Does atheism make sense?

[Babbler]

                                                                                                               "The simpleton believes everything,

                                                                                                                 but the shrewd man measures his

                                                                                                                          steps." (Prov. 14:15)

 

"Thomas Nagel may be the most famous philosopher in the United States. Nagel occupies an endowed chair at NYU as a University professor, a rare and exalted position that frees him to teach whatever course he wants. Before coming at NYU he taught at Princeton for 15 years."¹

       Nagel wrote, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialists Neo Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. He says "For a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection."

 

¹Andrew Ferguson, "The Heretic," The Weekly Standard, 25 March 2013, 24

[alphaparticle]

 

Right, I am not talking about a vacuum state. I am talking about literal nothingness-- no spacetime, no fields, no zero point energy and, no physical laws whatsoever... nothing nothing. A vacuum state is clearly not Nothing, and arguing that it answers the philosophical metaphysical question here is just flimflam.  I am not accusing you of that, as I've seen these sorts of responses before, and I always scratch my head and wonder if they are doing this on purpose or if they are just being bizarrely stupid about this question (from otherwise intelligent people!).

 

 

The reason God has explanatory power in this case in the simple argument I ran earlier is because God is only one thing that you'd have to assert existing, vs, many many things including physical laws that you'd have to assert with no basis otherwise. What it is a consideration from parsimony, because you can explain so many things by positing God and it costs you positing the existence of only one thing, God has explanatory power. The less you just have to assume without explanation, the better. Having to merely assert that an infinite amount of stuff exists, and its laws, as a brute fact is a worse situation than having to posit merely the existence of God as a matter of brute fact.

I have other arguments I could run at this point, but this simple consideration from parsimony, honestly, captures a lot of what I want to say about  'rational' considerations. I am not even out to demonstrate that God exists here, I am merely questioning that atheism is all that rational a position to take as the default position, as it includes so *many* things you have to shrug your shoulders about, whereas on theism there's just one. If this is still unclear I will work on formalizing this (though depending on when I see responses today I will be gone for several days!).

 

I think I understand your argument, I'm just not convinced. I see the explanatory power of God as superficial, which makes parsimony a tough sell. If we start with philosophical nothingness (which may or may not be a valid starting assumption), I'll grant that naturalism forces you to scratch your head, but we are also dealing with a starting assumption without God's existence as well. So how do we account for God's existence, God's power (energy), God's complexity/order, and any laws of the supernatural realm? It appears that, fundamentally, I am asking the same questions about God as you are about nature. I'm not seeing a nice, clean, single assumption regarding God that simplifies the equation to one unknown. So I don't see any greater explanatory power by asserting God, just all the questions get pushed backed away from physical reality into the supernatural. Which is the opposite of parsimony. 

 

It is conceivable that the God hypothesis makes more sense given that you can show God exists in the first place. After all if you could unequivocally show that God and the supernatural exists, and even more specific theistic claims like God intervening in human affairs and supernatural miracles, it becomes much easier to assert that God created the universe as 1) we know that such an entity actually exists, and 2) we have some inkling that this entity's power is beyond the physical and can possibly create universes even if we don't understand it. But as you know demonstrating God's existence is no easy feat. Without the axiom that God exists I don't see how any additional explaining power is available by asserting God as the designer. 

 

 

D9,

 

Nice reply. And I am with you, I would not actually be convinced by this argument at all. What I am aiming to do, and will probably retry several times before getting it correctly, is to undermine the assertion that atheism is the rational default position. There are reasons that would apply to a question, like I put forth about nothingness, which would make theism at least as rational a choice as atheism. But i do want to make clear that I agree with you, in that, I can't imagine anybody actually switching sides based on this consideration.

 

Onto your objections, Krauss et al aside I see no problem with considering the problem of nothingness.The simplicity of God has to be that God is one Being. I don't think this is too crazy, insofar as we accept explanations in terms of persons without demanding further interrogation. "Who organized my bookshelves?" "Bill did it." So if I am asserting that Mind actually is primarily existent rather than the boundless amounts of physical stuff together with physical laws, well, I am only have to point at one Person at the very least. It's not clear to me, that is, which is rationally superior on the face of it as a foundational choice.

[RobbyPants]

Nice reply. And I am with you, I would not actually be convinced by this argument at all. What I am aiming to do, and will probably retry several times before getting it correctly, is to undermine the assertion that atheism is the rational default position. There are reasons that would apply to a question, like I put forth about nothingness, which would make theism at least as rational a choice as atheism. But i do want to make clear that I agree with you, in that, I can't imagine anybody actually switching sides based on this consideration.

I guess I could view this two ways:

1)

If you ask me whether or not I believe in any gods, atheism makes sense as a default position because it makes less assumptions. If the question is just about existence, then I think this is a better starting answer. I'd need evidence to want to budge from it.

2)

If your question is "where did everything come from", then I think you are right about assumptions. You could say "what was the first cause". We could assume it was God. We could say we don't know. We could say it was laksdjfakls. In any case, you're either not giving an answer, or making an assumption.

Granted, in order to assume that the first cause is God and not laksdjfakls, you have to make an assumption, since the two have the same amount of evidence backing them. So, personally, I'm fine with saying "I don't know" when I'm asked what caused the big bang, or what came before it.

[alphaparticle]

the #1 consideration is the one I wanted to challenge via the parsimony consideration because that is a parsimony consideration. It is *really* simpler? I don't think that is entirely so clear when you dig beneath the surface. Besides which, I find the use of the term 'gods' to try to emphasize the silliness of it telling, when it's clear we are talking about a God which could at least potentially have explanatory power over the existence of physical stuff altogether. It's clear that Zeus, as typically understood, has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

#2, whatever it is that could explain the physical stuff and laws would at least have the power to do that, and if a being, the motivation to do that. D9 is right to point out we'd need more information to make any sort of strongish claim here, other reasons to suspect that God existed and that we know some things about God's properties.

[RobbyPants]

the #1 consideration is the one I wanted to challenge via the parsimony consideration because that is a parsimony consideration. It is *really* simpler? I don't think that is entirely so clear when you dig beneath the surface. Besides which, I find the use of the term 'gods' to try to emphasize the silliness of it telling, when it's clear we are talking about a God which could at least potentially have explanatory power over the existence of physical stuff altogether. It's clear that Zeus, as typically understood, has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

#2, whatever it is that could explain the physical stuff and laws would at least have the power to do that, and if a being, the motivation to do that. D9 is right to point out we'd need more information to make any sort of strongish claim here, other reasons to suspect that God existed and that we know some things about God's properties.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like you're trying to use #2 to justify making the assumption in #1. If we don't concern ourself with things like the first cause and just try to answer the question "are there any gods?" or "is there a god?" or "does God exist?", I would counter with "is there any evidence of it?"

One could just as easily ask "are there any subatomic particles that existed before time and space that created everything?", and that question would have equal explanatory power and the same amount of evidence. There is no baseline evidence that God exists that doesn't rely on assuming he exists in the first place. This is why I'm saying that I think making no assumptions is a better default position to making one.

I'm not sure if that made more sense than my last post, or not.

[alphaparticle]

 

the #1 consideration is the one I wanted to challenge via the parsimony consideration because that is a parsimony consideration. It is *really* simpler? I don't think that is entirely so clear when you dig beneath the surface. Besides which, I find the use of the term 'gods' to try to emphasize the silliness of it telling, when it's clear we are talking about a God which could at least potentially have explanatory power over the existence of physical stuff altogether. It's clear that Zeus, as typically understood, has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

#2, whatever it is that could explain the physical stuff and laws would at least have the power to do that, and if a being, the motivation to do that. D9 is right to point out we'd need more information to make any sort of strongish claim here, other reasons to suspect that God existed and that we know some things about God's properties.

I guess what I'm saying is that it seems like you're trying to use #2 to justify making the assumption in #1. If we don't concern ourself with things like the first cause and just try to answer the question "are there any gods?" or "is there a god?" or "does God exist?", I would counter with "is there any evidence of it?"

One could just as easily ask "are there any subatomic particles that existed before time and space that created everything?", and that question would have equal explanatory power and the same amount of evidence. There is no baseline evidence that God exists that doesn't rely on assuming he exists in the first place. This is why I'm saying that I think making no assumptions is a better default position to making one.

I'm not sure if that made more sense than my last post, or not.

 

Well yeah, because I am implicitly assuming #2 to make any sense out of #1. What good does it do to posit any random thing if it has no explanatory power over 'the  existence of physical stuff and laws'? The only way that God makes sense at that juncture is if I implicitly allow that God has the properties necesssary to explain that stuff coming into being, otherwise I am just piling on to the original problem more stuff that needs explaining and not getting anything back. But if we do allow for the possibility of God existing, and I agree with D9 we'd want other motives to think that is the case, then this could be another place where God as a hypothesis has explanatory power. AS a part of a cumulative case, or larger case, for God's existence, this makes sense.

 

The way I've wanted to use these considerations here though is not so much that as to assert that atheism doesn't really make sense at the bottom, metaphysically. Asserting that physical stuff just is, the laws just are, isn't any more rational than saying that God is responsible, precisely because at least in the latter we can collapse many different facts into one. So rather than try to push the case for God explicitly here, I'm wanting to explore why 'we' allow for atheism to be the default rational position, when atheism entails making a rather incredible positive claim, namely, 'boundless physical stuff and laws just exist'.

[RobbyPants]

Well yeah, because I am implicitly assuming #2 to make any sense out of #1. What good does it do to posit any random thing if it has no explanatory power over 'the  existence of physical stuff and laws'? The only way that God makes sense at that juncture is if I implicitly allow that God has the properties necesssary to explain that stuff coming into being, otherwise I am just piling on to the original problem more stuff that needs explaining and not getting anything back. But if we do allow for the possibility of God existing, and I agree with D9 we'd want other motives to think that is the case, then this could be another place where God as a hypothesis has explanatory power. AS a part of a cumulative case, or larger case, for God's existence, this makes sense.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right:

So, the idea is, that God is already fairly-well defined, so we can use him as a means of explanation. If I were to posit some other force/entity/object that could conceivably be able to answer all the questions about "why are we here", I have to start making a bunch of stuff up to satisfy all that. Under the current assumptions of God, those questions are already answered.

Is that what you are saying?

So rather than try to push the case for God explicitly here, I'm wanting to explore why 'we' allow for atheism to be the default rational position, when atheism entails making a rather incredible positive claim, namely, 'boundless physical stuff and laws just exist'.

Technically, atheism doesn't make that claim. All it claims is "no" or "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe in any gods?". Anything else is over-defining the term. This is why I brought up point #1.

That being said, I have a feeling we've been talking past each other for the past two posts or so. When you say "atheism" in this context, do you mean "atheistic assumptions about the first cause and order in the universe" as opposed to "lack of belief in gods"? If so, this all makes a lot more sense, and I'm sorry about the confusion.

[alphaparticle]

 

Well yeah, because I am implicitly assuming #2 to make any sense out of #1. What good does it do to posit any random thing if it has no explanatory power over 'the  existence of physical stuff and laws'? The only way that God makes sense at that juncture is if I implicitly allow that God has the properties necesssary to explain that stuff coming into being, otherwise I am just piling on to the original problem more stuff that needs explaining and not getting anything back. But if we do allow for the possibility of God existing, and I agree with D9 we'd want other motives to think that is the case, then this could be another place where God as a hypothesis has explanatory power. AS a part of a cumulative case, or larger case, for God's existence, this makes sense.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this right:

So, the idea is, that God is already fairly-well defined, so we can use him as a means of explanation. If I were to posit some other force/entity/object that could conceivably be able to answer all the questions about "why are we here", I have to start making a bunch of stuff up to satisfy all that. Under the current assumptions of God, those questions are already answered.

Is that what you are saying?

So rather than try to push the case for God explicitly here, I'm wanting to explore why 'we' allow for atheism to be the default rational position, when atheism entails making a rather incredible positive claim, namely, 'boundless physical stuff and laws just exist'.

Technically, atheism doesn't make that claim. All it claims is "no" or "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe in any gods?". Anything else is over-defining the term. This is why I brought up point #1.

That being said, I have a feeling we've been talking past each other for the past two posts or so. When you say "atheism" in this context, do you mean "atheistic assumptions about the first cause and order in the universe" as opposed to "lack of belief in gods"? If so, this all makes a lot more sense, and I'm sorry about the confusion.

 

Yes, as we define and understand God from other contexts God has the properties necessary to have explanatory power over the relevant body of facts we are discussing (i.e. the existence of physical stuff and its ordering).

 

As far as the second piece goes, no God existing entails a lack of explanation over the facts I mentioned above, unless you want to posit an alternative explanation. Your degree of confidence in 'no God existing' doesn't seem relevant. Yeah I have in mind the following: atheism entails positing that physical stuff and its ordering exists as a matter of brute fact (what you said about assumptions about first cause and order), and that when compared as theism doesn't seem like the most rational option. At least, if ti is the most rational option, it's not prima facie obvious that it is.

[Guest DRS81]

2 Cor 3:14 But their minds were hardened.

For to this day, when they read the old covenant,

that same veil remains unlifted,

because only through Christ is it taken away.

 

2 Cor 3:16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
 

[Guest]

Technically, atheism doesn't make that claim. All it claims is "no" or "I don't know" to the question of "do you believe in any gods?". Anything else is over-defining the term. This is why I brought up point #1.

That being said, I have a feeling we've been talking past each other for the past two posts or so. When you say "atheism" in this context, do you mean "atheistic assumptions about the first cause and order in the universe" as opposed to "lack of belief in gods"? If so, this all makes a lot more sense, and I'm sorry about the confusion.

 

 

~

 

First Cause

 

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31:3

 

Is Too Often "Cause I Don't Wanna"

 

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

 

See

 

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

 

~

 

Holy Spirit

 

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:20

 

Fall Upon Worthy

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Rain Down The Peace Of The WORD

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

 

In Jesus Name I Pray

Amen~!

 

I Love You LORD Jesus

I Love You