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]

There might be a cellular automata program executable with a few million lines of code that brings forth the kind of complexity that solves all the magnitude problems needed to spur inflation, big bangs, etc.. But, that doesn't answer the class problem where I presented a four-line program that solves none of that. My question to you is why was this million plus cellular automata program more likely as a one-time phenomena than a four line automata that does nothing interesting?

Your pseudo-code only has value as a metaphor for processes (unknown) it does not allow us to infer complexity or likelihood or to make meaningful comparisons with the hypothetical pseudo-code that you're forcing on the Atheistic acausal origin. I cannot provide details of any specific algorithm to produce a class capable of solving the simplest magnitude problem from which a more sophisticated class can emerge -- however this is precisely how the world that we can see operates (at every conceivable level - this is the key) therefore it is nothing short of fanciful to postulate the intervention of a cumbersome deity when we already understand how gearing works.

And you cannot be allowed to side-step the issues about prayer, worship and the afterlife etc. simply because they are inconvenient for your current argument. These are all key features of any god arising as they do from the omnimax condition. If you want to define god as something which does not entail these properties then you might as well define god to be the sun and ridicule all Atheists for believing that no sun exists.

[harvey1]

Your pseudo-code only has value as a metaphor for processes (unknown) it does not allow us to infer complexity or likelihood or to make meaningful comparisons with the hypothetical pseudo-code that you're forcing on the Atheistic acausal origin. I cannot provide details of any specific algorithm to produce a class capable of solving the simplest magnitude problem from which a more sophisticated class can emerge -- however this is precisely how the world that we can see operates (at every conceivable level - this is the key) therefore it is nothing short of fanciful to postulate the intervention of a cumbersome deity when we already understand how gearing works.

I disagree, QED. The world operates on a vast array of mathematical principles, and the more we pursue the origins of the universe closer to the beginning, we need more and more math--not less. We find that the world much better fits a description that is based on complex math.

Also, you're exaggerating a great deal by suggesting that a simple algorithm can give rise to anything close to an inflationary world. If it were that simple, then the equations needed to produce that world would be very easy to spot. Besides, you still haven't answered my fundamental question. If there is such a exploding algorithm as you suggest, does this mean that it is likely given all the non-exploding algorithms that couldn't come close to solving this class problem? Why is it that the world ended up with a very unlikely solution?

And you cannot be allowed to side-step the issues about prayer, worship and the afterlife etc. simply because they are inconvenient for your current argument. These are all key features of any god arising as they do from the omnimax condition. If you want to define god as something which does not entail these properties then you might as well define god to be the sun and ridicule all Atheists for believing that no sun exists.

It's not a key issue since the question is about pantheism versus atheism. If pantheism is very reasonable then atheists should at least be agnostic. That issue has nothing to do with what kind of God exists. I'm puzzled why you conflate these two issues...

[QED]

The world operates on a vast array of mathematical principles, and the more we pursue the origins of the universe closer to the beginning, we need more and more math--not less. We find that the world much better fits a description that is based on complex math.

I see no reason for the math to become more complex in the beginning. Anyway, you're still not considering this in the context of my argument: whatever degree of mathematical complexity is required by our own inflationary universe, it could have evolved from a simpler non-inflationary universe in the time-honoured tradition.

Also, you're exaggerating a great deal by suggesting that a simple algorithm can give rise to anything close to an inflationary world. If it were that simple, then the equations needed to produce that world would be very easy to spot. Besides, you still haven't answered my fundamental question. If there is such a exploding algorithm as you suggest, does this mean that it is likely given all the non-exploding algorithms that couldn't come close to solving this class problem? Why is it that the world ended up with a very unlikely solution?

Easy to spot, like E=mc2 for example? Unlikely solutions, as you well know, are typical product of evolution (climbing mount improbable).

And you cannot be allowed to side-step the issues about prayer, worship and the afterlife etc. simply because they are inconvenient for your current argument. These are all key features of any god arising as they do from the omnimax condition. If you want to define god as something which does not entail these properties then you might as well define god to be the sun and ridicule all Atheists for believing that no sun exists.

It's not a key issue since the question is about pantheism versus atheism. If pantheism is very reasonable then atheists should at least be agnostic. That issue has nothing to do with what kind of God exists. I'm puzzled why you conflate these two issues...

No matter how distasteful it is to you, the issue here is not about what kind of god exists but that no god exists.

Are you a Pantheist?

The term pantheism (not to be confused with panentheism, which holds that everything, including the universe, is contained within the supreme being of God) was coined in 1705 by Irish writer John Toland. But the underlying doctrine dates back to the ancient Greeks—most notably the sixth-century philosopher Heraclitus, who denied the existence of God, believing instead in a living cosmos where everything in the universe—you, me, the trees, the stars, the sun—is connected in a profound unity.

Here we have mention of a Greek philosopher who denies the existence of god. Not what kind of god he is. Pantheism is a misleading label to attach to anything in my opinion. If there is any conflation here it is between pantheism and panentheism.

[harvey1]

whatever degree of mathematical complexity is required by our own inflationary universe, it could have evolved from a simpler non-inflationary universe in the time-honoured tradition.

I fully agree with you. But, that doesn't answer my question. There are zillions and zillions of simple algorithms that don't allow a universe to evolve from a non-inflationary universe ("in the time-honored tradition") to one that inflates. What I want to know is why was the universe so lucky as to arrive at the one algorithm that explodes to the level of allowing an inflationary universe? This question is especially important given that this is the very algorithm that alludes the brightest minds of our generation.

Or, to put it another way. You have a one-time occurrence. Let's say one side of the coin is this algorithm, the other side is you don't get anything unusual happening. You flip that coin and you have a 50/50 chance of having our universe. Now, if there are zillions and zillions of sides to this coin, why did the universe happen to win the coin toss? I think anything beyond a 1/10 chance is extremely lucky, don't you? I mean, if we were given a 1/10 chance to live, wouldn't you consider us extremely lucky if the odds came up in our favor?

Easy to spot, like E=mc2 for example? Unlikely solutions, as you well know, are typical product of evolution (climbing mount improbable).

So, you're answer is that you have faith despite this extreme mount improbable. That's your answer, faith? I'm impressed that you have that kind of faith, maybe you'd make a good fundamentalist someday, but what I want to know is your reasons for that faith. I'm a skeptic of atheism, I want to know why I should have the same faith. What evidence can you give me that the universe is likely to come up with a solution to this class problem in a one-time event? It seems extremely unlikely to me to the point of holding an absurd belief (no offense intended).

Pantheism is a misleading label to attach to anything in my opinion. If there is any conflation here it is between pantheism and panentheism.

Why is it misleading? It seems like a perfectly straightforward belief system.

[QED]

whatever degree of mathematical complexity is required by our own inflationary universe, it could have evolved from a simpler non-inflationary universe in the time-honoured tradition.

I fully agree with you. But, that doesn't answer my question. There are zillions and zillions of simple algorithms that don't allow a universe to evolve from a non-inflationary universe ("in the time-honored tradition") to one that inflates. What I want to know is why was the universe so lucky as to arrive at the one algorithm that explodes to the level of allowing an inflationary universe? This question is especially important given that this is the very algorithm that alludes the brightest minds of our generation.

I have already answered this question, but let me try to re-formulate it as a very approximate mental image: Somewhere, somewhen, something was trembling in a shiver of quantum uncertainty and occasionally belched out a bit of dimensionality. This establishes a set of laws through the action of which further tremblings occur within that dimension. Such a scenario need not be restricted to anything like a one-off event, it can have any number of shivers as can the evolved products. Many fail and are forgotten, but a few bear fruit and we and our universe are descended from those like them.

Even the "dullest of minds" of our generation are able to produce cellular automata that can belch out the celebrated "gliders" in most trivial of evolutionary simulations. Your expectations of our "brightest of minds" are far too high though. But we do have a grasp of the principles of evolution. I spend a good deal of my time here trying to convince those who's reading of the bible forbids any acceptance of the principles of evolution. It seems ironic to me that you embrace them wholeheartedly except when it comes to applying them at the cosmic scale. The strength of my conviction is based on the powers of explanation afforded by this universal mechanism.

Or, to put it another way. You have a one-time occurrence. Let's say one side of the coin is this algorithm, the other side is you don't get anything unusual happening. You flip that coin and you have a 50/50 chance of having our universe. Now, if there are zillions and zillions of sides to this coin, why did the universe happen to win the coin toss? I think anything beyond a 1/10 chance is extremely lucky, don't you? I mean, if you were given a 1/10 chance to live, wouldn't you consider yourself extremely lucky if the odds came up in your favor?

And I tell you that it is not a one-time occurrence. Also, if we were to calculate the odds for harvey1's existence I'm afraid we'd have to conclude that you can't exist. You seem to be ignoring the additive effect of evolution - the steady accumulation of beneficial mutations, yet this is how we climb mount improbable.

Easy to spot, like E=mc2 for example? Unlikely solutions, as you well know, are typical product of evolution (climbing mount improbable).

So, you're answer is that you have faith despite this extreme mount improbable. That's your answer, faith? I'm impressed that you have that kind of faith, maybe you'd make a good fundamentalist someday, but what I want to know is your reasons for that faith. I'm a skeptic of atheism, I want to know why I should have the same faith. What evidence can you give me that the universe is likely to come up with a solution to this class problem in a one-time event? It seems extremely unlikely to me to the point of holding an absurd belief (no offense intended).

I have said from where I get the strength of my conviction. I know of no simpler, more overwhelmingly powerful principle other than that of evolution. You know exactly what I am talking about. We are here because our existence is a consequence of this principle. It is futile to point to probabilities ~ you are vanishingly improbable yet you can still type at me.

Adams's puddle of water couldn't get over how well it's hole fitted it. It simply had to be made for it. I would describe it as a theistic puddle.

Pantheism is a misleading label to attach to anything in my opinion. If there is any conflation here it is between pantheism and panentheism.

Why is it misleading? It seems like a perfectly straightforward belief system.

Did I say that Pantheism was misleading? No read it again and you'll see that I said it was a misleading label to apply to someone. The word has "theism" in it which means something in particular. Without an "A" before it "theism" becomes something that most people construe to mean a belief in god(s). I believe that these creatures are not credible in a world that follows the rules that we have uncovered. Thanks to our knowledge about nucleosynthesis in stellar formation we can be sure that the most complex thing in the universe didn't arrive for many billions of years after the first galaxies formed. Some people don't even realise that an ant is arguably more complex than a star, so can be forgiven not being able to see the steady gearing-up that takes place in cosmic evolution. But the whole deal is a one-way march from simplicity to complexity and such a clear pattern will take more than you have thrown at it to break it for me.

[harvey1]

Hello again!

Somewhere, somewhen, something was trembling in a shiver of quantum uncertainty and occasionally belched out a bit of dimensionality.

Okay, we're making some progress. Does this mean that you are committed to quantum laws as being the beginning firmware to the universe? Would you be willing to commit to that?

Many fail and are forgotten, but a few bear fruit and we and our universe are descended from those like them.

Sure, you're talking about the magnitude problem. Let's try to avoid talking about that problem since we both agree that this is not a problem if the class problem is solvable. So, let's try and solve the class problem.

Even the "dullest of minds" of our generation are able to produce cellular automata that can belch out the celebrated "gliders" in most trivial of evolutionary simulations.

That's great, we're making more progress. Here's the source code for the Game of Life. It's only a few hundred lines in length altogether. Of course, it can't possibly generate an inflationary universe if given infinite amount of time, right? But, we agree that at least if that algorithm was "running" at the beginning of time there would be floating things and such propagating through some kind of spacetime.

Now, here's my question, why do we happen to live in a universe where even an algorithm of a few hundred instructions is nowhere near the complexity needed to produce an inflationary universe? Assuming that there's at least 2^50 algorithms working algorithms of the same length as this game of life algorithm, why would you possibly think that the beginning state of the universe would happen to fall on the right class state to produce an inflationary universe?

But we do have a grasp of the principles of evolution. I spend a good deal of my time here trying to convince those who's reading of the bible forbids any acceptance of the principles of evolution.

Of course. And we aren't arguing about the principles of natural selection where the natural world already exists. We are arguing about a situation where we need to say how a world of inflationary universes can be considered likely given all the possibilities where such universes do not occur (e.g., all known cellular automata algorithms).

It seems ironic to me that you embrace them wholeheartedly except when it comes to applying them at the cosmic scale.

I guess I haven't communicated my position very well. I do accept the evolutionary principles for the beginning state, but I see it as stemming from a logico-mathematical world, the same world that I believe makes evolutionary processes tick and move toward attractor basins, scaling, and universality.

The strength of my conviction is based on the powers of explanation afforded by this universal mechanism.

I see. But, I'm not convinced though that you have properly interpreted the effect of the natural laws in bringing about worlds. You see, I think my interpretation of the natural laws is superior. Therefore, I look for areas where I think your interpretation predicts a different outcome, and that is the beginning state. It just so happens to be the point where you rely on your interpretation which only begs the question. How do you know your interpretation is correct unless you can give evidence to show that the class problem is easily solvable?

And I tell you that it is not a one-time occurrence. Also, if we were to calculate the odds for harvey1's existence I'm afraid we'd have to conclude that you can't exist. You seem to be ignoring the additive effect of evolution - the steady accumulation of beneficial mutations, yet this is how we climb mount improbable.

Okay, let's not take a step backward here. Of course, all this time I have allowed the magnitude problem to be solvable if the class problem is solved. What I want to know is how do you solve the class problem if you don't cannot refer to use a magnitude scale to solve it! If the universe at some time ago, either an infinite time ago or some finite time ago, has a process that solves all magnitude problems, then why is it that this class is the one-time solution for that magnitude problem?

I have said from where I get the strength of my conviction. I know of no simpler, more overwhelmingly powerful principle other than that of evolution.

Uh-huh. But, evolution is possible because of natural law. What I want to know is why did the particular class exist as a one-time event which allowed inflation (natural law) to occur which made evolution possible.

You know exactly what I am talking about. We are here because our existence is a consequence of this principle. It is futile to point to probabilities ~ you are vanishingly improbable yet you can still type at me.

Yes, yes, of course. That's a reference to the magnitude problem. Let's not discuss that problem because I already agree with you. We are talking about a class problem. Do you want me to re-explain the definition of both?

The word has "theism" in it which means something in particular. Without an "A" before it "theism" becomes something that most people construe to mean a belief in god(s). I believe that these creatures are not credible in a world that follows the rules that we have uncovered. Thanks to our knowledge about nucleosynthesis in stellar formation we can be sure that the most complex thing in the universe didn't arrive for many billions of years after the first galaxies formed. Some people don't even realise that an ant is arguably more complex than a star, so can be forgiven not being able to see the steady gearing-up that takes place in cosmic evolution. But the whole deal is a one-way march from simplicity to complexity and such a clear pattern will take more than you have thrown at it to break it for me.

I'm not sure why pantheism decided to say that "all-inclusive unity" is a belief in God. However, I agree with this usage since what people mean by God is a metaphysical order to the world that brings about complex structures even when this is not apparent to those living at the time. Of course pantheists don't believe in any personal theism, but the same is true of deists, process theologies, and many kinds of panentheists as well. The term "God" is very generic, which is perhaps why the Hebrews made a new designation of "Lord" to show that they thought they could have a more personal relationship with a God. Certainly, all the theisms are vastly different from atheism which says that there is no kind of "all-inclusive unity" in the universe other than a trivial "formal unity" which is just the thing itself being unified with the thing itself (trivial).

[QED]

This has thread has turned into quite a marathon! I think that everyone who has contributed to it deserves thanks for keeping it nicely on-topic and putting a considerable amount of time and effort into it.

Okay, we're making some progress. Does this mean that you are committed to quantum laws as being the beginning firmware to the universe? Would you be willing to commit to that?

Well here's the rub: Quantum laws fail to provide us with a completely unified model, so they probably describe apples but not oranges.

That's great, we're making more progress. Here's the source code for the Game of Life. It's only a few hundred lines in length altogether. Of course, it can't possibly generate an inflationary universe if given infinite amount of time, right? But, we agree that at least if that algorithm was "running" at the beginning of time there would be floating things and such propagating through some kind of spacetime.

More apples and oranges I'm afraid. There lies a vast chasm between the realities of the physical world and psuedo-code. Lego bricks can be used to model buildings but we have as yet to come up with anything that adequately models spacetime in a constructor-set fashion. Without such tools we haven't got a handle on the degree of gearing that nature might get from her most fundamental building blocks. I for one can't get my head around what the three large spatial dimensions really are: what makes left/right different from up/down and back/forth? Yet we can easily write down algebraic equivalences. The real answer is probably very simple - because dimensionality is so pervasive and robust.

Now, here's my question, why do we happen to live in a universe where even an algorithm of a few hundred instructions is nowhere near the complexity needed to produce an inflationary universe? Assuming that there's at least 2^50 algorithms working algorithms of the same length as this game of life algorithm, why would you possibly think that the beginning state of the universe would happen to fall on the right class state to produce an inflationary universe?

I am trying to get over to you the fact that we cannot have any expectation of such probabilities while we lack a complete understanding of the fundamental building blocks. What we can do is infer from general observations that such apparent improbabilities are routinely scaled through evolutionary principles.

I'm not convinced though that you have properly interpreted the effect of the natural laws in bringing about worlds. You see, I think my interpretation of the natural laws is superior. Therefore, I look for areas where I think your interpretation predicts a different outcome, and that is the beginning state.

Your superior interpretation is one that takes a popular off-the-shelf component and places it at the start of everything. The whole thrust of my argument is that this forces a glaring discontinuity upon the cosmos. If someone would point to a single instance of any other discontinuity in the nexus of evolution I would be forced review my position.

Without descending into the detail, this serves as a powerful theme through which it is possible to predict all that we do indeed see about us. There are many pitfalls out there to trap the unwary. You seem able to see why the puddle is wrong to think it's hole must have been made to fit it perfectly. But on another level you're still arguing that the ground woke up one morning and decided to form accommodation for a puddle of a particular size and shape. Both ways of looking at it are consistent with the outcome. However, you will have to forgive me for thinking that there was no intent in the process. This is what it means to call myself an Atheist and it remains an important distinction for me to make.

I'm still working my way through attractor basins thanks

[harvey1]

Well here's the rub: Quantum laws fail to provide us with a completely unified model, so they probably describe apples but not oranges.

I was hoping you were willing to commit to some kind of algorithm as being needed to get the class problem solvable for atheism. Had you committed, then I would have been quick to point out the sophisticated structure of quantum theory (far more complex than any algorithm that Microsoft has ever programmed in their history). Of course it would not be reasonable to expect such an algorithm to happen to be the one that randomly was the case for the beginning state.

More apples and oranges I'm afraid. There lies a vast chasm between the realities of the physical world and psuedo-code. Lego bricks can be used to model buildings but we have as yet to come up with anything that adequately models spacetime in a constructor-set fashion. Without such tools we haven't got a handle on the degree of gearing that nature might get from her most fundamental building blocks.

Okay. This is an interesting objection. Notice though, it relies on our ignorance of the class problem, so immediately we must be on guard since it sure seems as though an atheist strategy will not work to solve a class problem. However, there is a deeper problem with this approach. Regardless of how different the physical world is from our pseudo-code, the physical world still provides us with an algorithmic behavior. Afterall, that's what the laws of physics are--algorithmic behavior of the universe. It's true that the algorithm that we try to decode might be vastly more complicated than is needed to describe the universe, however this still doesn't adequately solve the class problem. Remember, we are talking about a one-time event. The class problem if not solved the first time cannot come back and fight another day. That's why the class problem is so overwhelming for the atheist, and the reason why there should be no atheists in the world. Atheism is just a big misunderstanding that people such as myself are more than happy to point out to assist those who just haven't given much thought to these issues (or, if they have, they have glossed over the significance of the class problem).

As a one-time problem to be solved, we can easily imagine much simpler physical realities. You mention space, for example. Why couldn't the beginning class just been a two-dimensional space with a glider of indivisible stuff doing nothing interesting but floating in that 2D space? It sure strikes me as a reasonable possibility. I want to know why you so readily discount that as a reasonable possibility. Why? You see if you count that possibility as reasonable, then you should consider ourselves lucky that we didn't get that universe to begin with. Similarly, we should add the same possibility for 3D, 4D, 5D, .... nD spaces. All of those are apparently equally possible to start things off. You seem to think it has nothing to do with luck, but you have to give me a reason why I should not think ourselves lucky that we can discount millions of other glider nD spaces as equally possible to the universe that we happen to live. The more of the nD spaces we add, the less and less likely our universe appears to be. Again, let me emphasize (since I seem not to be able to emphasize enough), I am not talking of the magnitude problem. If we ended up with a 2D glider universe, certainly there can be no inflation in the future, so the magnitude problem could never be solved.

The real answer is probably very simple - because dimensionality is so pervasive and robust.

Sure. That's why you have to consider the real possibility that the universe could have started as an empty space of nD dimensions. Just to make those dimensions more interesting, I'll allow you to have gliders that do nothing interesting in those spacetimes.

I am trying to get over to you the fact that we cannot have any expectation of such probabilities while we lack a complete understanding of the fundamental building blocks. What we can do is infer from general observations that such apparent improbabilities are routinely scaled through evolutionary principles.

The fundamental blocks is the class state that I'm talking about! I want to know why you believe that the fundamental blocks had to be the special set of blocks that could solve the class problem! Why?

Your superior interpretation is one that takes a popular off-the-shelf component and places it at the start of everything. The whole thrust of my argument is that this forces a glaring discontinuity upon the cosmos. If someone would point to a single instance of any other discontinuity in the nexus of evolution I would be forced review my position.

This is not correct QED. I take only one thing as primitive, and that is causality. I then ask myself one important question, what can we make of a primitive causal nexus. Do we have logic? If so are there logical theorems that are true? Do we have any kind of mathematical relations that follow from a causal field? If so, are there mathematical theorems that are true? What is true in that context? How can things be true if all we have is a primitive causal nexus?

I think what you do not like is the implications that this causality has on the world, and of course if there is intelligence residing at the beginning, it has a lot of implications for the natural world. The problem that you cite is that these implications are in contradiction to a natural world, but it is here you make a whole bunch of unwarranted assumptions.

Let me make a suggestion. Instead of ruling out things that are implied by causality and start thinking that our fundamental blocks were likely given all the possibilities, I suggest that you take some moments and ponder that maybe you are wrong about your assumptions. Don't rule out that which you have a natural prejudice to rule out. That's all that I ask.

[QED]

I have been trying to give you my solution to your class problem since you first brought it up. I have tried putting it every way I can think of but you still seem to act as if I have said nothing on the matter. The generalised observation that the complex world we see around us is the product of an evolution from a simpler world is the basic inspiration for the Atheistic solution. At any level we care to examine this at we note that there exists a class arising from some previous magnitude solution which gives rise to the next magnitude solution until we finally arrive at ourselves today. This is how it has been within this universe and the indications are that it is not restricted to this local environment. It is a general principle.

Sticking to this model, at certain levels we expect to find nurseries from which tentative outward growths emerge. Again these plateaux represent solutions to previous magnitude problems and from here new classes have ample opportunity to emerge. Notice that I haven't described any specific event in time or place. It simply represents a general principle which holds whenever or wherever we look. It is obviously not to your liking because you claim that it does not answer your question. I think it does.

It is essential from your perspective to see initial conditions presenting an insurmountable step for any system to get over without a leg-up from some mystical creature. This explains why you insist on placing arbitrarily high demands on the whole arena of initial conditions. You try to reinforce this view with constant references to our inability to write computer programs that can do this sort of thing. But this is wholly unjustified given that they are capable of producing "life" at a certain level. If the levers of nature were being pulled for real, real black holes might emerge and spawn whole new quasi-stable universes as a result.

What you need to show me is a reason for this step and a reason why a magical creature gives us a hand to get over it. To my way of looking at it you have simply invented one to necessitate the other.

[harvey1]

I have been trying to give you my solution to your class problem since you first brought it up. I have tried putting it every way I can think of but you still seem to act as if I have said nothing on the matter.

Not so fast QED. You haven't answered my questions. Had you answered my questions then I would know why you think it likely that we had a beginning class that was able to explode in a manner to solve all magnitude problems. If you have provided that answer, please tell me what it is. I really want to know. For example, can we rule out a universe that begins as a 2D spacetime with gliders floating around? How about 3D, 4D, 5D,..., nD? Wasn't this lucky that we didn't end up with that kind of universe since nothing interesting would ever emerge? Why don't you answer these questions?

It is essential from your perspective to see initial conditions presenting an insurmountable step for any system to get over without a leg-up from some mystical creature. This explains why you insist on placing arbitrarily high demands on the whole arena of initial conditions.

QED, you have to understand something, the reason why I reject atheism is because atheism cannot answer these kind of questions. I find the responses you are providing as grossly unsuitable because they simply assume that the class is a given and therefore atheism is correct. I don't see why you assume such a major assumption since it seems to me that it is quite impossible for the universe to have this kind of class. You have to show me how there aren't more than 5-10 other possibilities for that class, otherwise your explanation for the universe looks very suspicious. How do I know that the five-year old that you once were was just mistaken about their emerging atheist beliefs? Five-year olds can be mistaken, can they not?

Please answer my questions. Don't tell me how evolution can solve the magnitude problem. That's already a given if the class is such that new classes can emerge that explode to eventually solving the magnitude problem. I want to know reasons on why you think we had a certain class to explode like this. Are you saying that every conceivable class solves the magnitude problem? Why can we imagine classes that do not do any of those interesting things? Please tell me.

I understand you want to make me into this person who just believes any ole' thing, but you must answer these questions to convince a skeptic. Or, do you think skeptics should just take it on faith that atheism is correct?