Does atheism make sense?

[alphaparticle]

Alpha,

 

I confess that I've not read through the entirety of this thread, so I'll refer back to your OP.

 

Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever?

 

 

I think it does.  As I noted, when I see a rock I don't wonder, "Why the rock?".  The rock "just is" and I don't see any logical problem with that conclusion.

 

and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever.

 

 

If we agree that there's no objective means to differentiate a created universe from a universe that "just is", and if we see no reason to ponder "Why the rock" when it comes to rocks, I see nothing illogical about concluding that our universe "just is" with no objective purpose.  As the rock "just is", so is the universe in which it exists.

 

Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it?

 

 

Why the rock?  What is the purpose of a hydrogen atom floating through space?  For that matter, what is the purpose of the ebola virus that kills a child?  IMO, when considering all things (both what we would call good and bad), it makes much more sense to conclude they "just are" than to try and invent some objective purpose for their existence.  If we come up with a purpose for pretty sunsets, then we must also come up with a purpose for Vibrio cholerae.

 

Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

 

 

Didn't we just agree that order is not an exclusive property of a created universe?  If the presence/absence of order isn't a means by which we can differentiate a created universe from one that "just is", how then do we tell the difference?  If there is no means to do so, then one cannot claim one choice or the other is lacking in reasoning, correct?

Gerald,

 

It's nothing personal, but answering these questions would force me to repeat everything I have already typed out in length in the thread. All of these questions are ones that I at least attempted to address, sometimes multiple times, already.

[alphaparticle]

Alright, i'm too lazy to extract the quotes at the moment so I will go down the list.

 

Yes, there is objective evidence for God's existence. I just do not think it's conclusive on its own.

 

The issue is, you didn't care to respond to the argument I presented. That's fine, but there's not much I can do with your "just because" interpretation, which is an inaccurate representation of that block of text you quoted.

 

It's that Christianity provides a narrative framework that happens to explain disagreements, among other things.

[FreeThinker91]

Grrr... my posts keep getting deleted. No idea why.

I don't have the patience to keep trying to remember what I've said. I guess we'll have to discuss another time alpha.

[HAZARD]

Question;

"

"Does atheism make sense?"

.

 

Simple answer is, Yes, it does.

 

We are all born with free moral agency. We either believe or not!

 

We can look at the creation, read the Word of God and then make up our own minds whether we believe in Him or not!

 

If we believe we are in Gods eyes believers,  If not, if we deny God exists we are athiests. Simple and it works!

[alphaparticle]

Alpha,

 

Here are some of the key things I took from your posts in this thread...

 

"Why is there *anything* at all" is a state of affairs which is logically prior to there being any physical causal events happening at all. It is in fact the grounding necessary for there to be physical causal explanations to exist. There is no potential explanation in terms of physical explanations- any that you posit will have to assume the very thing we are trying to explain.

 

 

IMO, the problem there is you're mixing two things.  The "why" you're asking is a philosophical question, yet you're basing your position on a lack of a physical answer.

 

The problem I have with this is that atheism, even if it's not making a strong positive claim, is still implicitly making a lot of claims about the world that are not easy to substantiate. The most fundamental one I see is that naturalistic or physical causation is primary, explanation in terms of agents is secondary. I don't see any good reason why I should be assuming this. 

 

 

I would say the main reason is because that's what we see all around us.  As we examine the universe, we see it operating all on its own without any supernatural agents.  Thus, the more consistent conclusion would be that the same applies to its origins, correct?

 

the fact that it is ordered will be interpreted as strong reason to suspect there's an agent

 

 

And that gets back to the issue I raised previously.  If "order" isn't a necessary, exclusive state of a created universe, then your reasoning above breaks down.

 

it makes no sense to me to claim that atheism has explanatory superiority, there it is merely a choice that is made between two basic candidates- naturalistic causation vs agent causation, and there is no really good grounds for excluding one against the other at that level.

 

 

Again, it comes down to which choice is most consistent with our observations.  When we study the universe, is it operating via natural mechanisms, or is it operating via supernatural agent manipulation?  I think we both agree that it's the former, which makes it logical to extend that to the universe's origins.  IOW, why would we see a universe that works all on its own via natural mechanisms, but when it comes time to posit an explanation for its origins, change course and suddenly posit a supernatural agent?

 

My question is, why is there the stuff to investigate, at all, and why is there the order there that makes such naturalistic explanations possible in the first place? You can't use naturalistic explanations to tell me why naturalistic explanations are possible.

 

 

Again, I refer you back to my rock analogy.  Just as I can say the rock "just is", I can say the universe and its properties "just are".  If the former is acceptable, then the latter should be as well.

 

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 think it is, because it is the most consistent with our observations.  Positing God as the origin for all things cuts against everything we see in our universe.

 

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.

 

 

IMO, the simple number of explanations is no basis for choosing between models.  As you know, the best one is the one that is most consistent with the data.  If when we looked around the universe we observed God forming planets, blowing up stars, etc., then positing God for its origins would make sense.  But as it is, when we look around the universe all we see are natural mechanisms at work, with literally nothing else going on.  Thus the "natural model" is the most consistent with the data.

 

People get so used to wanting everything empirically falsifiable (or verifiable) otherwise it's not 'real' or a substantive claim all that they don't see that they are using stuff that cannot, in principle, be verified or falsified in this way, like, the validity of induction in the first place.

 

 

But again, are we asking philosophical questions, or empirical questions?  You can't hold philosophical answers to empirical standards.

 

 parsimony, it only takes one omni-Being to explain things

 

 

If that were the standard by which we evaluate all explanations, then "God did it" would be the explanation for everything.  This is a common misunderstanding of what "parsimony" entails.  In general, it refers to something like, "if there is no evidence to the contrary, it is best to assume the simplest explanation is true".  In this case, as I've noted we have a great deal of evidence for the natural explanation for things.  It's all we see going on around us.  IOW, parsimony doesn't dictate that we adopt an explanation with fewer explanations in spite of the available evidence.

 

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?

 

 

Because it's the most consistent with our observations.

 

Science can't explain why science itself can in principle work.

 

 

Because that's a philosophical question.

 

Nothing is lost by attributing it to God though.

 

 

Yes, you've lost consistency with the available data.

 

Finally, throughout the tread you frequently cited the common definition of "God" as including having the ability to create the order within our universe.  However, that same definition also includes God being omniscient and omnibenevolent.  That brings me back to the point I raised earlier, which I didn't see you address anywhere in this thread....

 

Why the rock?  What is the purpose of a hydrogen atom floating through space?  For that matter, what is the purpose of the ebola virus that kills a child?  IMO, when considering all things (both what we would call good and bad), it makes much more sense to conclude they "just are" than to try and invent some objective purpose for their existence.  If we come up with a purpose for pretty sunsets, then we must also come up with a purpose for Vibrio cholerae.

 

An omniscient God would know that the universe He created would include immense suffering directly as a result of how He created it, yet despite His ominbenevolence, He created it that way anyways.  It's these sorts of unresolved philosophical conundrums that make the theistic assumptions so problematic and harder to adopt as the default.

 

I'm asking a philosophical question for which, on principle, there is no "physical answer", which I have to take a guess at what you mean by such a thing. A "physical answer" would be one based on  induction, and part of my overall 'argument' in the thread is that induction assumes there is an order in the world to do induction on in the first place. Your distinction between 'philosophical' and 'empirical' questions has no merit. There are conclusions arrived at deductively, inductively and abductively. There is no 'philosophical' question or 'philosophical' explanation.

 

Yes, you can assume that the hydrogen atom everything else 'just in'. I never denied that as a live hypothesis. My point is that coming to that conclusion assumes not only the existence of those things are a matter of brute fact *but also* that the world happens to have this fantastic order that allows for inductive answers to be formed at all, and not just basic, boring inductive answers-- but the fantastically intricate ordered and even beautiful ones we see in science.

[Hawkins]

As many of you know, I have spent most of my time, as soon as I was old enough to have an opinion, as an atheist. I figured it was the position that assumed the least and best tracked with 'hard evidence'. However, aside from having reasons to think that Christianity is true I also doubt that atheism is the default, 'least assuming' position.

 

Here are some of the questions rattling around in my head with regards to this. Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever? and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it? I don't think that is the most reasonable, rational response to the state of affairs which is our universe. Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

 

Note, my purpose here isn't to provide evidence for God's existing. I'm merely questioning that atheism is a very rational immediate response to anybody who knows anything about how the world works.

 

Atheism is comparison of Apples vs. Oranges. They apply the wrong tool to the wrong situation.

 

This is regarding a truth can be detected by humans. Almost all historical truth (a one time event in a particular point in a timeline) are not supported by empirical data. A historical truth cannot reach humans through the means of empirical data. If you insist on empirical data about an event happened in a long past, then disregarding the event due to lack of evidence, this process is a self-deception process. it is because by the very nature of any historical event is that it lacks empirical evidence. 

 

That said, the deceptive leverage used over and over again by the atheists is that fossil records support the existence of, say, homo-erectus. So the same evidence should apply to the existence of any individual such as the gods. This is a truly deceptive approach, as the evidence can never be extended to support the existence of one in an individual level. For example, if you would like to gather the empirical evidence for the existence of a hom-erectus named John some 1 million years ago. And then refuse to believe his existence due to the lack of evidence, you are playing your own game. As in the first place that it is not possible to collect the evidence of an existence of a specific individual in that age. Then you make use of this impossibility to support your point of view the John never existed. This remains your own game.

 

Just like any history, we have to rely on human witnessing to effectively approach a truth. We rely on books/documents written by other humans (i.e. historians) to approach such a truth, not empirical evidence which simply not available in most situations. What left is the question that how valid those human witnessing are.

 

Moreover, the Christianity claim is more like a warning that "there's bomb under your house!". The one who made this claim is somehow dead (as a history). Under the assumption that he knew the truth, then how can this truth be passed to others for them to make a run ? No one has the burden to give you the proof. You run if you believe the message, you stay if you refuse to believe. The truth will come with the blast.

[Hawkins]

I am still looking for an answer why the atheists behave so. By far there's no answer came to my satisfaction that perhaps I (and everyone) should believe what the Bible says.

 

2 Corinthians 4:4
⁴  The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 

[TheCurseOfTheRodain]

Having formerly identified myself as an athiest at one point, I can say that it is a fool's position, for after all, the furthest away from God someone can get on this Earth is agnostic, for the only way to say there is no God would be for you to be God yourself, because how can a man know something like that? He cannot, because he is not all-knowing, therefore, by definition there can be no atheists, only agnostics.

 

It is also ironic that atheists still have no answer for how life can possibly come about from nothing when there is no process that can be demonstrated for creating organic molecules from inorganic matter; therefore, atheism is a purely emotional stance, typically brought on through the pain of some horrendous 'religious experience' at the hands of an ignorant  or false believer. The Scripture does say the fool says in his HEART there is no God, not the mind. Unbelief is in the heart, and that is the root.

[alphaparticle]

Having formerly identified myself as an athiest at one point, I can say that it is a fool's position, for after all, the furthest away from God someone can get on this Earth is agnostic, for the only way to say there is no God would be for you to be God yourself, because how can a man know something like that? He cannot, because he is not all-knowing, therefore, by definition there can be no atheists, only agnostics.

 

It is also ironic that atheists still have no answer for how life can possibly come about from nothing when there is no process that can be demonstrated for creating organic molecules from inorganic matter; therefore, atheism is a purely emotional stance, typically brought on through the pain of some horrendous 'religious experience' at the hands of an ignorant  or false believer. The Scripture does say the fool says in his HEART there is no God, not the mind. Unbelief is in the heart, and that is the root.

I think if you have fair confidence that God is unlikely to exist you can meaningfully identify yourself as an atheist. There are reasonable ways to do this. You could run arguments against God's existence that lower the likelihood of God existing in a positive manner, such as evidential forms of the Problem of Evil. You could actually try to form arguments demonstrating that the concept of God is absurd and that God can't exist, on pain of violating some law of logic, such as people do when trying to to find conflicts between God's 'omni properties'. There is a remaining way, which is to show that if God exists we should expect to see certain types of evidence that we actually don't see, so it's reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist, such as, we'd expect to see certain types of evidence of an elephant running around a stadium if it is indeed there, that we couldn't demand if instead we were asserting that a flea existed somewhere in the stadium.

 

None of the three ways I outlined above requires someone to claim omniscience to reasonably be an atheist.

[TheCurseOfTheRodain]

 

Having formerly identified myself as an athiest at one point, I can say that it is a fool's position, for after all, the furthest away from God someone can get on this Earth is agnostic, for the only way to say there is no God would be for you to be God yourself, because how can a man know something like that? He cannot, because he is not all-knowing, therefore, by definition there can be no atheists, only agnostics.

 

It is also ironic that atheists still have no answer for how life can possibly come about from nothing when there is no process that can be demonstrated for creating organic molecules from inorganic matter; therefore, atheism is a purely emotional stance, typically brought on through the pain of some horrendous 'religious experience' at the hands of an ignorant  or false believer. The Scripture does say the fool says in his HEART there is no God, not the mind. Unbelief is in the heart, and that is the root.

I think if you have fair confidence that God is unlikely to exist you can meaningfully identify yourself as an atheist. There are reasonable ways to do this. You could run arguments against God's existence that lower the likelihood of God existing in a positive manner, such as evidential forms of the Problem of Evil. You could actually try to form arguments demonstrating that the concept of God is absurd and that God can't exist, on pain of violating some law of logic, such as people do when trying to to find conflicts between God's 'omni properties'. There is a remaining way, which is to show that if God exists we should expect to see certain types of evidence that we actually don't see, so it's reasonable to conclude that God doesn't exist, such as, we'd expect to see certain types of evidence of an elephant running around a stadium if it is indeed there, that we couldn't demand if instead we were asserting that a flea existed somewhere in the stadium.

 

None of the three ways I outlined above requires someone to claim omniscience to reasonably be an atheist.

 

 

Hail, Alphaparticle.

Don't misunderstand my friend, I did not say that someone claiming to be atheist is claiming omniscience, what I said was that someone claiming that God cannot exist is impossible for that person to state, because unless they actually did have omniscience, they could not conclusively make this assertion; at best it would be only a guess. After all, what test can be performed to disprove God's existence? Honestly? How can anyone make the claim God does not exist and back it up with a 100% guarantee using verifiable, repeatable testing, as science demands (so that it is not an opinon/emotion/wound/fear talking)?

 

I actually had this lady once, who claimed to be an atheist, say that because of all the problems she sees on the Earth, God cannot possibly exist. I went on to explain to her that all she sees is the result of the sin nature in mankind thanks to the first man and the curse in the Earth, and that because of the sin nature in man combined with his free will upon a cursed Earth, 100% of the problems (pain, poverty, sickness, death, disease, hate, etc) in the world are accounted for.

She then said well what is God's problem then? Why doesn't He step in and correct it all?

I informed her that according to free will (without which we cannot love) God had to allow the possibility for all this to happen, though of course it wasn't His will. As well as the fact that God HAS corrected it, by offering His Son Jesus at the proper time for all of us (He couldn't just wipe us all out and start over because of His love for us and what would happen to those who were not redeemed yet (God cares too much about each and every one of us to allow us to end up with Satan forever when we could be with Him by choosing His Son)). And ultimately, all creation (except Man) will be destroyed and remade (we will have already been remade through our believing on Jesus (as being God Himself, restoring all mankind to Himself through His sacrifice on the cross, undoing what the First Adam did as the Second Adam)).

She scoffed and said something to the effect of "you expect me to believe all of that?"

I replied and said it's all still true whether you believe it or not, and He's still there waiting for you.

 

For any and all who have yet to receive God's invitation to KNOW Him and be forever free of sin and the curse, don't keep Him waiting - you don't know how many days you have left, and at the Judgement Day, only righteousness counts then, not how much you think you know or whether or not you traveled to Saturn or were a good person by your own standards (forgetting God's of course). And through Jesus you can be made the righteousness of God TODAY, all in an instant, just by simply praying to God (if you want to know how, just ask, and one of us will lead you into the Kingdom of God).