be fulfilled in their lives.
So an atheist could draw a connection between these observations to show that a god does *not *exist.

.

“could” but not “should” if the atheist is reasonable. What we believe or disbelieve doesn’t always correspond to the way we live…

 

[tonyrey]

That someone was looking after us.

Precisely! We wouldn’t be free to choose what to believe…

What conclusion would you reach if countless people suffer and die horribly?

That misfortunes are inevitable in an immensely complex universe and people can choose to be callous, venomous and unscrupulous.

 

[inocente]

So … on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s authority?

Yes, physicists tell us what they know and the verdict is pretty much in.

“The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural constants were off even slightly. You see, even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a put-up job.” Paul Davies

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan.” Arno Penzias, Nobel prizewinner

“It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with galaxies and stars, planets, life and intelligence.” Carl Sagan

“Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values.” Steven Weinberg

“In fact a universe like ours with galaxies and stars is actually quite unlikely. If one considers the possible constants and laws that could have emerged, the odds against a universe that has produced life like ours are immense.”
Stephen Hawking

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking

“Nevertheless, it seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.” Stephen Hawking

“The practice of quoting out of context …] is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

Such as trying to misrepresent Stephen Hawking, the well-known atheist, as if he believes in intelligent design. No he doesn’t. He’s on record arguing instead for the anthropic principle - that believing the universe is fine-tuned for us is a selection bias. Whether or not we agree, and whether or not we think he’s an authority, that’s his view, and he shouldn’t be misrepresented.

Similarly, Sagan was a well-known atheist. Similarly, Weinberg is an atheist, and a quick google links to fine-tuningagainst (I’ve not read it all, but looking at a last paragraph, he’s not a fan of religion either).

Fine tuning of the universe is hardly a myth except by your authority, which isn’t much.

The backfired on you then, since Hawking and Weinberg at the least both say fine-tuning is a myth. House of cards, always check the sources. But there’s no need for authorities, the argument is simply that physical constants are gaps in knowledge, parameters that have to be dialed-in for reasons not yet known.

 

[inocente]

It means that nature doesn’t have right angles, natural numbers, ideal gases, and frictionless surfaces in mind.

There might be another argument against universal fine-tuning here, concerning information. No particle of matter or volume of space has the gravitational constant embroidered on it, nothing knows the value. Just as no planet with a circular orbit knows the value of Pi.

Even then, these things are far from the spring. Modern people have forgotten essential facts about nature, like teleology and quality.

I’d say they’re not forgotten, rather deliberately discounted in science - purpose and quality is in the eye of the beholder.

I was once a Chemical engineering major, but now I’m lost and confused

Imho lost and confused is a good place to be , whereas certainty indicates a closed mind.

I do have a personal interest in biology and philosophy and science. Are you a physicist?

No, information technology is my game.

 

[aclausen]

The backfired on you then, since Hawking and Weinberg at the least both say fine-tuning is a myth. House of cards, always check the sources. But there’s no need for authorities, the argument is simply that physical constants are gaps in knowledge, parameters that have to be dialed-in for reasons not yet known.

Hawking is the scientist that most informs my position. In one of his essays he noted that it didn’t seem very likely that God would have much of a choice in the starting conditions and basic physical laws. In other words, the anthropomorphic principal actually is a greater problem for those insisting a Prime Mover is required to start the Universe. Since the claim is that only a narrow set of conditions and physical laws will produce a universe capable of supporting complex formations of matter, and by extension life, it means such a Prime Mover is a considerably more limited entity than the one the invoked in the Judeao-Christian tradition.

For me, that’s at the point where I go “What is the point of invoking God? What problem does invoking a Prime Mover solve?” It’s not so much a lack of belief that informs my atheism as much as the lack of utility that invoking a Prime Mover produces.

 

[Lucretius]

For me, that’s at the point where I go “What is the point of invoking God? What problem does invoking a Prime Mover solve?” It’s not so much a lack of belief that informs my atheism as much as the lack of utility that invoking a Prime Mover produces.

The Prime mover follows directly from the nature of motion. The reason modern people tend to misunderstand this is because modern physics never both to define motion, and take it for granted. Descartes, for example, dismisses the need to do so, and Newton’s first law assumes a definition of motion a priori.

However, once you realize that motion per se is a reduction of potential to actuality, then the Unmoved Mover argument makes perfect sense.

Inocente, I’m going to get to you soon

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[aclausen]

The Prime mover follows directly from the nature of motion. The reason modern people tend to misunderstand this is because modern physics never both to define motion, and take it for granted. Descartes, for example, dismisses the need to do so, and Newton’s first law assumes a definition of motion a priori.

However, once you realize that motion per se is a reduction of potential to actuality, then the Unmoved Mover argument makes perfect sense.

Inocente, I’m going to get to you soon

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Then if that’s your chief argument, I can just take that attribute and place it on the Universe itself. Problem solved.

 

[Lucretius]

Then if that’s your chief argument, I can just take that attribute and place it on the Universe itself. Problem solved.

Not exactly. Both Aristotleans and moderns define the universe by what is natural, and both understand nature as things that move and are in motion. Since the Unmoved Mover is, well, unmoved, it must be supernatural, as mere natural things move.

Furthermore, since the Unmoved Mover is outside time (time is essentially related to motion, and the Unmoved Mover doesn’t move), we get stuck in an absurdity to think that the Unmoved Mover is the universe, since we would have to say the universe is timeless.

Or, more simply, the universe, that is, the sum of all things moving, obviously can’t the Unmoved Mover.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

There might be another argument against universal fine-tuning here, concerning information. No particle of matter or volume of space has the gravitational constant embroidered on it, nothing knows the value. Just as no planet with a circular orbit knows the value of Pi.

Maybe…this might be St. Thomas’ Fifth Way too…

I’d say they’re not forgotten, rather deliberately discounted in science - purpose and quality is in the eye of the beholder.

But they aren’t entirely. For example, a life itself is qualitative, and can’t be reduced to its quantities (for example, a body doesn’t lose weight after death).

More generally though, we experience quantities through qualities, so to claim that only quantities are objective, we have to explain how the senses can be wrong about qualities being objective, yet not for quantities.

Imho lost and confused is a good place to be , whereas certainty indicates a closed mind.

It’s not a good thing because my life isn’t advancing

No, information technology is my game.

Cool

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[aclausen]

Not exactly. Both Aristotleans and moderns define the universe by what is natural, and both understand nature as things that move and are in motion. Since the Unmoved Mover is, well, unmoved, it must be supernatural, as mere natural things move.

Furthermore, since the Unmoved Mover is outside time (time is essentially related to motion, and the Unmoved Mover doesn’t move), we get stuck in an absurdity to think that the Unmoved Mover is the universe, since we would have to say the universe is timeless.

Or, more simply, the universe, that is, the sum of all things moving, obviously can’t the Unmoved Mover.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

This looks more like special pleading and circular logic to me. Since we know little or nothing about the starting conditions of the universe, or more precisely the Observable Universe (the actual universe could be a considerably larger and more exotic place), what we end up with is a large hole in our knowledge which, whether we be theologian, scientist or philosopher, have a great desire to fill.

The definition of the universe you invoke simply does not seem to be a very scientific definition.

 

[Lucretius]

This looks more like special pleading and circular logic to me. Since we know little or nothing about the starting conditions of the universe, or more precisely the Observable Universe (the actual universe could be a considerably larger and more exotic place), what we end up with is a large hole in our knowledge which, whether we be theologian, scientist or philosopher, have a great desire to fill.

The Unmoved Mover argument isn’t working with ignorance, but with the fact that things move and are moved. Now, if moving things exist in the universe, then the universe, in part, is moved, which means it can’t be be the Unmoved Mover.

The definition of the universe you invoke simply does not seem to be a very scientific definition.

This is the definition that most modern people tend to have to use (Einstein shot the Newtonian specific definition down). Otherwise, they don’t have a definition, and a lot of scientists are saying meaningless things.

If, for example, you are correct that the universe isn’t the sum of things that move, you are saying that not everything follows the laws of motion, and that some things in the universe are timeless, which I don’t think a scientist would agree to.

Furthermore, you would have then simply defined the Unmoved Mover with moving things: you would just have shifted the meaning of the word universe to include what I called the universe with the Unmoved Mover, which just confused the point.

Christi pax,

Lucretius