Answers for Atheists

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Marduk

Maybe you could answer this question for me
Why are all the worlds most famous scientists Athiests
Something about intelligence maybe ?

Because their so consumed by their quest for knowledge they've
lost all touch with their spirituality. They've literally starved their
spirit to the point they can't even understand what people who
have one are talking about. That is exactly why!

Yes, their curiosity is a crime against nature and must be strongly discouraged.

originally posted by: randyvs
The topic: Is the intelligence of a Creator, all powerful God,
responsible for our origins? Or was it just dumb blind luck
that intelligence rose up from mundane unintelligent matter?

Randy Randy Randy. Why the false dichotomy?

Why are those the only 2 choices?

Choice A: Randy's beliefs

Choice B: ridiculous nonsensical crap based on dumb luck

So it's either believe you, or believe ridiculous blind dumb luck? Why can't you just say "the universe originated naturally" instead of painting it with such bias and acting like it's the only 2 possibilities?

Surely you know better than that by now...

The real choice:

A: Mythology
B: Science

One of them has been teaching us how the world works for hundreds of years. The other has 90% of it classified as myth and fables and the other 10% is believed out of pure faith and confirmation bias and counters what science has helped us discover and learn about the world.

I understand evolution enough to know that it in
no way makes any claims to how life began or
our origins. Evolution tries to explain what happens
to life. Not how life began.

Aw. Now I smile like a proud dad, watching his only son that made it!

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Barcs

Umm so Global warming is also a myth because you can't prove it?

Ummm, there are tons of pieces of scientific evidence that support climate change science. There is zero objective evidence in favor of a creator or god. No, I won't be baited into a global warming debate.

I never claimed that god doesn't exist because there is no evidence. I said that since there is no evidence, it is the logical position. Rejecting science blindly is not the same. I'm not talking about rejecting or accepting theories. I'm talking about the existence of things in the universe. I'm talking about analyzing the evidence and coming to a logical conclusion. There's no reason to believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, because there is no evidence of them. Same is true with a god or creator.

a reply to: Barcs

I have to say that arguement is not necessarily fitting if your talking about metaphysics. I will preface with I am an atheist of sorts, though I have considered deism, and pantheism from Spinoza to be worth thinking about.

First off there are reason based arguements for god. Cosmological, Teleological, and ontological. None of them point toward a particular God and they all have good rebuttles but they are reason based queries of reality and where it came from.

Our observations are limited to our senses and we can only know so much about reality because of this. What Kant refers to as Noumenom and phenomenon. There is what we observe of an object and than there is the reality that is unknowable of that object by our limited senses.

Saying purple unicorns is the same as God, Russel's teapot, or flying spwgwtti monsters isn't exactly a sound philosophical arguement.
Unless you are saying those things created the universe or were the first cause than yes they are just as likely as any other form of of God.

The first cause is not any easy arguement to get over without infinite regress. At least not like book derrived gods. Ontological arguements maybe more of a stretch. They seem like Jedi mind tricks and don't resonate at all with me. Teleological design based are the closest thing to science this metaphysical debate has but still are far from a slam dunk. I know Hitchins and Harris have admitted to the arguements around fine tuning. (Again I am not saying this proves God just its a better arguement and harder to counter without using a theoretical model). Dawkins and Stenger make some mis steps in their arguements in this case.

The astrophysicist Luke Barnes has a lot of interesting things to say about fine tuning.


My point Christianity and religion have regressed from a time when they were actually thinking deeper about what reality could be. We have the big bang and genetics by a priest and a monk in the past now we have these types of arguements for God when a scripture alone is supposed to prove something.


Personally I think this was an attack thread against atheism. So the OP deserves the scrutiny.

originally posted by: luthier
First off there are reason based arguements for god. Cosmological, Teleological, and ontological. None of them point toward a particular God and they all have good rebuttles but they are reason based queries of reality and where it came from.

I have never seen a reasonable, logical argument for the existence of god, and I've been posting here for more than a decade. With that said, I know you and I do not see eye to eye on what makes something logical or reasonable. Yes, they are reasons, but they aren't based on anything tangible or anything in reality. They all rely on assumptions. If you can make an argument for the existence of god that does not, I'd be really impressed.

What cosmological argument for god are you referring to? I've seen many but never any that don't rely on assumptions, hence making the logic faulty.

The teleological argument is based on complete assumption. There is no evidence of design in nature. There are folks that assume it because of complexity, and interpret it that way, but there is no way to objectively determine whether something has been created or not, until we can actually compare it to something that WAS created by a god or higher power.

Ontological is more about the state of being and doesn't really suggest one way or the other.

Our observations are limited to our senses and we can only know so much about reality because of this. What Kant refers to as Noumenom and phenomenon. There is what we observe of an object and than there is the reality that is unknowable of that object by our limited senses.

Exactly. There is what we observe. But for god there have been no confirmed or verified observations ever made. Just because something is currently unknowable, does not have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not it exists.

Saying purple unicorns is the same as God, Russel's teapot, or flying spwgwtti monsters isn't exactly a sound philosophical arguement.

I'm arguing about science, not philosophy. For something without evidence, non existence is the logical default. It's like that with anything in the universe. Philosophy's great but it doesn't over ride the objectivity of science.

Unless you are saying those things created the universe or were the first cause than yes they are just as likely as any other form of of God.

Exactly my point. They are just as likely as any version of god. And by likely, I mean not likely at all because there is zero objective evidence for any of them.

The first cause is not any easy arguement to get over without infinite regress. At least not like book derrived gods. Ontological arguements maybe more of a stretch. They seem like Jedi mind tricks and don't resonate at all with me. Teleological design based are the closest thing to science this metaphysical debate has but still are far from a slam dunk. I know Hitchins and Harris have admitted to the arguements around fine tuning. (Again I am not saying this proves God just its a better arguement and harder to counter without using a theoretical model). Dawkins and Stenger make some mis steps in their arguements in this case.

I agree. First cause is impossible to determine without infinite regression.

I do not agree in the slightest, however, that the Teleological argument is anywhere near scientific. It's not. It is assumption based on complexity as I mentioned above.

The astrophysicist Luke Barnes has a lot of interesting things to say about fine tuning.

The fine tuning argument relies completely on assumptions just like the other ones. Just because our type of life relies on certain laws of physics, one can not determine that different laws of physics couldn't lead to a different form of life. Too much speculation involved. Fine tuning argument essentially says that since laws of physics exist, that they had to be set up by higher power, but how do we know this? Because they are there and this is the way it is? Why can't it just be the way it is?

a reply to: Barcs

The subject of God is not science. It's metaphysics.

Do you think that Cosmology in general is unknowable and not logical?

Are theoretically models not observed or proven that are assumed through mathematics illogical?

What is your definition of reason?

The fine tuning argument is more that if things were a fractional degree different what we know of the universe would not exist. By presuming something is unkown that could discount this is no different than the arguement I made about ooa. What we do know is if the weight of carbon was different the universe would not exist. Something may come along to change that. The emperical evidence and computer modelling show this to be true.

The assumption is that there is a push to create life since the models created in computer simulation show this is nearly impossible with one universe as we know it with random arrangement. The multiverse is the model that combats that problem but this is a theoretical model. Just as assumptive as the theory of a first cause being a necessary being.

I think before you argue to much against this take a listen to this podcast.
commonsenseatheism.com...

Barnes is a peer reviewed cosmologist.

I agree this doesn't prove God and as I said the rebuttles are good. Just make sure you have a sense of what fine tuning really is and why some arguements against it dont work.


I don't believe in god but that doesn't mean I can have a good arguement against it. There is a difference in going through the process of philosophical inquirey and believing in something based in superstition. I for one welcome the former debate over the latter.


I wouldn't make an arguement for God. But I wouldn't jump to fast to discredit one either without taking the time to really think about it. I have and still don't find them convincing enough to believe in God but I can admit they are better arguments harder to dismiss.

a reply to: Barcs

So it's either believe you, or believe ridiculous blind dumb luck?

Barcsy Barcsy Barcsy you're not even be'n real with yourself. Naturally? I
thought you were intelligent but saying ignorant CRAP like that is just,
well, ignorant.
Nothing occures naturally before nature even exists. Why don't you just
admit that you would make more sense by replacing the word naturally
with the word God." Everything occured naturally"? GET REAL!

The truth is what it is and you and the ignorant cabal aren't going to play it
off that way. Naturally is the biggest load of crap and a total cop out.

The above quote is the truth when it's all wittled down and you know it.
give up on the facade for cripes sakes.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

So it's either believe you, or believe ridiculous blind dumb luck?

Barcsy Barcsy Barcsy you're not even be'n real with yourself. Naturally? I
thought you were intelligent but saying ignorant CRAP like that is just,
well, ignorant.
Nothing occures naturally before nature even exists. Why don't you just
admit that you would make more sense by replacing the word naturally
with the word God." Everything occured naturally"? GET REAL!

The truth is what it is and you and the ignorant cabal aren't going to play it
off that way. Naturally is the biggest load of crap and a total cop out.

The above quote is the truth when it's all wittled down and you know it.
give up on the facade for cripes sakes.

And "some old man made everything" isn't a cop out?

Share to show this truth? We can with science.

Or is it like this?

"Screw science! Goddidit!"

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs
Barcs you're not even be'n real with yourself. Naturally? i thought you
were intelligent but saying ignorantCRAP like that is just, well, ignorant.

Why is it 'ignorant' to conclude that the universe could have formed naturally?

Do you have some concrete information that proves otherwise?

If you don't, then there is nothing ignorant about that statement.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs
Nothing occures naturally before nature even exists.

The big bang describes a singularity before the actual expansion and the time it took for the universe to be what it is today. This isn't speculative theory either, we actually have evidence that supports this concept, making it a Scientific Theory.

If all the matter in the universe existed in the singularity, then the universe didn't 'come from nothing', thus natural substances still existed, just not in the form it currently takes.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs
why don't you just admit that you would make more sense by replacing the word naturally with the word God. everything occured naturally? GET REAL!

because "god did it" isn't an explanation on anything. You just fill in difficult questions with a presumably simple answer when in fact that answer is far more complicated and totally unfounded.

Tell me, what evidence is there that your version of god did it and it wasn't someone elses version of god, or that it wasn't aliens, or that it wasn't a hobbit that dropped a ring into a flaming pit of interdenominational lava then 'BOOM' there's the universe?

You act as if you have this answer and it's so obvious, yet you can't even tell which god did it or if aliens did it or anything else.

That's not an answer, you're just running from the question and the hard work needed to discover the answer.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs
The truth is what it is and you and the ignorant cabal aren't going to play it
off that way. Naturally is the biggest load of crap and a total cop out.

Feel free to provide even a gram of evidence for your position.

originally posted by: luthier
The subject of God is not science. It's metaphysics.

I'd argue that the subject is neither because there is no way to determine if god exists, let alone what field of study he/she/it would belong in. If objective evidence emerges one day it will definitely be part of science. But right now god is crammed into a whole big slew of "what ifs"

Do you think that Cosmology in general is unknowable and not logical?

Nope, but there is a vast amount that we know logically and objectively.

Are theoretically models not observed or proven that are assumed through mathematics illogical?

Logical, but not objective. Most theoretical models in science are backed by evidence and observations, but cannot be proven. Theoretical physics is completely separate from actual physics. For example M-theory. The math adds up, making it logical in a mathematical sense, but there's nothing objective to study in order to verify any of it, so it remains unproven at this point and the ideas about it are interpretations of what the math says.

The fine tuning argument is more that if things were a fractional degree different what we know of the universe would not exist. By presuming something is unkown that could discount this is no different than the arguement I made about ooa. What we do know is if the weight of carbon was different the universe would not exist. Something may come along to change that. The emperical evidence and computer modelling show this to be true.

Which empirical evidence? I don't think you can take it that far to say that the universe wouldn't exist. The universe AS WE KNOW IT, would not exist, it would be something much different. But even still, the argument lacks merit because the universe is the way it is. I understand what fine tuning claims, there's just no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest that a god or entity fine tuned the laws of physics for life or that something like that is even possible. It is far more likely that LIFE is "fine tuned" to the universe, since it emerged, evolved and adapted here, not the other way around. Even the iron in our blood comes from the stars.

I think before you argue to much against this take a listen to this podcast.
commonsenseatheism.com...

Barnes is a peer reviewed cosmologist.

Thanks. I'll watch this when I get home, although this is something I've researched extensively and I'm quite familiar with both sides of the fine tuning argument.

I don't believe in god but that doesn't mean I can have a good arguement against it. There is a difference in going through the process of philosophical inquirey and believing in something based in superstition. I for one welcome the former debate over the latter.

I'm agnostic atheist as well, so I can understand why folks choose to place faith in god. I just don't see any valid objective reason TO believe, so I wait until science finds god, or until god comes down and says hello. I'm perfectly content waiting or even not knowing my whole life. I take no issue with believers at all, except when they try to put down non believers and act like their faith is fact or start attacking fields of science (ie evolution)

I wouldn't make an arguement for God. But I wouldn't jump to fast to discredit one either without taking the time to really think about it. I have and still don't find them convincing enough to believe in God but I can admit they are better arguments harder to dismiss.

I feel almost the same way. I used to be a theist, but not anymore, mainly because of the lack of evidence. I don't find anything wrong with faith. It's just the arguments on the existence of god are generally just mudslinging and never actually provide any type of substance or food for thought. It's either a religious guy acting superior to others and denying science without providing reason, or it's an atheist making fun of religious folks (sometimes warranted, not always).

originally posted by: randyvs
Nothing occures naturally before nature even exists. Why don't you just
admit that you would make more sense by replacing the word naturally
with the word God." Everything occured naturally"? GET REAL!

Who says nature ever didn't exist? Last I checked energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Arising naturally could be a result of quantum membrane collisions. Naturally just means without the help of an intelligent entity, and thus far everything in the universe operates fine by itself without the need of any being interfering.

Besides, you'd have to answer where god came from as well, and I don't think you can do it without the typical cop out, "he was always there". But if you can argue that, I can argue that the universe was always there, and we don't get anywhere in the conversation with assumptions like that.

If the universe needs an origin, so does god. I mean you talk about dumb luck, yet there just happens to be an all powerful being that somehow was just always there? How lucky is that? How did that even happen?

The truth is what it is and you and the ignorant cabal aren't going to play it
off that way. Naturally is the biggest load of crap and a total cop out.

Arising naturally is a much more accurate description than, "pure dumb ridiculous luck!" It's inherently biased. That's like if I said, "You have a choice: Either science is accurate as it usually is, or there is a magical sky man with a beard that answers prayers, watches you masturbate, and purposely set up the universe to appear natural for no reason. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice how biased your response was. What did Jesus say about living in a glass house?

a reply to: Barcs

There are very very few papers against fine tuning that are peer reviewed in Cosmology. Again not saying anything about God doing the tuning. I would love to see papers that argue against fine tuning. I know of about a dozen compaired to hundreds if not thousands that support it.

Evolution has nothing at all to do with fine tuning. Fine tuning is far more general than evolution. It says if things were different there would be no life. Life cant adapt in a universe with strong gravity (inside black holes) for instance or one that isnt able to be stable long enough.

If the parameters we know of are so small then parameters that could support some other kind of life are even smaller. Basically the probability works that there are a tremendous amount of ways to get life wrong and very few to get it right. Probability is not about what is possible but what is likely.

There is good reason carbon is the basis for life. Not only as to how it was created and when in the sequence of the big bang but because of its structure and chemistry.

And yes we can take it that far to say the universe would not exist with most changes in the laws if nature and cosmologists have done so with modelling and math. Down to chemistry and physics.

There would be no way to observe a universe that does not permit life. Thats a bad arguement.

I have very similar beliefs about God but to say its not metaphysics is well...not true. Metaphysics are pretty much impossible to prove. God is certainly a metaphysical idea.

Science does make predictions. I think to say a being of some kind causing the fine tuning is not based on any evidence in fine tuning is only part true. It is a hypothesis with evidence. If you can prove it to be wrong well that would be amazing. You could call it God in the gaps and that may hold some water but then there is difficulty in any hypothesis on why the universe seems to be fine tuned for life.

I get what you are saying but I'd you listen to Dr. Barnes he can point out where the good arguements against FT are. Mostly around inflation and really all they do is delay it.

I can admit it's an assumption to use FT as the teleological arguement but it's a decent arguement if you take the time to think about it. I can link a clip of Hitchins even saying so.

You are right about the debates about God and this is the whole purpose of me bringing up the metaphysical arguements. Maybe the theists will choose a better way to debate. Personally even though it can be frustrating debating apologists it is so much better to hone debating skills than debating purely superstitious folks. IMO of course.

a reply to: Ghost147

Why is it 'ignorant' to conclude that the universe could have formed naturally?

Because any thinking person understands that nature is a part of the universe.
No universe no nature. And I guess it takes someone who hasn't been trained
to only think and believe the crap a university teaches you to point that out.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Ghost147
Because any thinking person understands that nature is a part of the universe.
No universe no nature. And I guess it takes someone who hasn't been trained
to only think and believe the crap a university teaches you to point that out.

No. Nature doesn't apply to the universe only once it has formed.

If the singularity is made up of natural elements, then that makes it natural too. If there are other universes, then they have their own natural composition to them too.

To suggest that something isn't natural is to make a statement that it is made. So, if you're making a claim it's best to present the evidence that backs that claim, otherwise you're baseless opinion has no weight in a debate about facts.

I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself can understand that.

a reply to: luthier

First off there are reason based arguements for god.

Reasoning

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: luthier

First off there are reason based arguements for god.

Reasoning

'Reasoning' is the reason based argument for god?

Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy.

My reason for the non-existence of god is also 'reasoning'.

You know very little about how to form a credible argument....

a reply to: Ghost147

'Reasoning' is the reason based argument for god?

Talk about a self fulfilling prophecy.

My reason for the non-existence of god is also 'reasoning'.

You know very little about how to form a credible argument..

I suppose you're calling this an argument?

a reply to: Ghost147

No. Nature doesn't apply to the universe only once it has formed.

Oh really! Where is your proof hombre?

a reply to: randyvs

Oh really! Where is your proof hombre?

Oh really! Where is your faith hombre?
Or.. do you just have faith in magical things?

a reply to: Ghost147

I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself can understand that.

I relish the compliment, even so I find difficulty in thinking of myself in this way.