Why do some people prefer to be atheists?

[Aloysium]

Let’s try to clarify what has actually been created:

If we decompose everything material that we know about, which constitutes what is believed to be about one twentieth of the physical universe (the remainder being dark energy and matter), we arrive at an assortment of subatomic “particles”.
These would include a variety of fermions and bosons which we can detect, quantify and describe mathematically. These things exist.

The next level up is made up of these things and constitutes the world of atoms and their interactions as molecules.
One very special atom produces molecules with a tetrahedral shape. It is so special that it has the branch of organic chemistry devoted to its study; of course, it is Carbon

The activity of atoms and molecules as they react and interact produces the physical properties that underlie what we experience in our world such as softness, hardness, heat and cold, colour, smells and taste.
Chemical activity occurs both inside and outside our bodies. Perception in complex organisms occurs through sophisticated series of these chemical reactions beginning outside the body and reacting with the end sense organs which then transmit the event up the line of neuronal connections.
As part of the physical, even though we are individual persons, we are continuous with the world at a molecular level.

Following this path upwards from basic components to more complex forms, takes us to the cellular level where as microbiologist Werner Arber states below, several hundred different specific biological macromolecules come together in quite complex structures to form primitive single-celled life forms.
Consider that these microscopic creatures are a separate type of being from those that underlie them.
That is why there exists a separate field of microbiology; and why we don’t speak just about the actions of bosons and fermions.

Cells divide and some specialize as they do so, communicating with one another, sticking and working together as they form what is studied by the next field of science - biology.
Plants assimilate water, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen etc. and transform it into themselves,
They thereby are able to grow and in very amazing ways, they reproduce.
Consider a tree:

View attachment 22836

Now, if we were to imagine that the tree represents humanity, I put it to you that the animals that co-inhabit this planet would be represented by the grass in terms of their being.

What animals possess that is not manifested in plant life is a more active involvement with the environment.
Like plants, animals take nutrients, grow and reproduce, but they do so by changing their position within the environment.
Through greater awareness and influenced by emotions, they move toward or away from objects.
Some form of knowledge and desire is found in animals making them a different creature possessing additional attributes to those seen in plants.
They constitute a different form of being, which has undergone a multitude of transformations over time, producing the vast variety of animals we see in the world today.

View attachment 22837

As animals constitute a separate creation, superior to plants, so do we, relative to them.
Some philosophers talk about a rational soul; I prefer relational soul to describe our basic make-up. What this means is that we do not merely react to, but are involved in what is other.
Rather than instinctive reactions to stimuli, we have a capacity to abstract knowledge and form connections to the very structure of the universe.
We do this through mathematics, science, economics, philosophy, theology, etc. We have the ability to discern what is good and bad on a higher level than merely the needs of our gut and gonads.
We are intimately connected to each other and the world around us and knowing what we should do, we can do good and/or evil.

Above all, we can form a relationship with God, who has become one of us that we might participate in the eternal joy of communion with the Source of all this wonder.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Too hard for God to do it naturally I guess.

What do you mean by naturally?

 

[Bradski]

What do you mean by naturally?

For the purpose of this post, I"ll assume that God exists.

We have natural acts and supernatural acts. A natural act would be the formation of planets, evolution, chemical reactions, snowflakes etc. That is, we can see how all these things are done using well understood and scientifically valid means. So under such and such conditions, if this happens and that happens then the result will be X.

God has set everything up to work like this. It’s not as if He makes individual snowflakes and we can’t see how it is done. We don’t consider snowflakes ( or the formation of planets or evolution or chemical reactions) to be supernatural.

Miracles however, are supernatural. God circumvents the usual natural laws which we expect everything to obey and something happens which is unnatural. Pick your favourite miracle and it is judged to be so because of the fact that there appears to be no natural explanation.

Now it appears to me that everyone is quite happy with this state of affairs. You could say that the more we know about the natural world, the more we find out the methods by which God runs the show. We know that God didn’t simply create Saturn (or a snowflake) out of thin air, but allowed the natural processes (which He designed) to run their course.

Not so long ago people used to think that comets or volcanoes or eclipses were supernatural
because we simply didn’t understand the (natural) processes involved. When we discovered what they were, they became part of the natural world (as God had designed it).

However…

…when it comes to things that we still do not yet understand, some people still want to insist that they are supernatural. They say that because we have been unable (yet) to find out what the natural processes are that are involved, then it must be God stepping in and doing something miraculous.

Everything else is part of God’s plan. That is, He allows things to unfold using the natural laws that He set up. And He has given us the intelligence to work out what those physical laws are.

Except…for some things, apparently. He could cause the whole of creation to occur naturally, obeying the natural laws that He put in place, but after a few billion years, it stalled. He wanted us to live here, but for some reason, He couldn’t work out how to let that unfold naturally.

He did the whole universe with just the one set of rules but when it came to Life, He had to say: ‘OK, hang on. Something didn’t quite work out here. I’ve got the complete universe all set up, we are ready to rock and roll with some sentient life forms but the system seems to have locked up. I don’t know WHAT I did wrong, but it looks like I’ll have to step in at this point and fudge it a little. I just hope no-one notices’.

Can you imagine that? People thinking that He had to step in to keep things working? That everything else was too easy to do using natural methods but life…? In the too hard basket, apparently.

That’s what the morons at the Discovery Institute would like you to believe. They are the modern day equivalent of those ignorant people who used to run and hide whenever the moon blocked out the sun.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

He did the whole universe with just the one set of rules but when it came to Life, He had to say: ‘OK, hang on. Something didn’t quite work out here. I’ve got the complete universe all set up, we are ready to rock and roll with some sentient life forms but the system seems to have locked up. I don’t know WHAT I did wrong, but it looks like I’ll have to step in at this point and fudge it a little. I just hope no-one notices’.

Can you imagine that? People thinking that He had to step in to keep things working? That everything else was too easy to do using natural methods but life…? In the too hard basket, apparently.

That’s what the morons at the Discovery Institute would like you to believe. They are the modern day equivalent of those ignorant people who used to run and hide whenever the moon blocked out the sun.

Well, the fine tuning of the universe from the start was a supernatural event, a miracle if you will, whereby if it had been fine tuned just slightly differently, there would be no possibility of life. So that was the first miracle, the fine-tuning (ID) of the elements of nature that would make life possible. I’m not sure why you would call that a moronic moment of an inept God.

So if God could create a miracle at the very moment of Creation, making sure by intelligent design that the universe could produce life somewhere down the line (for example, by making hydrogen … required for water … the dominant element of the universe) it does not seem unreasonable to me to suppose that God was capable of intelligent design at that one moment but was unable to reprise the miracle at other moments, carefully nudging creation along so that stars and their planets would evolve into existence, and then choosing one star and its planets for the moment of creating life by nudging it into existence by a process intelligently designed and highly improbable as a result of pure accident.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Are you smarter than Isaac Newton?

 

[aclausen]

Well, the fine tuning of the universe from the start was a supernatural event, a miracle if you will, whereby if it had been fine tuned just slightly differently, there would be no possibility of life. So that was the first miracle, the fine-tuning (ID) of the elements of nature that would make life possible. I’m not sure why you would call that a moronic moment of an inept God.

So if God could create a miracle at the very moment of Creation, making sure by intelligent design that the universe could produce life somewhere down the line (for example, by making hydrogen … required for water … the dominant element of the universe) it does not seem unreasonable to me to suppose that God was capable of intelligent design at that one moment but was unable to reprise the miracle at other moments, carefully nudging creation along so that stars and their planets would evolve into existence, and then choosing one star and its planets for the moment of creating life by nudging it into existence by a process intelligently designed and highly improbable as a result of pure accident.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

Are you smarter than Isaac Newton?

This is little more than an appeal to authority. Newton’s own laws of motions suggest a pretty darned deterministic universe.

And that is a real problem for any kind of deist or theist in my view. What if there is little room for fine tuning? What if the physical constants required to produce a universe capable of supporting complex assemblages of matter, not to mention life, are very narrow indeed? At that point, even if there is a Prime Mover, that Prime Mover may not have a lot of options in the starting conditions and physical constants, if He wants to produce a universe capable of supporting life.

 

[Bradski]

Well, the fine tulement of the universe) it does not seem unreasonable to me to suppose that God was capable of intelligent design at that one moment but was unable to reprise the miracle at other moments…

Was unable…?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is little more than an appeal to authority. Newton’s own laws of motions suggest a pretty darned deterministic universe.

No it’s an appeal to Brad to stop speaking of ID advocates as if they were morons.

The only way he can justify that is to speak of Newton as a moron.

I doubt he’s willing to do that, but who knows?

And yes, it is a deterministic universe, determined by God himself to behave whatever way it behaves. And if God chooses to nudge it this way and that, why is that not part of the determinism?

 

[aclausen]

No it’s an appeal to Brad to stop speaking of ID advocates as if they were morons.

The only way he can justify that is to speak of Newton as a moron.

I doubt he’s willing to do that, but who knows?

And yes, it is a deterministic universe, determined by God himself to behave whatever way it behaves. And if God chooses to nudge it this way and that, why is that not part of the determinism?

Newton was a smart guy, but also believed in a lot of gobbeley gook as well. His work on gravity and optics was groundbreaking, his work on the occult and alchemy not so much.

But if there are only a small number of values for physical constants, then God doesn’t have much freedom at all. I’m referring to this in the multiverse thread, that there may be an infinite number of universes, but likely only a small number that could support life. At that point God ceases to be a grand creator, and becomes more a tinkerer. Universes become like pizzas, while the potential number of toppings are huge, you aren’t likely to order motor oil and phosphorus on a pizza, so you end up with what amounts to rather small menu of toppings.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Newton was a smart guy, but also believed in a lot of gobbeley gook as well. His work on gravity and optics was groundbreaking, his work on the occult and alchemy not so much.

But if there are only a small number of values for physical constants, then God doesn’t have much freedom at all. I’m referring to this in the multiverse thread, that there may be an infinite number of universes, but likely only a small number that could support life. At that point God ceases to be a grand creator, and becomes more a tinkerer. Universes become like pizzas, while the potential number of toppings are huge, you aren’t likely to order motor oil and phosphorus on a pizza, so you end up with what amounts to rather small menu of toppings.

I’m not for the multiverse.

God got it right with the universe and doesn’t need infinity, since he is infinity.

Also, am inclined to think God agrees with Occam’s Razor, whereas you appear not to?

 

[aclausen]

I’m not for the multiverse.

I think what you or I is “for” is irrelevant. What is is what counts.

God got it right with the universe and doesn’t need infinity, since he is infinity.

Is there any particular reason I should except your limited view of what may be?

Also, am inclined to think God agrees with Occam’s Razor, whereas you appear not to?

I’m not sure how occam’s razor applies here. If there are multiple universes, or a multiverse, then that’s what it is. (and again, I’m not saying there is, brane theory is simply an extrapolation of the equally unevidenced versions of string theory).

Occam’s razor is about parsimony, not about whether the physical properties themselves are simple or not.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is there any particular reason I should except your limited view of what may be?

Likewise, I’m sure!

 

[aclausen]

Likewise, I’m sure!

I’m not willing to outright dismiss any possibility, and since multiverses are pure speculation at this point (though rather interesting mathematical models), it seems rather odd to take strong positions against certain postulates.

One thing I do think is clear is the Anthropic Principle, in all its forms, contains a significant paradox for those that believe an omnipotent God has absolute freedom in producing any result He desires.Could God produce complex structures in universe where the physical constants rendered a universe little more than a haze of subatomic particles, or does he have to pick constants that at least create some essential ability for the universe to produce and sustain complex structures? If the latter, then it’s hard to see how God would have that much freedom in picking what these constants are.

Hawking observed this to be a problem with the fine-tuning argument over twenty years ago in one of his essays on determinism.

Of course these constants are a big question for physicists as well. Are they indeed the “starting conditions” of the universe; in other words constants that were set in some way at the Big Bang (or whatever the “moment of creation” was), or are they themselves products of the birth of the universe, and thus themselves determined by some underlying as yet unglimpsed physical principles?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course these constants are a big question for physicists as well. Are they indeed the “starting conditions” of the universe; in other words constants that were set in some way at the Big Bang (or whatever the “moment of creation” was), or are they themselves products of the birth of the universe, and thus themselves determined by some underlying as yet unglimpsed physical principles?

The answer to that question lies somewhere at the start of the universe, so it is not discoverable for us.

God had all kinds of possibilities open to him in the act of Creation. It seems useless to me to wrangle about whether he might have used one set of laws rather than another.

What does seem important is that he chose a set of laws that have unfolded throughout the universe, laws that are built upon mathematical models that are intelligible to us, more or less. As time goes by, they become increasingly intelligible, if not totally so. This is another paradox for the atheist. If there is no God who built intelligible structures throughout the universe, how did those intelligible structures get to be intelligible? And if there is no God, why did blind nature create a being who could fathom those intelligible structures and take delight in fathoming them as far as it is possible to go?

If the atheist thinks he could have designed a better universe, it seems very problematic to me, and hints of megalomania.

 

[aclausen]

The answer to that question lies somewhere at the start of the universe, so it is not discoverable for us.

You seem rather confident that we won’t be able to probe that far back.

God had all kinds of possibilities open to him in the act of Creation. It seems useless to me to wrangle about whether he might have used one set of laws rather than another.

It doesn’t seem useless to me. Understanding why the universe is the way it is is one of the chief jobs of cosmology. Imagine that, a whole discipline dedicated to understanding why things are the way they are.

What does seem important is that he chose a set of laws that have unfolded throughout the universe, laws that are built upon mathematical models that are intelligible to us, more or less. As time goes by, they become increasingly intelligible, if not totally so.

And yet, in your very first paragraph, you seem to insinuate that some aspect won’t be intelligible to us. You seem to be reserving some particular period of the universe where somehow we are going to be blocked from understanding.

This is another paradox for the atheist. If there is no God who built intelligible structures throughout the universe, how did those intelligible structures get to be intelligible? And if there is no God, why did blind nature create a being who could fathom those intelligible structures and take delight in fathoming them as far as it is possible to go?

There’s nothing mysterious about the idea that less complex structures can produce more complex ones. The early universe was in some ways a rather simple place, since the densities and temperatures involved made more complex structures impossible. And yet, eventually, more complex structures did evolve.

If the atheist thinks he could have designed a better universe, it seems very problematic to me, and hints of megalomania.

This isn’t about better or worse. It’s about understanding the universe, and not try to guard your preconceptions and biases in some gap you think we’ll never pierce.

 

[Bradski]

No it’s an appeal to Brad to stop speaking of ID advocates as if they were morons. The only way he can justify that is to speak of Newton as a moron.

I Think that you know full well who I am referring to when I say the proponents of ID. And as I said, for the purposes of this discussion: ‘God has set everything up to work like this’. Just like Newton discovered.

I’m not for the multiverse.

And here it is again. What is it with this reluctance to accept that there may be more than we know? How would this have sounded two thousand years ago?

Planet? I’m not for planets. This is all we need and God made it just for us.

Then just substitute solar systems, galaxies, the observable universe, the whole universe…seems that most people will accept anything these up to a point, but multiple universes? Maybe a bridge too far for Charles. We become a little too insignificant.

If the atheist thinks he could have designed a better universe, it seems very problematic to me, and hints of megalomania.

Well, me personally, I dislike waste. If I was going to build something for the human race, I think I would have made it a touch smaller. Because as it stands now, we are hardly in the position of being able to get someone to the nearest planet. It might be some time before people are walking around on Neptune. And considering the size of the solar system is only 0.000000000000000003 that of the observable universe (that’s just the bits we can see!), I’d say it’s a shade too much.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This isn’t about better or worse. It’s about understanding the universe, and not try to guard your preconceptions and biases in some gap you think we’ll never pierce.

I’m glad your confident about someday knowing everything there is to know.

I think God will keep a few secrets from us because we are such limited thinkers.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And here it is again. What is it with this reluctance to accept that there may be more than we know? How would this have sounded two thousand years ago?

Well, me personally, I dislike waste. If I was going to build something for the human race, I think I would have made it a touch smaller.

You think smaller because you are small. God thinks bigger because he is big.

If you read me again, I said there are some things we will not ever know. Imagine yourself traveling through an infinity of universes to prove there is a multiverse. Do you really think we will ever be able to scientifically verify such a thing?

 

[aclausen]

You think smaller because you are small. God thinks bigger because he is big.

If you read me again, I said there are some things we will not ever know. Imagine yourself traveling through an infinity of universes to prove there is a multiverse. Do you really think we will ever be able to scientifically verify such a thing?

Even brane theory makes at least hypothetically testable postulates. That we can’t test them now doesn’t mean we won’t be able to in the future. After all, a hundred years ago gravity waves could not be tested, and they couldn’t even be directly detected until the last year.

My understanding is that brane theories do postulate that gravitons can “leak” between branes. In fact, so far as I understand string theory, that’s one of the explanations as to why gravity is so weak as opposed to the other fundamental interactions; that it essentially leaks via that hypothetical force mediating particle. So conceivably, So there are conceivable ways to test the theory at some point in the future.

Of course, it’s just as possible brane theory, and string theory as a whole has nothing to do with reality, and it will be a dead end. As I mentioned earlier, there is at least one ohter competing quantum theory of gravity; quantum loop gravity, or the answer may be something entirely different.

What we do know for sure is that General Relativity does a spectacularly good job of explaining the universe at the macro level, and quantum mechanics does an equally good job of explaining interactions at the smaller level, and further that we can observe large scale phenomena like the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and the overall distribution of matter in the observable universe to see how quantum effects shaped the universe in its earliest epochs. What we don’t have is a renormizable quantum theory of gravity, and there’s good reason to think once we do, along with the expected developments in pushing beyond the Standard Model of subatomic particles, that we will open up a whole new physics.

It’s there that some of the answers regarding starting conditions, values of fundamental constants, and indeed if these constants are constants at all, or rather just another expression of how the universe unrolled in its earliest moments (in other words, the values are not set in stone, as it were, but are another kind of decoupling as the universe expanded and became cooler). There’s even hope that physicists will be able to explain one of the most peculiar periods of the universe’s evolution; when, for whatever reason, it began to rapidly expand faster than the speed of light in the Inflationary Epoch.

Lots of mysteries, none of which, I expect will shatter anyone’s belief or disbelief in God, though I still think it’s going to demonstrate that there are a limited number of starting conditions that can produce a universe capable of supporting life as we know it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Lots of mysteries, none of which, I expect will shatter anyone’s belief or disbelief in God, though I still think it’s going to demonstrate that there are a limited number of starting conditions that can produce a universe capable of supporting life as we know it.

I think the business of what constants and how many and how difficult they are to narrow down is not going to influence whether someone believes or does not believe in God.

Atheism cannot logically prosper on just that business of constants, and I’m afraid there isn’t any logic that can actually prove the negative about God. If anything, there a great deal of logic in the sense of signs pointing to a deity, without actually showing us the deity.

Almost everyone acknowledges the hiddenness of God, and that fact is used by atheists to argue that God is hidden not because he hides, but because he does not exist.

I would think that God is doing us a favor by staying hidden as much as possible from our intellects, because he wants to reside not in our heads but in our hearts. That takes getting to know and love God, as a person, rather than as a mental construct. More than anything else, it requires getting to be open to receiving God in our hearts, not resisting him with all our intellectual might.

 

[aclausen]

I think the business of what constants and how many and how difficult they are to narrow down is not going to influence whether someone believes or does not believe in God.

Atheism cannot logically prosper on just that business of constants, and I’m afraid there isn’t any logic that can actually prove the negative about God. If anything, there a great deal of logic in the sense of signs pointing to a deity, without actually showing us the deity.

Almost everyone acknowledges the hiddenness of God, and that fact is used by atheists to argue that God is hidden not because he hides, but because he does not exist.

I would think that God is doing us a favor by staying hidden as much as possible from our intellects, because he wants to reside not in our heads but in our hearts. That takes getting to know and love God, as a person, rather than as a mental construct. More than anything else, it requires getting to be open to receiving G uhod in our hearts, not resisting him with all our intellectual might.

It’s not that I don’t believe in God as much as I don’t see how such an entity is necessary.