Does atheism make sense?

[MorningGlory]

 

For example: if we know that A caused B, and B caused C, we understand C, and we claim God caused A, the furthest back we could really look at understanding would be B. So, if someone said "why does C work the way it does?", we could study B and attempt to understand it. We could study A to learn why B works the way it does, but as soon as someone asks about A, the answer would be "I don't know. God did it."

 

 

 

By George, you've got it! 

[alphaparticle]

 

I don't mean nothing in a physicist's sense here, I mean it in an existential sense. Equating nothingness with a quantum vacuum is cheating, at least, we aren't going to be talking about the same thing. I mean the totality of physical stuff-- including fields, including spacetime. I also mean the order by which that stuff operates and allows us to posit natural causes to explain any phenomena at all. That is why it's not 'from ignorance', in principle you can't explain how you can do explanation by natural causation by using explanation by natural causation.

 

And as I said, as far as explaining God goes, there are two routes. One, I could show that God is a necessary being. Or two, show why God is a superior explanatory hypothesis by arguing that at least with God we have mere *one* unexplained thing, rather than...an infinite number, including some rather nice laws by which all that stuff operates.

 

What I was getting at with the physicist's sense of nothing, is that in theory you don't need anything but nature to create universes in the absence of universes (I am too ignorant to speculate what effect that has on causality when you remove space-time), so the real question (for me) is why there is an underlying fabric of existence which makes space-time possible. I'm not arguing that a quantum vacuum is absolutely 'nothing', but the nothingness being something indicates to me (as a layman) that something larger is at work, which I call the foundation of existence. 

 

As for God being a superior explanatory hypothesis, sure it is one thing, but like ID, it has no real explanatory power IMO. On the surface it sounds good, and it can certainly make sense if you presuppose the existence of such a being. But as far as explaining power, I don't see how it is better than a placeholder shouldering all the unanswered questions under one banner. For instance, if we take the order and complexity of the universe as evidence there must be a God who had the intelligence and capability to create all of this, yes we explain why there is an ordered something rather than nothing. However this God is surely also complex and 'ordered' too, not some aimlessly wandering goo of supernaturalism. So by the criteria you have for determining that the universe requires a creator, I feel I can use the same criteria to establish that God requires a creator. Doesn't that put us exactly where we started but with different names; why is there a God (with all his properties) instead of no God? 

 

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!).

[Guest shiloh357]

Predictability and intelligence aren't the same thing.

I didn't say they were the same thing.  I said that uniform order and predictability are evidence of intelligence.  The creationist model is consistent in that it makes sense that an intelligent creator would make a universe that would run orderly and in a predictable manner.   Order to the seasons and to various laws and processes that are needed to make world function and to make it hospitable to the life forms upon it is evidence of intelligence.  Biological life that lives in harmony with the biosphere is evidence of intelligence.

 

 

Just because the universe is finely tuned or really complex doesn't mean that it was created.

 

Which is like saying, "just because this book as pages with words and those words tell a story or communicate coherent intelligent thoughts doesn't mean that the book was authored by anyone."  Or to take the analogy further, it would be like saying that the book's cover, the pages, the ink, the glue and binding don't really mean the book was made by anyone.   You might as well say, the book just materialized out of thin air if you are going to be internally consistent with how you look at the universe.

 

The point is that your statement is logically absurd.  It is a logical absurdity that scientists only seem to allow themselves to descend into when it comes to the origin of earth and mankind.  

 

I saw a documentary on Stone Henge where scientists and historians were offering up various theories of its origin.   Not ONE scientists or historian was going to stake his repuatation on the notion that perhaps Stone Henge wasn't the product of human intelligence.  They would not argue that mayby the stones just end up in their current configuration over time that the appearance of design didn't mean their configuration was the product of intelligent design. 

 

Why were they unwilling to forward that argument???   Because the stones possess 90 degree angles and they have an order and uniformity in their configuration, shape and size.  There is a pattern to Stone Henge that cause you to intuitively ask, "Who made it, and for what purpose?"   The very arguments that evidence of uniformity and order don't indicate intelligence design where the earth is concerned  would be scoffed at if offered as part of Stone Henge research.

 

There is a lot of evidence for intelligence and design and living in a state of denial about what you see right in front of your face isn't going to change that.   Frankly, if we were to approach any other area life with the same degree of absurdity that unbelievers are willing to use when it comes to intelligent design, we would be nothing but a bunch of morons.

[alphaparticle]

 

As for God being a superior explanatory hypothesis, sure it is one thing, but like ID, it has no real explanatory power IMO. On the surface it sounds good, and it can certainly make sense if you presuppose the existence of such a being. But as far as explaining power, I don't see how it is better than a placeholder shouldering all the unanswered questions under one banner. For instance, if we take the order and complexity of the universe as evidence there must be a God who had the intelligence and capability to create all of this, yes we explain why there is an ordered something rather than nothing. However this God is surely also complex and 'ordered' too, not some aimlessly wandering goo of supernaturalism. So by the criteria you have for determining that the universe requires a creator, I feel I can use the same criteria to establish that God requires a creator. Doesn't that put us exactly where we started but with different names; why is there a God (with all his properties) instead of no God?

I agree. Also, it would seem that once you deem the cause of something to be "God" and not "I don't know yet. Let's find out!", you stop looking to explain the universe.

For example: if we know that A caused B, and B caused C, we understand C, and we claim God caused A, the furthest back we could really look at understanding would be B. So, if someone said "why does C work the way it does?", we could study B and attempt to understand it. We could study A to learn why B works the way it does, but as soon as someone asks about A, the answer would be "I don't know. God did it."

 

There's no possible naturalistic explanation for the stuff I'm talking about... in principle. This isn't wondering why there is lightening and positing that Zeus 'does it'. The only way that science has of offering explanations is in terms of physical causation, and I want to extend that concept to probabilistic ensembles as well (and if you don't like the term 'causation' that is fine, we can put anything there, my argument doesn't depend on it). The reason we can do this is because we presuppose that there is order in the world, and that makes sense explanations possible. 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.

[RobbyPants]

I didn't say they were the same thing.  I said that uniform order and predictability are evidence of intelligence.  The creationist model is consistent in that it makes sense that an intelligent creator would make a universe that would run orderly and in a predictable manner.   Order to the seasons and to various laws and processes that are needed to make world function and to make it hospitable to the life forms upon it is evidence of intelligence.  Biological life that lives in harmony with the biosphere is evidence of intelligence.

You're working backward from a conclusion and using that to establish your premise.

Obviously, it's tautologically true that any existing, working system is a system that works. So, the fact that we are in a working system means that... the system works. If things haven't been living in harmony with the ecosystem, we wouldn't be alive to complain about it right now. The fact that the system works is evidence that it's in equilibrium. It exists precisely because it is in equilibrium. That's all you've proven. Anything else is an assumption.

 

 

Just because the universe is finely tuned or really complex doesn't mean that it was created.

Which is like saying, "just because this book as pages with words and those words tell a story or communicate coherent intelligent thoughts doesn't mean that the book was authored by anyone."  Or to take the analogy further, it would be like saying that the book's cover, the pages, the ink, the glue and binding don't really mean the book was made by anyone.   You might as well say, the book just materialized out of thin air if you are going to be internally consistent with how you look at the universe.

 

The point is that your statement is logically absurd.  It is a logical absurdity that scientists only seem to allow themselves to descend into when it comes to the origin of earth and mankind.

That's a bad analogy. We have seen books be written by people. No one has seen a book spontaneously come into being. It is logical to assume that other books we see must have been written. Until we see a counter-example, or good evidence that not all books are written, then it would be absurd to assume otherwise.

No one has seen a universe be created. Assuming universes are like books and watches is baseless. All you are doing is looking that they share some same traits (complexity and "order") and assuming they must share other traits (being created). That's no different than me saying that all mammals must have four legs and a tail because dogs are mammals and have four legs and a tail. It's bad inductive reasoning.

I saw a documentary on Stone Henge where scientists and historians were offering up various theories of its origin.   Not ONE scientists or historian was going to stake his repuatation on the notion that perhaps Stone Henge wasn't the product of human intelligence.

Why would they? There's no evidence of any other form of intelligence, so why posit it as an explanation? Otherwise, you'd have one scientist saying it was YHWH, another saying it was Thor, and another saying it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At that point, they're no longer offering up explanations that are meaningfully useful.

 

There is a lot of evidence for intelligence and design and living in a state of denial about what you see right in front of your face isn't going to change that.   Frankly, if we were to approach any other area life with the same degree of absurdity that unbelievers are willing to use when it comes to intelligent design, we would be nothing but a bunch of morons.

Careful. I'm not calling you, or another group of people names.

[enoob57]

 

As for God being a superior explanatory hypothesis, sure it is one thing, but like ID, it has no real explanatory power IMO. On the surface it sounds good, and it can certainly make sense if you presuppose the existence of such a being. But as far as explaining power, I don't see how it is better than a placeholder shouldering all the unanswered questions under one banner. For instance, if we take the order and complexity of the universe as evidence there must be a God who had the intelligence and capability to create all of this, yes we explain why there is an ordered something rather than nothing. However this God is surely also complex and 'ordered' too, not some aimlessly wandering goo of supernaturalism. So by the criteria you have for determining that the universe requires a creator, I feel I can use the same criteria to establish that God requires a creator. Doesn't that put us exactly where we started but with different names; why is there a God (with all his properties) instead of no God?

I agree. Also, it would seem that once you deem the cause of something to be "God" and not "I don't know yet. Let's find out!", you stop looking to explain the universe.

For example: if we know that A caused B, and B caused C, we understand C, and we claim God caused A, the furthest back we could really look at understanding would be B. So, if someone said "why does C work the way it does?", we could study B and attempt to understand it. We could study A to learn why B works the way it does, but as soon as someone asks about A, the answer would be "I don't know. God did it."

 

The final icing on the cake would be this- of all the beliefs and opinions The Bible alone carries with it's writ the only make sense to all we see;

For what we see was formed by it... if we all must live by faith why not chose the one that makes sense? I mean really... the next in line believes

we came from rocks or aliens or whatever they have dreamed up...  Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

You're working backward from a conclusion and using that to establish your premise.

 

No, I am operating from the vantage point of what we intuitively know and observe. 

 

Obviously, it's tautologically true that any existing, working system is a system that works. So, the fact that we are in a working system means that... the system works. If things haven't been living in harmony with the ecosystem, we wouldn't be alive to complain about it right now. The fact that the system works is evidence that it's in equilibrium. It exists precisely because it is in equilibrium. That's all you've proven. Anything else is an assumption.

Sorry but anyone willing to be honest about reality knows that patterns, order, uniformity, predictability do not simply occur for no reason and from no cause.   In fact there it is the height of absurdity to make the case that a universe as complex as ours is not the product of a designer.  Design screams for a designer.  

 

That's a bad analogy. We have seen books be written by people. No one has seen a book spontaneously come into being. It is logical to assume that other books we see must have been written. Until we see a counter-example, or good evidence that not all books are written, then it would be absurd to assume otherwise.

No one has seen a universe be created. Assuming universes are like books and watches is baseless. All you are doing is looking that they share some same traits (complexity and "order") and assuming they must share other traits (being created). That's no different than me saying that all mammals must have four legs and a tail because dogs are mammals and have four legs and a tail. It's bad inductive reasoning

Actually its a very good and accurate analogy.   A book is witness to its author. A song is witness to the composer, a painting is witness to the artist.   Name ONE thing in the natural world that we have ever observed spontaneously come into being without a reason or cause.    I could take you into my garage and tell you that the garbage can spontaneously formed around the garbage, but you would probably not believe me.

There is nothing in the human experience supports the notion that the universe spontaneous appeared for no reason and with no intelligent cause.  If anything, everything we routinely and daily observe tells us that everything comes into existence through intelligent impetus.

 

The very fact that you have not seen a universe being created means that you have no real basis for claiming that it was not created by an intelligent Creator.   I on the other hand can make a logical case for a Creator based on observation and experience.  I can't prove that God exists, but order, uniformity, predictability make far more sense in the context of an intelligent Creator than saying that everything just popped into existence with no rhyme or reason for its existence.

 

Why would they? There's no evidence of any other form of intelligence, so why posit it as an explanation? Otherwise, you'd have one scientist saying it was YHWH, another saying it was Thor, and another saying it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. At that point, they're no longer offering up explanations that are meaningfully useful.

Ah, but you only quoted half of what i said.   What I actually said that you conveniently left out was that no scientist was willing to make the case that the stones simply ended up in the current configuration.  My point was that the scientists were not willing to posit the theory that the stones were not put there by anyone that they simply appeared there due to how the earth's surface was formed.   No one was willing to argue that there was no intelligent designer behind the obvious intelligent design of Stone Henge.

 

Yet that is the same absurd and ridiculous argument that they will forward as an explanation for the rest of the unvierse.  The obvious indicators of design preclude any thinking person from stating that Stone Henge is not the product of intelligent designers.  It has an obvious purpose and all of the earmarks of a coherent design.   Yet, a universe which is far more complex than Stone Henge and has indicators of design within it is not the product of an intelligent Creator???   Honestly, that requires more faith than to believe in God.  It requires intellectual suicide on a momunental scale.

 

 

shiloh357, on 13 Sept 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

There is a lot of evidence for intelligence and design and living in a state of denial about what you see right in front of your face isn't going to change that.   Frankly, if we were to approach any other area life with the same degree of absurdity that unbelievers are willing to use when it comes to intelligent design, we would be nothing but a bunch of morons.

Careful. I'm not calling you, or another group of people names.

 

 

I am not calling anyone any names, either.  I am saying that if we were to applly the same irrational, logical absurdity to our daily lives that scientists must employ to deny that God created all that is, we all would end up being a bunch of morons.  

 

The only peopple who can respect the view that design doesn't indicate a designer are people with an agenda to deny God's existence and they are internally inconsistent in that they do not and cannot apply that logic to any other facet of human experience.  That logical inconsistency denies what we intuitively observe which is a big indicator that it is absurd at its core. 

[enoob57]

The weight of evidence is clearly marked out by God... in observation

Rom 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood

by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
NKJV
Love, Steven

[RobbyPants]

No, I am operating from the vantage point of what we intuitively know and observe.

No, you are making an assumption that complexity require intelligent design in your premise, then showing the result of complexity proves intelligent design. It's called begging the question.

Sorry but anyone willing to be honest about reality knows that patterns, order, uniformity, predictability do not simply occur for no reason and from no cause.   In fact there it is the height of absurdity to make the case that a universe as complex as ours is not the product of a designer.  Design screams for a designer.

Sorry, but you're still making the assumption by begging the question, claiming I'm not honest for not doing so, an d saying it's absurd to not do so.

 

Actually its a very good and accurate analogy.   A book is witness to its author. A song is witness to the composer, a painting is witness to the artist.

Without begging the question, we don't know that the universe has a creator. You are assuming that.

Name ONE thing in the natural world that we have ever observed spontaneously come into being without a reason or cause.

 

I never said "no reason or cause". I said "no intelligent design". You're conflating those two things.

I could take you into my garage and tell you that the garbage can spontaneously formed around the garbage, but you would probably not believe me.

Probably because you'd be lying. Also, there are probably other traits things in your garage don't share with the universe.

There is nothing in the human experience supports the notion that the universe spontaneous appeared for no reason and with no intelligent cause.  If anything, everything we routinely and daily observe tells us that everything comes into existence through intelligent impetus.

Nothing in human experience supports that it does have an intelligent cause. That's you making an assumption and begging the question.

 

The very fact that you have not seen a universe being created means that you have no real basis for claiming that it was not created by an intelligent Creator.   I on the other hand can make a logical case for a Creator based on observation and experience.  I can't prove that God exists, but order, uniformity, predictability make far more sense in the context of an intelligent Creator than saying that everything just popped into existence with no rhyme or reason for its existence.

I'm not saying it wasn't created by an intelligent creator. I'm saying there's no evidence it was created by an intelligent creator, so I'm not going to just make that assumption. If I did, I'd be begging the question.

Ah, but you only quoted half of what i said.   What I actually said that you conveniently left out was that no scientist was willing to make the case that the stones simply ended up in the current configuration.  My point was that the scientists were not willing to posit the theory that the stones were not put there by anyone that they simply appeared there due to how the earth's surface was formed.   No one was willing to argue that there was no intelligent designer behind the obvious intelligent design of Stone Henge.

 

Yet that is the same absurd and ridiculous argument that they will forward as an explanation for the rest of the unvierse.  The obvious indicators of design preclude any thinking person from stating that Stone Henge is not the product of intelligent designers.  It has an obvious purpose and all of the earmarks of a coherent design.   Yet, a universe which is far more complex than Stone Henge and has indicators of design within it is not the product of an intelligent Creator???   Honestly, that requires more faith than to believe in God.  It requires intellectual suicide on a momunental scale.

Oh, I see. Well, I suppose it's possible in the strictest sense of the word, but it's not as good of an analogy as you'd want it to be. It makes sense to assume humans made it because we have evidence of humans building other stone structures. 

I am not calling anyone any names, either.  I am saying that if we were to applly the same irrational, logical absurdity to our daily lives that scientists must employ to deny that God created all that is, we all would end up being a bunch of morons.

  

No, it's quite the opposite. Empirical science gives us demonstrable results. We totally have things like space ships, super computers, and antibiotics precisely because people learned from their observations and didn't make up a bunch of other assumptions. Would we have had penicillin if we simply assumed God killed the bacteria around the mold, and that the mold wasn't responsible?

What is absurd is making baseless assumptions to satisfy a preconceived conclusion.

The only peopple who can respect the view that design doesn't indicate a designer are people with an agenda to deny God's existence and they are internally inconsistent in that they do not and cannot apply that logic to any other facet of human experience.  That logical inconsistency denies what we intuitively observe which is a big indicator that it is absurd at its core.

Or, perhaps they would be willing to consider the idea if there were any evidence an intelligent creator existed that didn't rely on assuming the creator existed in the first place.

[enoob57]

 

No, I am operating from the vantage point of what we intuitively know and observe.

No, you are making an assumption that complexity require intelligent design in your premise, then showing the result of complexity proves intelligent design. It's called begging the question.

 

This is uninformed statement... http://www.wasdarwinright.com/simplecells.htm

In fact it is certified by Darwin himself in origin of species that the cell must be simple in order for the probability of ToE - 

 

 Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."^[114]

Now that vast complexity is seen in the single cell Darwin's theory is naturally debunked... the fact that it is still contended for by science shows

less of a science and more of a desperation to maintain God is not!  

 

It  (complexity) actually proves ToE is out of the consideration, any longer, of the intelligent open mind of the scientific search for truth and reality of beginning!

Love, Steve