Does atheism make sense?

[alphaparticle]

 

The latter? parsimony, it only takes one omni-Being to explain things.

 

 

As to the former, if there is an implicit argument for God in  my posts it would be a cosmological one, but I can see how my use of the term 'order' is suggestive of a design argument. But, I'm not even intending on demonstrating that theism is in fact more rational than atheism with this. My question is, why should we think that atheism is the more rational position, given that theism could have nice explanatory power over a body of facts that atheists have to accept as brute fact?  The reason I don't find the atheists tea pot analogy interesting is because the tea pot is analogous to what I'm talking about here- there is *in principle* no physical mechanism or causation that  could explain the body of facts in question.They can only be accepted as brute fact on atheism. Which, by the way, I had no  problem doing this back in my atheist days.

 

I'll agree that gnostic atheism is a poor default position, I also think theism is a poor default position too. They both make claims that are unfalsifiable. As to which one is the better default position, it is hard to say, they are both bad choices in my view. This is why I've been advocating the "I don't know" stance as the default position. 

 

Gnostic atheism seems to appeal to parsimony insofar as we know the natural exists, but we don't know in the same sense whether or not the supernatural or God exists, however gnostic atheism dogmatically proclaims philosophical naturalism to the point that I don't see it as a rational default position. Adding a God to existence without God being utilized as an explanation of some sort is ludicrous when talking about a default position, so there must be something that God explains otherwise it can't be a rational default position on the grounds of occam's razor. So my question would be, does God have real explanatory power (not just the potential)? If God has real explanatory power that means it is at least as viable as atheism and perhaps even more so, but without it I would argue atheism has the upper hand.

 

That is why I've been looking for explaining power in your posts, what does it explain and how does it do it. So much of my postings center around the motif that I don't see real explanatory power coming from the theistic position. 

 

 

It sounds like you don't necessary disagree with me too much, about this single issue. And I agree with you, it's necessary to come up with a *plausible* alternative to atheism that gives us some reason to suspect that yeah, if it were true it could have some explanatory power. So the question is if theism is plausible. I'd say prima facie it could have explanatory power over the facts that we've been discussing insofar as we'd understand God to be, by definition, the sort of being who at least could make infinite amounts of physical stuff and order it. If God were to exist then, it doesn't seem out of order to me to suggest that God would have explanatory power over the stuff I'm talking about.

 

In terms of thinking that God's existence is otherwise plausible, I suppose the first thing I'd ask if God's existence is logically possible. If God as a concept entails absurdities that would be a real problem. The second thing is if God's existence would undermine what we know to be true about the world. I don't see how that is. Now that could be, admittedly, because the concept of God is too wide (and if I were an apologist, I would quit shooting myself in the foot like this, but I can't help it), so we may need to ask ourselves if that is the case. I think it is at least going to be partially addressed by the third condition I have in mind. The third I'd ask is how much stuff could be explained by including God into our picture. I want to put aside the question of metaphysical crowding aside (introducing a being from an entirely new metaphysical category! I agree it shouldn't be done lightly) when thinking about the mere plausibility issue, and ask hypothetically, would God's existence explain things that aren't otherwise well explained. Would it explain some things better than the current explanations that we have for them? If we can even get a few big facts in about the world, I think it would be fair, as much as I can be dispassionate about this, to think that God's existence is at least, merely, plausible.

 

I want to thank you for the discussion by the way, I've been enjoying this. I need to organize my thoughts more clearly and I always found debate/discussion a nice way to do that. And, to be completely above board with you, if it weren't for 'religious experiences' I would not be convinced by my line of reasoning that God exists. I suppose all that I'm trying to do is see how well the playing field can be leveled here.

Edited September 23, 2013 by alphaparticle

[RobbyPants]

Yes, everyone knows innately that God exists. I am not saying that every human being knows God personally, and has a relationship with Him---one needs to know Jesus Christ for salvation---but God has placed the knowledge of His existence in us. His creation attests to His existence, for man to marvel and know His presence. It is the one who insists on being rebellious, worshiping only himself, who denies God.

You are asserting you are correct by simply stating that you are correct. There is no evidence that we all know God other than you saying that we all do. Also, I do not worship myself.

You were born with the innate knowledge that there is a God. Atheism is just a denial of that. It is futile and foolish. That is why God says TWICE:

 

Psalm 14:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;

    not one of them does good!

 

 

Psalm 53:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;

    not one of them does good!

Quoting scripture in a thread titled "Does Atheism make sense" does not make sense to me. Would you take me seriously if I quoted the Quran in a thread titled "Does Christianity make sense"?

[RobbyPants]

Science can't explain why science itself can in principle work. The scientific method just assumes you can do induction,, because that's what it is, a controlled, systematic application of induction to input from the world. When we do science we assumed we will find some sort of pattern, somewhere, that allows us to predict based on past events future events. Those are all things that are taken for granted, and further, used every time that science is employed in any investigation. You seem to think that we could implicitly use the stuff we are setting out to explain in explaining that stuff, and I am not sure how you don't see how that is not problematic. I also am not sure how you don't see how that is intrinsically different from what a God of the gaps argument *is*.

 

Well, how about this, what potential scientific investigation do you think could be done to explain why there is physical order, at all, such that we can use scientific reasoning to explore that very question in the first place? Perhaps increased specificity will help the dialog.

This is true that induction is technically not possible; however, if we take care what we induce, and try to assume as little as possible, science has totally delivered us things like spaceships, supercomputers, and all sorts of medical marvels. So, we can say we can't actually know what science says we know, and we can still deliver some rather amazing results. Just because the underlying fabric of it all is (currently?) unknowable doesn't mean that we have to consider the method itself to be problematic, or that we have to start making assumptions about how it works.

We've delivered the results we have precisely because we kept delving deeper to get a better understanding, rather than to assume that the current gap in our knowledge must be something inherently unknowable or unprovable. Maybe this will be something we can never know or prove, and maybe not. I just don't see why we should default all of physics and logic working the way it does to God.

[Floatingaxe]

 

Yes, everyone knows innately that God exists. I am not saying that every human being knows God personally, and has a relationship with Him---one needs to know Jesus Christ for salvation---but God has placed the knowledge of His existence in us. His creation attests to His existence, for man to marvel and know His presence. It is the one who insists on being rebellious, worshiping only himself, who denies God.

You are asserting you are correct by simply stating that you are correct. There is no evidence that we all know God other than you saying that we all do. Also, I do not worship myself.

You were born with the innate knowledge that there is a God. Atheism is just a denial of that. It is futile and foolish. That is why God says TWICE:

 

Psalm 14:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;

    not one of them does good!

 

 

Psalm 53:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;

    not one of them does good!

Quoting scripture in a thread titled "Does Atheism make sense" does not make sense to me. Would you take me seriously if I quoted the Quran in a thread titled "Does Christianity make sense"?

 

 

If you quoted the Quran anywhere to prove anything at this site, it would be forum suicide.

 

What God says is valid here. You may not like it, but what he has said about those who deny Him is the truth. You've been told. Now you are responsible for knowing it.

[enoob57]

Just because the universe is finely tuned or really complex doesn't mean that it was created. The problem with the watchmaker argument (that all complex things need a creator) assumes that watches and universes share the same quality of needing a creator, when all we can observe is that they both share the same quality of being complex. Saying that everything that is complex must require a creator is assuming that those traits must be linked. We know watches have makers because we've seen watches be made; no one has ever gone to a universe factory.

 

I wanted to address the Word of God in this:

 Saying that everything that is complex must require a creator is assuming that those traits must be linked. We know watches have makers because we've seen watches be made; no one has ever gone to a universe factory.

This is why the way is broad and many go into that destruction! They do not know they are just dupes to a higher created being that

kept what had been given him as though he was eternal of self (knowing he had beginning) he bore his own lie into self deception

and he became lost forever to truth within himself... this being satan!

God tells us in His Word this is the spirit at work here among us- using all possible allotted force to deceive:

John 8:44, John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11, Eph 6:12,

1 John 5:19, Rev 12:9, Rev 13:8, Rev 13:14, Rev 20:2

the Word 'IS' written and as God 'IS' truth so shall it be as written...  as this above can be examined and seen

at work here we know God's Word 'IS' reliable. As we study and live in that reliance our faith is increased by

His Promise here

Rom 10:16-17

  17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

NKJV

this has been fulfilled every time by hearts that come to it in this way

Heb 11:6

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to

God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who

diligently seek Him.

NKJV

gathering up the truth posted here the conclusion:

of all philosophy, writ, religion and imagination ->none<- carry the weight that is in Scripture

and none compare to The God of Holy Scriptures! The result of those who reject are forever

given tittle of fool... but they are presently wise in their own esteem!

Rom 1:21-23

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God,

nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish

hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made

like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping

things.  NKJV

Do you not know you have beginning? Do you not give credit to the world you are in for this?

Or having eyes you do not see that which is written about you above in bold?

  Love, Steven 

 

[Guest]

Quoting scripture in a thread titled "Does Atheism make sense" does not make sense to me. Would you take me seriously if I quoted the Qur'an in a thread titled "Does Christianity make sense"?

 

Two

 

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

 

Fathers

 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44

 

And All Serve One Or The Other

 

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23

 

Dear One, You May Well End Up Banging Your Head Toward Mecca

 

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

 

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

 

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear. Revelation 13:4-9

 

After All, You Will Not Be Making Any

 

But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Jeremiah 7:23-24

 

Noticeable Change In Idols

 

~

 

If You Want Truth

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Then Scripture Makes Sense

 

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

 

But If You Want Nonsense Than Scripture Just Won't Do

 

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

 

~

 

Believe

 

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 Be Blessed Beloved

 

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Revelation 21:5-7

 

Love, Joe

[GoldenEagle]

 

You are asserting you are correct by simply stating that you are correct. There is no evidence that we all know God other than you saying that we all do. Also, I do not worship myself.

Quoting scripture in a thread titled "Does Atheism make sense" does not make sense to me. Would you take me seriously if I quoted the Quran in a thread titled "Does Christianity make sense"?

 

In orange I'd reply by sharing...

Rom 1:20

²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,^[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

 

 

As to the red...

Scripture is what we as Christians are about here at Worthy - sharing the Gospel and truth found in God's Word the Bible.

 

Perhaps Robby you don't understand the purpose of the OC... The OC isn't simply a forum to discuss various topics that come to mind. The OC's purpose is to allow others to ask questions about the Christian faith and point others to Jesus Christ.

 

Is your purpose here at Worthy to point people away from Jesus Christ and convince others that you were right in turning away from God?

 

An excerpt from the Terms of Service...

The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask questons and learn.

 

Further... from Scripture itself.

 

2 Tim. 3:16-17

¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of Godmay be complete, equipped for every good work.

God bless you.

GE

[RobbyPants]

If you quoted the Quran anywhere to prove anything at this site, it would be forum suicide.

 

What God says is valid here. You may not like it, but what he has said about those who deny Him is the truth. You've been told. Now you are responsible for knowing it.

What if someone (here or elsewhere) told you about Allah being the one true god? Once you knew, would you be responsible for being a good Muslim to avoid Muslim-Hell?

I'm not saying that you don't believe in scripture, and I understand that the majority of posters here do; that being said, this is the "Outer Circle". This place is specifically a place for the posters to explain their beliefs to non-believers and seekers, and to defend their beliefs from skepticism. That being said, you accept the scripture being true as an assumption that you cannot assert without circular reasoning. Therefore, if I don't make that assumption, I won't consider it a valid conclusion.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that you are asserting your own beliefs as true to answer a question as to whether or not a different belief system "makes sense".

[RobbyPants]

Scripture is what we as Christians are about - sharing the Gospel and truth found in God's Word the Bible.

 

Perhaps Robby you don't understand the purpose of the OC... The OC isn't simply a forum to discuss various topics that come to mind. The OC's purpose is to allow others to ask questions about the Christian faith and point others to Jesus Christ.

 

Is your purpose here at Worthy to point people away from Jesus Christ and convince others that you were right in turning away from God?

 

An excerpt from the Terms of Service...

The outer Court is an area where we allow anyone who wishes to learn more about our belief to ask questons and learn.

 

Further... from Scripture itself.

 

2 Tim. 3:16-17

¹⁶ All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of Godmay be complete, equipped for every good work.

God bless you.

GE

Sorry, I saw your post right after I made my last one.

I understand why Christians would use scripture as a basis for their beliefs. My point is that the question is "does atheism make sense", and the Bible says "no, it's foolish"; however, asserting that to people that don't accept the Bible as the supreme authority of truth is less than compelling.

Does that make more sense? I wasn't trying to say that quoting scripture is bad or improper, but rather, that it's not compelling to someone who doesn't innately accept it as truth.

[alphaparticle]

 

Science can't explain why science itself can in principle work. The scientific method just assumes you can do induction,, because that's what it is, a controlled, systematic application of induction to input from the world. When we do science we assumed we will find some sort of pattern, somewhere, that allows us to predict based on past events future events. Those are all things that are taken for granted, and further, used every time that science is employed in any investigation. You seem to think that we could implicitly use the stuff we are setting out to explain in explaining that stuff, and I am not sure how you don't see how that is not problematic. I also am not sure how you don't see how that is intrinsically different from what a God of the gaps argument *is*.

 

Well, how about this, what potential scientific investigation do you think could be done to explain why there is physical order, at all, such that we can use scientific reasoning to explore that very question in the first place? Perhaps increased specificity will help the dialog.

This is true that induction is technically not possible; however, if we take care what we induce, and try to assume as little as possible, science has totally delivered us things like spaceships, supercomputers, and all sorts of medical marvels. So, we can say we can't actually know what science says we know, and we can still deliver some rather amazing results. Just because the underlying fabric of it all is (currently?) unknowable doesn't mean that we have to consider the method itself to be problematic, or that we have to start making assumptions about how it works.

We've delivered the results we have precisely because we kept delving deeper to get a better understanding, rather than to assume that the current gap in our knowledge must be something inherently unknowable or unprovable. Maybe this will be something we can never know or prove, and maybe not. I just don't see why we should default all of physics and logic working the way it does to God.

 

Nothing is lost by attributing it to God though. If I say that God created the laws of physics, which I believe, the content of the laws does not change and it doesn't mean we have to work any less hard to discover them (or build less colliders...). And in fact, the spectacular success of physics suggests to me even more reason to look for a reason why induction works so well. Why are there rules like this which allow us to probe them to levels of precision that as far as we know go all the way down? It's incredible. If anything that should give us more motivation to ask this sort of question. Why does induction work exactly well every time? Which is intrinsically related to the question about the laws of physics which govern how physical things interact. If someone has no answer to that, as I suspect atheists can't, that is fine, but that is one area where I will have a edge in explanatory power.