What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[QED]

I need to experience stuff like that myself, and the stuff that I have experienced could be within the margin of random occurrence (not much to speak of), but if I were to guess such things, I would say that some type of feature we don't understand is at work.

Interesting. Vagaries of human perception provide us with ample explanations for all manner of apparently supernatural goings-on. I used to argue that if there was any 'channel' unknown to science then it wouldn't necessarily be unknown to nature and hence we'd expect to find animals evolving the ability to use such things (mind-reading could be a spectacular advantage for example). But then it was pointed out that we don't see animals equipped with lasers or over-the horizon radar either. I'm not sure of the merit of such arguments so I'll pass.

Getting back to the topic at hand though, I promise to give the notion of mind as a wider property more thought. I recall some story about an early telephone network that seemed to develop a mind of its own, but surely we can't be talking about anything more than Conway's Game of Life when all is said and done?

[harvey1]

Vagaries of human perception provide us with ample explanations for all manner of apparently supernatural goings-on.

I don't buy into supernaturalism, but I don't buy into the "vagaries of human perception" bit either. I think we can account for most paranormal stuff by appealing to the arguments of skeptics, but that doesn't mean those arguments are correct either. I leave it as an open issue. You do realize there's nothing wrong with leaving something as "unknown" and an open case?

Getting back to the topic at hand though, I promise to give the notion of mind as a wider property more thought. I recall some story about an early telephone network that seemed to develop a mind of its own, but surely we can't be talking about anything more than Conway's Game of Life when all is said and done?

As I've said, though, ultimately atheism fails to account for a beginning state where the class can solve the magnitude problem without getting into a class problem.

[QED]

I don't buy into supernaturalism, but I don't buy into the "vagaries of human perception" bit either.

I'm going to call you on this one then. You know the Tartot card deck? People use it to give fortune-telling style 'readings'. The cards are drawn at random (usually!) and the legends are interpreted as describing past or future events in the subjects life. A skillful reader can indeed produce compelling information, but the scope of each legend is so wide that it offers the reader ample opportunity to tease some degree of reality from it during a dialogue with the subject. At its most basic level, selection goes on through positive feedback and negative feedback suppresses counter-factual information. But it works at many other levels as well because of our own inherent pattern-matching abilities. We've discussed this before, the signal processing shortcuts that result in us seeing faces in almost anything. The generalised predictions are likewise memorised and readily matched because they have no absolute scale attached to them: e.g. you will receive a gift in the near future.

I have to mention here that the bible is a fantastic source of this sort of 'noise'. Many of the passages are essentially random and provide a wide pool of material that can be readily interpreted into whatever point is being made. Thus we frequently see biblical quotes being traded to support this or that argument.

I think we can account for most paranormal stuff by appealing to the arguments of skeptics, but that doesn't mean those arguments are correct either.

Like our signal processing short-cuts, we only see what we expect to see (ever been startled when you suddenly notice something substantial in a room that you've been in for a while? Like a gorilla ). Thousands of unfortunate motorcyclists get cut-down at intersections because car drivers only expect to see other cars! Likewise people with a spiritual disposition have a tendency to mistakenly interpret certain events in those terms "because they were expecting them". My pet example is of the "Old hag syndrome".

I leave it as an open issue. You do realize there's nothing wrong with leaving something as "unknown" and an open case?

Give us a break, neither of us are buddhists, but in my previous post I said "I'm not sure of the merit of such arguments so I'll pass". This oupht to give you some comfort.

As I've said, though, ultimately atheism fails to account for a beginning state where the class can solve the magnitude problem without getting into a class problem.

Ever smaller magnitudes require ever smaller classes. It fits the pattern. Whether this spans an eternity or not is potentially unknowable. What it does do (as usual) is pinch your concept of god into a vanishingly small arena, which I know is a subjective viewpoint, but relative to the average theologians concept of god I think any Atheist could reasonably claim the title by default without adding any further argument.

[harvey1]

I'm going to call you on this one then...

There's nothing to call me on since I agree with you. My only point is that I don't think skeptical arguments satisfy the plethora of incidents that have occurred.

I have to mention here that the bible is a fantastic source of this sort of 'noise'. Many of the passages are essentially random and provide a wide pool of material that can be readily interpreted into whatever point is being made. Thus we frequently see biblical quotes being traded to support this or that argument.

To an outsider it might seem that way, however to someone very familiar with the scriptures, there are esoteric interpretations that simply contradict scriptures blatently. Of course there's "noise" that is subject to a great deal of interpretation, however that's true even of science (e.g., quantum mechanics which you are so fond of pointing out).

Ever smaller magnitudes require ever smaller classes. It fits the pattern. Whether this spans an eternity or not is potentially unknowable. What it does do (as usual) is pinch your concept of god into a vanishingly small arena, which I know is a subjective viewpoint, but relative to the average theologians concept of god I think any Atheist could reasonably claim the title by default without adding any further argument.

Spanning an eternity doesn't solve the problem. You still have to deal with the issue of why does reality conform to one which has classes continually evolving into other classes. That is, this is no trivial algorithm to generate on a computer (i.e., a genetic algorithm that keeps updating itself and could do so into the infinite past). Why was the universe so lucky as to get that particular (complex) algorithm-like function as the base of reality and not some other much simpler algorithm-like function which humans could easily program using a few lines of code?

For example, why wasn't the beginning state like this:

100) There is indivisible "stuff"
200) Indivisible stuff flutters slightly
300) Indivisible stuff flutters back into original position
400) Go to 200

Now, that kind of early function to the beginning state seems far more likely than an algorithm-like function that eventually makes universes and stuff. Why can't that be the universe that we originally had? Of course, it's can't be since we are here, but that doesn't matter. Whatever configuration for the beginning state that you use to justify your atheism, you need to show how that configuration should be considered very likely since you only have one time for it to be right on the money, or else none of this exists. To consider an algorithm-like function requiring thousands or hundreds of thousands of code over this simple algorithm seems absurd to me. Why wouldn't a rational mind such as yourself give up your atheism given the unlikely nature of this expectation? This is why I always return to the emotional payoff that atheism must offer since I cannot visualize a rational person going along with this kind of reasoning. It doesn't make sense. Theism, however, makes perfect sense since the algorithm is very straightforward:

100) The world requires causality
200) Causality requires all mathematical truths
300) Nothing in the phenomenal world exists
400) This nothing state does not jive with all mathematical truths
500) Everything that phenomenally agrees with mathematical truths has existence
600) All mathematical truths require the nature of this phenomenal existence to show a evolutionary process which shows a transformation from simplicity to complexity

Now, this algorighm explains why it is that we live in the world that we do, and it doesn't leave anything to chance. The very nature of living in a causal world is what drives our existence and perfectly explains why it is that there is something rather than nothing.

but relative to the average theologians concept of god I think any Atheist could reasonably claim the title by default without adding any further argument.

Well, as you see from the beginning state algorithm that I produced, there is a need for a God (i.e., all mathematical truth) since it is the basis by which anything that exists can exist. We can discuss this nature in more detail, but it's the obvious answer to the universe so why bother discussing atheism any more? It's obviously wrong it's just that it offers emotional attachment to the people who believe it, so in that sense we have to continue to discuss it eon after laborious eon.

[QED]

Spanning an eternity doesn't solve the problem.

<fast forward to the theological algorithm>

100) The world requires causality

I don't see causality as being a big an issue as you make it out to be anyway. At or below Planck time the sequence of cause and effect is broken given rise to some interesting possibilities. But I'm going to try my best to avoid getting back into QM and QC because you tease me so over it. I think the position should also be arguable at a higher level.

Now, this algorighm explains why it is that we live in the world that we do, and it doesn't leave anything to chance. The very nature of living in a causal world is what drives our existence and perfectly explains why it is that there is something rather than nothing.

Your emotional disposition towards chance is one area which leaves me cold. Just focussing on the planet we live on, you would have me believe that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was lined-up for a strike at just the right moment to give mammals a boost. Not just this event, but countless other extinctions and continental separations that led to speciation along with a myriad of other small scale ecological contingencies. Your argument has to exclude all randomness from these events otherwise we know we get very different outcomes.

Credibility just does not stretch this far. I know that you counter this by proposing that god is the mathematical laws that we use to describe the universe but then you have to explain where the intent comes from. If we shift the debate to intent, then we arrive at Adams puddle that had its hole made to measure.

Well, as you see from the beginning state algorithm that I produced, there is a need for a God (i.e., all mathematical truth) since it is the basis by which anything that exists can exist. We can discuss this nature in more detail, but it's the obvious answer to the universe so why bother discussing atheism any more? It's obviously wrong it's just that it offers emotional attachment to the people who believe it, so in that sense we have to continue to discuss it eon after laborious eon.

All mathematical truth is how you choose to define god. OK, so how did all this mathematics get together in the last few thousand years and start shaking things up? I can't see you going along with with the OT, but there are no shortages of heavenly apparitions in the rest of the scriptures. We had to be told about the afterlife, so mathematics found a voice that could speak Hebrew on at least one occasion. If my position is so preposterous you will have no difficulty explaining how all this came about.

BTW I appreciate your lines of psuedo-code

[harvey1]

I don't see causality as being a big an issue as you make it out to be anyway. At or below Planck time the sequence of cause and effect is broken given rise to some interesting possibilities. But I'm going to try my best to avoid getting back into QM and QC because you tease me so over it. I think the position should also be arguable at a higher level.

By causality I don't mean temporal causality, I mean any kind of causality, including probabilistic causality. So, for example, QM must have probabilistic causality since there are quantum states that follow probabilistically following a previous state.

Your emotional disposition towards chance is one area which leaves me cold. Just focussing on the planet we live on, you would have me believe that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was lined-up for a strike at just the right moment to give mammals a boost. Not just this event, but countless other extinctions and continental separations that led to speciation along with a myriad of other small scale ecological contingencies. Your argument has to exclude all randomness from these events otherwise we know we get very different outcomes.

It doesn't have to. The mathematical structure of percolation, second-order phase transitions, renormalization groups, etc., is all the same (or similar) math. Spontaneous symmetry breaking does affect the kind of structures that come into existence, however coarse graining and self-similarity might blur out those differences over time. In other words, over billions of years it may not matter if an asteroid hits the earth 60 million years ago, or if it is the mammals the evolve, etc.. It may be a matter of time before those issues naturally resolve themselves in terms of complex systems moving forward to whatever the mathematical structures require for there to exist. So, to take Gould's statement that if time were rewound and life were allowed to evolve anew, there would be vast differences in the evolutionary timeline, however the same trends would exist and eventually life would still mostly evolve in the cosmos, and life would still mostly become intelligent, and intelligence would still mostly travel into the cosmos, etc.. In other words, God is like the farmer in Jesus' parable where the farmer spreads the seed on many types of ground, and God harvests the wheat and burns the chaff.

Now, none of this is to suggest that God doesn't care about every unfortunate event that occurs in the world. Rather, by faith we are healed, and that means that we have to be involved in bringing about a phase transition that is beneficial to us. That means a great deal of prayer and a great deal of effort on our part to bring peace to the world. It is not God just doing everything. Randomness is all around us, and in order for emergent structures to come about that benefit us, we must work hard toward those goals.

All mathematical truth is how you choose to define god. OK, so how did all this mathematics get together in the last few thousand years and start shaking things up? I can't see you going along with with the OT, but there are no shortages of heavenly apparitions in the rest of the scriptures. We had to be told about the afterlife, so mathematics found a voice that could speak Hebrew on at least one occasion. If my position is so preposterous you will have no difficulty explaining how all this came about.

Well, I see religion as part of our natural development with the exception that humans that seek God's understanding are able to bring about phase transitions of understanding. It's all natural--every tidbit is natural. However, by seeking God earnestly, we gradually move our understanding to a critical point, at which point our understanding takes on new levels of spiritual understanding. This is what the religious scriptures in the world are. They are successes that humans have made in their reaching out to know God. There's a lot of knowledge that isn't given, and the whole process is rough approximations at best. We can improve on our understanding, but at the same time we cannot dismiss the understanding that has come about by passing through some critical points.

[QED]

And you scoffed when I suggested that we are the eyes and ears of the universe -- and that we owe it to the universe that brought us about to help accelerate the degree of order within it. This is what we instinctively do when we develop art and technology and is the reason that we must avoid conflict which works against this goal. In order to do this we must rid ourselves of divisiveness and seek knowledge directly from nature, the interpretation of which forms the consensus that is science.

Seeing as I have donned my Atheist Philosophers hat I will also get a few other issues off my chest. I think that if we stick to our own parochial doctrines out of a blind faith in the superstitions of the past we can never hope to arrive at a consensus before we destroy ourselves because the tendency has always been towards polarization. This is evident in the babel of different bibles scattered amongst men of different faiths. This is brewing big trouble for us right now and if you were living near the same continent as I am you might not be quite so charitable towards mainstream theism.

Also I note that without an acceptance of the important evolutionary principles that got us this far, we are blind to the instincts that motivate us and are doomed to be governed by them forever more. Granted, they served us well up until the point where we developed our higher thought processes, but if the roots of our instincts are misunderstood in arbitrary concepts like sin then we will make precious little progress. To solve a problem requires first that you understand the true nature of the problem. This sort of understanding is shunned by those instructed to view man as a special product of a divine creator.

Apart from your implicit acceptance of an afterlife (giving us just enough time to take flying lessons before we move on to the next world) I don't see too much in danger in your particular brand of theism per se, but it seems very uncommon and is not therefore particularly representative of the mainstream theism that I have a problem with.

[AlAyeti]

Also I note that without an acceptance of the important evolutionary principles that got us this far, we are blind to the instincts that motivate us and are doomed to be governed by them forever more

To solve a problem requires first that you understand the true nature of the problem. This sort of understanding is shunned by those instructed to view man as a special product of a divine creator.

/ / /

What important evolutionary principles?

There is only one. Reproduce and hopefully mutate somehow into something better.

Morality only came about when physically weak men knew the only law of evolution painted them as ultimate losers. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" on evolution, but big muscles and a large amount of testosterone wins the debate and reproducing less weak men.

That's not exactly comforting to a man with a daughter.

To solve a problem FIRST you must have one. Or, using critical thinking, know you have one.

Evolutinary process is 100% blind chance bumping into endless walls of inumerable improbabilty.

There is no point in wasting time conversing about it.

Let the wrestling settle the issue.

[bernee51]

What important evolutionary principles?

There is only one. Reproduce and hopefully mutate somehow into something better.

The absolute misunderstanding of evolutionary process in above comment can only be deduced as an inflammatory disregard by one who has done any real reading on the topic or indicative of someone who has done absolutely nothing to make themselves aware of evolutionary process. I would hope the latter but would not be surprised if it was the former.

Evolution is a process of inclusion and transcedence. The 'evolved' includes the earlier but transcends it in complexity or function. Evolution is not limited to the physical and does not stop.

For example the development of spirituality in homo sapiens has been and continues to an evolutionary process. It started out as magical-animistic beliefs in spirits, good and bad which left blessings or curses which determined events. This is an era of good luck charms, magical ethnic beliefs and superstitions. From that comes the 'power gods' with the emergence of a the powerful, impulsive and heroic. There is a profusion of archtypal gods/godesses and powerful beings. Real forces to be reckoned with. Then follows the mythic. Life has meaning, direction and purpose with outcomes determines by an all-powerful Other. This righteous other enforces a code of conduct based on absolutist abd unvaring princioles of 'right" and "wrong". Violation of the code has severe, perhpas everlasting, repercussions. OTOH, following the code yeilds rewards for the faithful.

You will note that each level is complete within itself and each subsequent level includes the former but transcends. Look within all major spiritual traditions and you will find elements of the earlier systems.

The mythic belief system you hold so dearly is a link in this ongoing process. It has evolved by the same mechanism that drives all evolution. And like all evolution it is a process without end. There is no pinnacle in evolution.

Our cultures evolve, or consciousnesses evolve. To see evolution as something restricted to the geosphere/biosphere is to see the only some of the picture and make a decision about the entire masterpiece.

Morality only came about when physically weak men knew the only law of evolution painted them as ultimate losers. "

Morality came about when our ancestors realised there is more to gain from altruism than the opposite. The realization of the 'golden rule' is what has driven our spiritual (and moral and ethical) evolution.

Evolutionary process is 100% blind chance bumping into endless walls of inumerable improbabilty.

Another attempt at a pithy one liner that displays what I can only assume is a willful lack of understanding.

There is no point in wasting time conversing about it.

Especially with those that choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

[QED]

Bernee51, if you can understand AlAyetis incomprehensible post do you think you could explain it to me? I've already had a couple of aborted attempts at replying to it, but ultimately failed to grasp any of the details

My best guess is it was something along the lines of

(E) Evolution = blind chance with chaotic outcomes = Bad
(G) God = purposefulness with ordered outcomes = Good

I think that harvey1 is arguing that Evolution is God, and that the outcomes are purposeful because nothing is left to chance. I wonder what AlAyeti makes of that?