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.

[Corvus]

QED, you have to understand something, from my perspective it is atheists who are engaged in wishful thinking. It is absolutely silly to believe that a beginning state class that can lead to inflation happened to be the one that started everything, especially if this class must happen in a one-time event. For the life of me I can't imagine why we are having that discussion. It should be a closed issue having no more discussion since it isn't realistic. That is exactly what wishful thinking is, interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true (i.e., that the beginning state can be of a very particular class to solve all magnitude problems). I can't understand why atheists would want something like this to be true, but that's their issues.

Harvey1, you have to be aware of how ridiculous this sounds. If you can't understand "why atheists would want something like this to be true", why even make the accusation that they are "interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true"?

However, ignoring the emotional reasons for wishful thinking, we have to look objectively at the situation, and it is just silly to think that the beginning state was of a class that was of that kind of sophistication. It is just like the fella who goes to Las Vegas with high hopes of delusion. It cannot happen. I understand you want to believe that, and that's fine. I respect your beliefs, but it still does not remove the reality. I'm sorry, there's a God. I'm sorry to all the atheists and however that makes them feel.

You are now claiming to look objectively at the situation but only reacting to it with incredulity. And then, how have you proven God exists by writing a few lines about how ridiculous you consider an atheistic orgin of the universe?

Back in the ancient days of Greece, there was a fellow who went by the name of Epicurus. He was a philosopher, and though he believed in gods, he devised a theory of ethical conduct where they were made entirely unnecessary. In a time when people were thoroughly worried about the gods, fearing that they took a keen interest in human affairs and could, out of spite, cause any number of nasty things to happen, Epicurus said that the gods were completely irrelevant to life. The Greek concept of gods is that they are perfect, and Epicurus pointed out that if they were perfect, they were in a state of bliss, and could not possibly be troubled in any way.

Then Epicurus asked the question that if the gods were completely unconcerned with things outside of their perfect eternal lives, how is it that the world is habitable? How do we exist at all?

Here is what D.S. Hutchinson has to say in the introduction to the Epicurean Reader:

If the gods do not exert themselves for our benefit, how is it that the world around us is suitable for our habitation? It happened by accident, said Epicurus, an answer that gave ancient critics ample opportunity for ridicule, and yet it makes him a thinker of a very modern sort, well ahead of his time. Epicurus believed that the universe is a material system governed by the laws of matter. The fundamental elements of matter are atoms, which move, collide, and form larger structures according to physical laws. These larger structures can sometimes develop into yet larger structures by the addition of more matter, and sometimes whole worlds will develop. These worlds are extremely numerous and variable; some will be unstable, but others will be stable. The stable ones will persist and give the appearance of being designed to be stable, like our world, and living structures will sometimes develop out of the elements of these worlds. This theory is no longer as unbelievable as it was to the non-Epicurean scientists and philosophers of the ancient world, and its broad outlines may well be true.

But enough about Epicurus. Personally, I think the God model is more absurd, because it expects us to believe that our spiritual wellbeing relies upon what we do when sent inside a material body in a material playground. These are things we do to other material bodies that it is asked of us to refrain from doing, even though we would presume that any such material problems or complications would cease once we exit the material world. We are also expected to believe that the locality of the spirit once freed from its material bonds depends on whether, during that time of material bondage, we believed in a spiritual creator. What does a material anything have to do with our souls, and why would God be bothered by it? And, as Epicurus states, why would God be bothered by anything?

In fact, if God was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal, there's no reason to believe God is anything other than a universal computer, and we are numbers on sitting in the middle of a column of a spreadsheet in a year's financial figures. All events are created by God, all of His actions were foreseen before they occurred, if there is a "before" in eternity, and everything is accounted for. If something wasn't accounted for, it would be. And if we exist at all, it's also necessary that we exist, otherwise, we wouldn't exist. There also appear to be a lot of seemingly unnecessary figures in the spreadsheet which also must be a necessity. We have 5 fingers, 206 bones, x hairs, and the universe contains x amount of stars, x amount of tons for the weight of the earth, x amount of atoms that seem to have nothing to do with salvation, spiritual wellbeing or anything resembling an intelligent plan, but I'm sure God knows what he's doing. Hey, that argument of incredulity thing works both ways!

[QED]

If you accept the important role of randomness do you also accept that mankind is a product of contingency and not the deliberate intent of a creator?

I don't think it is an either/or proposition.

You are about to explain how god steers contingency in order to end up with humanity. This is what I mean by deliberate intent...

God is the sower that sows the seed and allows it to sprout on its own with randomness being one of the factors. God is a gardener who, seeing fruit, clears out the weeds and nourishes the garden to bring forth a good harvest. Humanity is the harvest after millions of years of evolution. Just like there's randomness in every harvest (e.g., soil type, amount of sunlight, etc.), there's also a great deal of intentional care (e.g., irrigation, tilling, etc.).

OK, so when did we last see a farmer who was blind deaf and dumb? In addition to knowing where you want to get to, you have to have vision in order to steer. You wish me to accept the structure required for this tangible feedback system as brute fact -- and this is quite clearly the less parsimonious of the two solutions we are contemplating here.

QED, you have to understand something, from my perspective it is atheists who are engaged in wishful thinking. It is absolutely silly to believe that a beginning state class that can lead to inflation happened to be the one that started everything, especially if this class must happen in a one-time event. For the life of me I can't imagine why we are having that discussion. It should be a closed issue having no more discussion since it isn't realistic. That is exactly what wishful thinking is, interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true (i.e., that the beginning state can be of a very particular class to solve all magnitude problems).

Well one thing is for sure, we're lucky enough to be here having this argument. Apart from your vocal insistence that the beginning state class cannot possibly be one that got us here, it really is no more than an assumption. The physical requirements of such a class are simply not understood. But neither are the physics of your supernatural creator.

Therefore, to tip the balance (and avoid agnosticism) I say that the odds of gaining a complete understanding of one of these two is far higher than the other. Also I say that one is very much more parsimonious than the other, should they both remain an eternal mystery. That is why Atheism makes sense at the kernel level. If we lump in all the consequential problems to do with freewill, the presence of evil and the whole raft of anthropic pitfalls, I fail to see how any critical thinker could think otherwise.

I can't understand why atheists would want something like this to be true, but that's their issues.

No, if you can't understand this then logically speaking it's your issue. Of course nobody would want this to be true so there must be a good reason for believing it.

However, ignoring the emotional reasons for wishful thinking, we have to look objectively at the situation, and it is just silly to think that the beginning state was of a class that was of that kind of sophistication.

You only support this by repeatedly saying how infinitely improbable it is, however I am saying that we lack a sufficient understanding of the degree of sophistication required, therefore the probability is a complete unknown. Unless you can support your claim with a solid reason why a beginning class could not come about with sufficient leverage to get the ball rolling I think it would only be fair for you to discontinue this line of attack. This is not to mention the possibility of events taking place in an infinite arena which is another valid postulation.

It is just like the fella who goes to Las Vegas with high hopes of delusion. It cannot happen.

I think you 've made a mistake in using that analogy.

I understand you want to believe that, and that's fine. I respect your beliefs, but it still does not remove the reality. I'm sorry, there's a God. I'm sorry to all the atheists and however that makes them feel.

I have said before how wonderful it would be if a new creature or interesting entity was discovered. I am not at all motivated by a dislike of god or the concept of god, but it simply doesn't make sense when all is taken into consideration.

[Curious]

The strongest argument for atheism is the lack of objective evidence supporting the existence of an Almighty God.

That would be the strongest argument for agnosticism. I want to know the strongest argument for atheist, that is, the ontological stance that the world originated from a random cause.

I disagree. The agnostic would believe that the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation being unable to yield results one way or the other. The atheist may believe however that the results of the investigation have some significance.

As for actual directly measurable results, since God is described as immeasurable any objective evidence would seem to prove that the measured phenomenon was not God after all. If God is incomprehensible and unexplainable how would we even know if what we were looking for was the right thing and when we found Him would we really know what the results meant? I suppose it all depends on what would qualify as God to any particular individual which again leads us back to subjectivity.

It sounds like you are putting forth an argument for strong agnosticism. Is that right?

I am suggesting here that many atheists, rather than taking the view of the agnostic that we can't tell one way or the other, seem to accept a definition of God and attempt to disprove this definition.

I wonder how so many religious groups ( who describe God as incomprehensible ) can state with such certainty the attributes of the Divine. This is probably the main obstacle for both theist and atheist alike. How can one hope to learn about something that you already believe you know the answer to?

How can atheists hope to learn about something that they already believe they know the answer?

They can't. This applies to theist and atheist alike.

If any data arises that challenges the theists preconceived ideas they tend to rebel against it or simply ignore it.

What data do you have in mind?

Cosmology, geology, evolution... take your pick.

The atheist on the other hand sees this as evidence of non existence rather than being perhaps the first step towards asking the right question. If there is a God then surely the first step should be to attempt to understand what you see and then perhaps the fundamental nature of things may become a little clearer. Instead of saying "This is God!" try "What is God?"

Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but the pantheist in my view has set the bar for a minimum qualification of what is God. As for your first step, I agree that a good description of God is the first step anyone should embark upon before saying "this is God!" However, my view is that many theists for the most part do embark on this first step. I think everyone in fact questions what kind of God do they believe in (or not believe in). That's what thinking is all about.

I would disagree with your last statement here. The position of a great many Christians and Muslims is one of unquestioning belief.

[harvey1]

OK, so when did we last see a farmer who was blind deaf and dumb? In addition to knowing where you want to get to, you have to have vision in order to steer. You wish me to accept the structure required for this tangible feedback system as brute fact -- and this is quite clearly the less parsimonious of the two solutions we are contemplating here.

No, because as I already pointed out, strong evidence points out that the universe as a whole is obeying laws of a complex system (e.g., power laws, phase transitions, chaotic attractors, universality, etc.). That is, just knowing a few parameters of a system dictates how that system will evolve regardless of the complex system. This clearly indicates that God is not blind, deaf, and dumb since the universe is moving just fine with these complex laws toward higher and higher complexity, which if given time would result in a God-like universe where intelligence of this magnitude has been farmed by those laws. The atheist would have us believe that this was all dumb luck as a result of a beginning state, which is not a tenable view.

Well one thing is for sure, we're lucky enough to be here having this argument. Apart from your vocal insistence that the beginning state class cannot possibly be one that got us here, it really is no more than an assumption. The physical requirements of such a class are simply not understood. But neither are the physics of your supernatural creator.

QED, this is an argument for your position supported by our ignorance despite the fact that we can easily visualize many beginning state universes that do not evolve into complex universes. You have to argue against that visualization. You have to tell us why we can visualize a 1D universe filled with indivisible 1D-stuff that doesn't do anything else but be 1D-stuff. You wish to say that we don't know if this is possible, right? Well, what dictates what is possible? I thought possibility is dictated by the universe itself, so why can't a 1D-stuff filled universe dictate its own possibility?

Before you can make a claim to ignorance, you must address my arguments. It's not good enough for me to claim that we don't understand how God could exist, so we should assume that based on the beauty of the universe we can say God does exist. That's not a good argument by me, and it is not any better when you turn it around and use it for your argument for atheism.

No, if you can't understand this then logically speaking it's your issue. Of course nobody would want this to be true so there must be a good reason for believing it.

You have no good reason to suspect that the beginning class state can be one that happens to allow inflating universes. Inflation is no trivial occurrence in the universe, so you must explain how it is that the beginning class state could in principle be sophisticated enough to allow it. Citing ignorance is not tenable since we have good reason to believe that universes with less sophisticated algorithms can exist. We simulate them all the time in cyberspaces and the minds of mathematicians. Now, why can we imagine and simulate simpler universes, but you claim they are not possible in principle. Why do you make that claim? Based on what evidence do you make that claim? So far you're only evidence has been wishful thinking. I don't accept wishful thinking as a reason, QED. You have to do better than that.

You only support this by repeatedly saying how infinitely improbable it is, however I am saying that we lack a sufficient understanding of the degree of sophistication required, therefore the probability is a complete unknown.

You say this, but we have access to algorithms, QED. We know algorithms. Algorithms aren't unknown to us. We see how algorithms apply in the natural world. For example, we know some of the algorithms of biology and can answer why it is a plant will direct its flowers toward the sun, or we know in principle the algorithm(s) that leads to a black hole. We also happen to know that the algorithm for events such as inflationary universes is complex. We don't know how complex, but it is more complex than many of the cellular automata algorithms that we have constructed. So, you have to demonstrate in principle why it is that the universe couldn't have had a non-exploding type beginning state when we know of so many algorithms of this type. Even if it is slightly explosive, you have to also demonstrate in principle how it is that the universe happens to explode with such complexity so that magnitude problems associated with life and intelligence are possible. Claims to ignorance are not acceptable because you are asking us to believe based on wishful thinking and faith. I can't accept your faith and your wishful thinking is not acceptable either.

Unless you can support your claim with a solid reason why a beginning class could not come about with sufficient leverage to get the ball rolling I think it would only be fair for you to discontinue this line of attack. This is not to mention the possibility of events taking place in an infinite arena which is another valid postulation.

Ha ha. So, if I can't demonstrate why atheism is true, then atheism must be true? That's a good one! I'll have to make that argument for theism on a different pseudo-name someday just to see the reactions from atheists.

I have said before how wonderful it would be if a new creature or interesting entity was discovered. I am not at all motivated by a dislike of god or the concept of god, but it simply doesn't make sense when all is taken into consideration.

I know that you would be interested in discovering a God, but you have a kind of faith in your atheism that just won't accept such a discovery unless it appeared to you supernaturally. But, as I keep trying to emphasize, any universe that God creates is a natural universe since the term "natural" is what people experience. We see the interventioin of God every moment of our existence, but that is perceived as natural since this intervention has been experienced by us from the moment we could comprehend our experiences. Hence, you've already labelled those experiences as not being associated with a God, so you simply won't accept any re-interpretations of those experiences unless they show something that you are prejudiced in accepting. This is where the wishful thinking comes to play. You will defend your prejudice even when it is wishful thinking to do so. It is your prejudice that you must surrender since it has been proven to be inadequate to account for the universe. I say that your prejudice even prevents you from seeing this very fact. This discussion of the beginning state shouldn't be taking place. It's beyond reason to argue that such an algorithm could start out things, but prejudice and wishful thinking prevent you from seeing it.

[harvey1]

I disagree. The agnostic would believe that the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation being unable to yield results one way or the other. The atheist may believe however that the results of the investigation have some significance.

The strong agnostic might believe the lack of evidence was due to the nature of the investigation, whereas the weak agnostic just believes that we lack the evidence and doesn't strongly support a reason to why that is. An atheist has a reason that the agnostic doesn't find convincing. What I want to know is, what is the reason for atheism that agnostics don't find convincing to make them atheists.

They can't. This applies to theist and atheist alike.

So, does this mean you are agnostic?

Cosmology, geology, evolution... take your pick.

I know of no data in cosmology, geology, evolution... that is an argument for atheism.

I would disagree with your last statement here. The position of a great many Christians and Muslims is one of unquestioning belief.

That's later. Every thinking person undergoes a period in their life where they ask the questions and seek some type of suitable reply. For many theists, such as myself, this happened when we considered the beginning of the world and realized that a "no God" universe is not feasible.

[harvey1]

Harvey1, you have to be aware of how ridiculous this sounds. If you can't understand "why atheists would want something like this to be true", why even make the accusation that they are "interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true"?

I don't know why they would want their atheist vision to be true. If you are going to commit the sin of wishful thinking, then why not at least do so for a meaningful world?

You are now claiming to look objectively at the situation but only reacting to it with incredulity. And then, how have you proven God exists by writing a few lines about how ridiculous you consider an atheistic orgin of the universe? (...) Personally, I think the God model is more absurd, because it expects us to believe that our spiritual wellbeing relies upon what we do when sent inside a material body in a material playground. These are things we do to other material bodies that it is asked of us to refrain from doing, even though we would presume that any such material problems or complications would cease once we exit the material world. We are also expected to believe that the locality of the spirit once freed from its material bonds depends on whether, during that time of material bondage, we believed in a spiritual creator. What does a material anything have to do with our souls, and why would God be bothered by it? And, as Epicurus states, why would God be bothered by anything?

Well, I prefer to separate personal theism from an argument on whether atheism is true. You see, atheists are making specific claim about the class of universe that they say existed at the beginning state of the universe, they merely fluff it off as that they are ignorant. But, they are making this claim. Don't make any claims if it is based on wishful thinking, which is exactly what atheism is ultimately based on. In this context it doesn't matter what some theists believe. All that matters is that atheism is wrong. So, why are we still discussing atheism in 2005?? I have no idea. It's wrong and obviously so. If the counterargument is merely what some theists believe, then can I argue against atheism based on what some atheists believe too?

In fact, if God was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal, there's no reason to believe God is anything other than a universal computer, and we are numbers on sitting in the middle of a column of a spreadsheet in a year's financial figures. All events are created by God, all of His actions were foreseen before they occurred, if there is a "before" in eternity, and everything is accounted for. If something wasn't accounted for, it would be. And if we exist at all, it's also necessary that we exist, otherwise, we wouldn't exist. There also appear to be a lot of seemingly unnecessary figures in the spreadsheet which also must be a necessity. We have 5 fingers, 206 bones, x hairs, and the universe contains x amount of stars, x amount of tons for the weight of the earth, x amount of atoms that seem to have nothing to do with salvation, spiritual wellbeing or anything resembling an intelligent plan, but I'm sure God knows what he's doing. Hey, that argument of incredulity thing works both ways!

Before we talk about what kind of God exists, let's settle the issue on whether a God exists. I'd love to move on to that point, but we still have some people who are still confused about this issue. So, I think it is more important to set those folks who are still clinging to atheism straight first. Once they are on-board with what philosophy isn't correct, then it is easier to settle in on a philosophy that is correct.

In the case of your objections of personal theism, they are all easily answered. If you are convinced that atheism is wrong, then I'd be happy to go to another thread and discuss those issues. However, if you still have doubts about theism, then why jump to those other issues when you're still focused on the primary issue? Namely, does a God exist.

[McCulloch]

Before we talk about what kind of God exists, let's settle the issue on whether a God exists. I'd love to move on to that point, but we still have some people who are still confused about this issue. So, I think it is more important to set those folks who are still clinging to atheism straight first. Once they are on-board with what philosophy isn't correct, then it is easier to settle in on a philosophy that is correct.
In the case of your objections of personal theism, they are all easily answered. If you are convinced that atheism is wrong, then I'd be happy to go to another thread and discuss those issues. However, if you still have doubts about theism, then why jump to those other issues when you're still focused on the primary issue? Namely, does a God exist.

Forgive me if your post makes no sense to me.
Are you suggesting that we cannot debate the definition of x until we conculde if x, in fact, exists? OK, if I agree that God exists and that God is gravity then have we really progressed?

[harvey1]

Forgive me if your post makes no sense to me.
Are you suggesting that we cannot debate the definition of x until we conculde if x, in fact, exists? OK, if I agree that God exists and that God is gravity then have we really progressed?

No. I am saying that we shouldn't worry what value x has if the dispute is whether x is needed in the equation. First we should decide if the constant x is needed in the equation, and then decide what the value is. Actually, this is real life stuff since this is a similar situation as to what is happening with the cosmological constant. We would love to know the value of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant is not the same topic of discussion as to whether there is a cosmological constant.

[McCulloch]

Forgive me if your post makes no sense to me.
Are you suggesting that we cannot debate the definition of x until we conculde if x, in fact, exists? OK, if I agree that God exists and that God is gravity then have we really progressed?

No. I am saying that we shouldn't worry what value x has if the dispute is whether x is needed in the equation. First we should decide if the constant x is needed in the equation, and then decide what the value is. Actually, this is real life stuff since this is a similar situation as to what is happening with the cosmological constant. We would love to know the value of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant is not the same topic of discussion as to whether there is a cosmological constant.

And that is not the same discussion of what you mean by the cosmological constant. I would respectfully suggest that the following sequence might make sense:

1. define what you mean by x
2. determine if x exists
3. try to determine various attributes of x

It appears to me as if you wish to jump to step 2 by shifting the work in step 1 onto step 3.

[harvey1]

I would respectfully suggest that the following sequence might make sense:

1. define what you mean by x
2. determine if x exists
3. try to determine various attributes of x

It appears to me as if you wish to jump to step 2 by shifting the work in step 1 onto step 3.

I would say that I am following those steps.

1. Determine what God is minimally such that a belief in God is distinguishable from atheism. We do that by using the pantheist definition of God.
2. Determine if the pantheistic God is reasonable to exist, if so, then atheism must default to agnosticism or best case scenario pantheism.
3. Determine if there are sufficient reasons to think if God has more properties in closer alignment to traditional theism than what the pantheist claims of God.

Step 1 is the reason why I spent so much time on this thread talking about pantheism, and step 2 is the recent arguments to believe that such a pantheist (i.e., minimum) definition of God is reasonable.