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]

Here you attempt to pull-off another heist by claiming that only gods can be put in place by logical necessities. You remind me of the infamous German holiday-maker getting his towel down at the pool-side before everyone else.

Actually, I came very late to this gorgeous day, but this chair was open and my towel is in my hand.

Well here is where the argument is. In your elaboration of point [5] above, you work your way to a brute fact (F) that your say either has enough sophistication to produce unknown process M, else it is unbelievably lucky -- versus necessary, so you say, implying that if it is necessary (i.e. satisfies particular laws) then this implies a law-maker. But how many times have we passed by this place? That god is the laws of physics, that mind is needed in order to produce matter? None of this is ever accepted by me or any other defender of Atheism that has frequented this discussion.

I have previously argued how software is always dependant on pre-existing hardware (I'm resisting the temptation to use the word supervene here) and have challenged you to produce a single counter-example to make your position more believable. Unless you can do so, I suggest that your claim to the rights of god in this role should not be granted exclusivity.

The degree of freedom during critical points is infinite, so this becomes a reasonable source for God reaching the divine hand into the universe and making the necessary changes to the direction of the world.

This "hand of god" you speak of (please don't remind me of the 1986 football world-cup ) is the bit where you have plenty to explain. We've both been converging on the nature of the final (shouldn't this be initial?) most primitive class and here is your contribution: something that is clever and interested enough to peer down into his creation and guide events towards a desired goal. A god who takes a special interest in humans granting them promises of eternal happiness if they carry out his divine will, or eternal damnation... yadda yadda.

Notwithstanding the lack of comfort it might give some, can you seriously not understand why this looks like a ridiculous proposition compared to a brute fact that pings an endless succession of ripples of existence into the void?

[harvey1]

In your elaboration of point [5] above, you work your way to a brute fact (F) that your say either has enough sophistication to produce unknown process M, else it is unbelievably lucky -- versus necessary, so you say, implying that if it is necessary (i.e. satisfies particular laws) then this implies a law-maker.

No. "Necessary" meaning that unknown process M is bound to happen if there are preceding processes (e.g., F, G, H, I, J, K, L) which naturally bring about unknown process M. Process M wasn't lucky in that case, it was just bound to happen. However, unknown process F was not bound to happen, it was lucky that it was able to produce process M.

I have previously argued how software is always dependant on pre-existing hardware (I'm resisting the temptation to use the word supervene here) and have challenged you to produce a single counter-example to make your position more believable. Unless you can do so, I suggest that your claim to the rights of god in this role should not be granted exclusivity.

As I said, we have good reason to believe the uncertainty principle brings about hardware.

[Cephus]

Isn't it nice that we have Harvey here to tell us all what everyone thinks and what everyone's position is? You know... instead of just dealing with reality and all...

Ad hominem.

No, just reality, but you keep on jousting at windmills and have a good time.

[quoteThe strong agnostic might believe it is obligatory to not believe in God because the evidence is in principle inaccessible. However, a weak agnostic would say that agnosticism is permissive given the state of evidence we have on God's existence. [/quote]

Ah, you mean absolutely none? Certainly there are agnostic theists who will tell you that they believe in a god, even while admitting they have no way of knowing whether or not a god exists, but I've said that before. You keep insisting that agnosticism is somehow a mid-point between theism and atheism when it simply isn't true.

[harvey1]

Ad hominem.

No, just reality, but you keep on jousting at windmills and have a good time.

No, really, ad hominem.

Ah, you mean absolutely none? Certainly there are agnostic theists who will tell you that they believe in a god, even while admitting they have no way of knowing whether or not a god exists, but I've said that before. You keep insisting that agnosticism is somehow a mid-point between theism and atheism when it simply isn't true.

That's just a baseless opinion. I've posted reasons to think that agnosticism is a proposed mid-position between atheism and theism, but all you've done is deny the reasons without reason. You have your own imagination on what you want agnosticism to mean, and this is just so that you avoid the failure of atheism which you must recognize is ready for the junkpile in history. Rather than accept it, you imagine a world where atheism means what you want it to mean. Sorry. It doesn't.

[QED]

In your elaboration of point [5] above, you work your way to a brute fact (F) that your say either has enough sophistication to produce unknown process M, else it is unbelievably lucky -- versus necessary, so you say, implying that if it is necessary (i.e. satisfies particular laws) then this implies a law-maker.

No. "Necessary" meaning that unknown process M is bound to happen if there are preceding processes (e.g., F, G, H, I, J, K, L) which naturally bring about unknown process M. Process M wasn't lucky in that case, it was just bound to happen. However, unknown process F was not bound to happen, it was lucky that it was able to produce process M.

What are you saying "No" to? F leads to M either way we look at it. I can't see anything more to your argument other than it takes a god to get things started! We havn't come all this way for that, have we?

I have previously argued how software is always dependant on pre-existing hardware (I'm resisting the temptation to use the word supervene here) and have challenged you to produce a single counter-example to make your position more believable. Unless you can do so, I suggest that your claim to the rights of god in this role should not be granted exclusivity.

As I said, we have good reason to believe the uncertainty principle brings about hardware.

The uncertainty principle tells me that there is an as yet unseen layer to the cosmic onion but if you are right then this one law

[Curious]

...If we are to use what we know regarding the laws of conservation, then the assumption of a state of total absence of all is completely contradictory.

You should let the physics make that determination. Right now many physicists believe it is a reasonable possibility.

I've yet to meet a physicist who thinks it reasonable to create energy from nothing.

Even your own viewpoint dismisses the notion of nothing as you believe (I presume) that before the universe there was God.

As I mentioned before, when I say "nothing" I am talking about the absence of spacetime or, if you prefer, the radius of the universe is zero.

As I mentioned before there is no need to assume the absence of spacetime. If spacetime did not exist then how can we say something came before it as there was no before. Even if spacetime(as we might one day understand it) came about with the creation of this universe, this is not to say that other realities might not have existed "previously" or in parallel with ours.

In the case of God, I say God exists as a matter of logical necessity
...The luck in this case is too extreme to be believable. Therefore, the sensible approach is to look to logical necessity (or mechanism) to explain why we are here, and this requires a God.

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

Science doesn't suggest that fairies exist, but science--based on very reasonable reasons--suggests that particles and perhaps the universe itself popped in from nothing. If you want to rule out reasonable approaches, then there is no way for us to discuss these issues.

How is it reasonable to suggest that a particle can pop out of nothing when the particles that have been observed coming into existence have come into existence in the medium of spacetime and mass/energy?

To suggest that string theory can be counted amongst the best theories really does take the biscuit.

Well, string theory is a very strong contender for a theory to account for GR on the quantum scale. If you want to fluff it off, there's nothing that I can say but that you are being unreasonable.

I don't dismiss any theory out of hand. I don't think it unreasonable to expect a theory to be able to predict rather than being constantly rehashed to fit the results. As for saying "string theory", which particular version of the many out there do you mean?

Virtual particles, according to all observational data, cannot be seriously considered to pop out of nowhere. The higher energy the particle has, the quicker the energy must be repayed (or shorter the lifespan).

That's because of the uncertainty principle relation. If you don't think these particles pop in from nowhere, then how do you explain the Casimir effect?

Electromagnetic fluctuation. Surely you don't suggest EMF can be described as nothing.

One possible origin of these particles, as far as we can tell, could be enharmonic dissonance ( which in the loosest possible way could be compared with string theory).

Okay, I never heard of this as a hypothesis for virtual particles and I searched LANL and no hit came back. Are you making that up? Give me some references on LANL if possible.

I can do better than that, I can explain it in essence. When 2 waves meet they might cancel each other out or make a bigger wave. Sometimes the wave has an unstable peak and throws off part of itself to maintain stability. The example is very crude but I hope it gives you some idea. Very apt that you should previously mention the Casimir effect.

As for atheism being unreasonable I disagree. While being a theist myself, I can see why the reasoning mind might come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Based on what reasoning leads you to theism? If theism has no explanatory advantage for the beginning state, then atheism can be consistently applied based referencing pure massive quantities of universes. You can always use the strong anthropic argument and weak anthropic argument to resolve any mystery. That's the danger in using those arguments. If used in every circumstance they would blot out reasoning altogether.

I try to use my own arguments based on whatever question presents itself. If an argument is found to be flawed then obviously another approach must be taken. personally, I try to avoid being drawn into the philosophies of others which, due to our limitations, are inherently flawed. I believe you should choose whatever medium suits you, not limit yourself to the medium of those who went before. As for why I believe in God, that is down to personal experience. While you claim God is a necessity to explain the physical I would suggest that an explanation of the spiritual would be more productive. Of course, then most of what you would say would be subjective and have little effect on the convicted atheist.

[NGR]

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

Actually this pretty much says it all and appears to underline much of harvey1's reasoning. The overall problem with a diety is it is a naive attempt to break a logical causal chain of infinite length and has never made any sense to me on that basis alone.

[harvey1]

I've yet to meet a physicist who thinks it reasonable to create energy from nothing.

Of course, I'm not talking about a true violation of the conservation laws. I'll let Guth explain it in his own words:

If the creation of the universe is to be described by physical laws that embody the conservation of energy, then the universe must have the same energy as whatever it was created from. If the universe was created from nothing, then the total energy must be zero. But the the universe is clearly filled with energy... How, then, is there any hope that the creation of the universe might be described scientifically? (...) It is conceivable that the total energy of the universe is zero. The immense energy that we observe in the form of matter can be canceled by a negative contribution of equal magnitude, coming from the gravitational field, and hence no limit to the amount of matter/energy that it can cancel. (...) Conceivably, everything can be created from nothing. And "everything" might include a lot more than what we can see. In the context of of inflationary cosmology, it is fair to say that the universe is the ultimate free lunch. ("The Inflationary Universe":The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins Alan Guth, 1997)

As I mentioned before there is no need to assume the absence of spacetime. If spacetime did not exist then how can we say something came before it as there was no before.

There are a variety of structures used to describe this as I understand it. For example, Vilenkin's quantum tunnelling universe tunnelled from nothing, and there was no "before" t=0. The something in this case, is described by David Coule:

One widely used notion in quantum cosmology is to assume such a state of "nothing" or zero size from which universe can initially tunnel (p.6) (...) One then might conceive of quantum tunnelling to this early minimal action. However, this assumes the notions gleaned from standard quantum mechanics can readily be extended to the universe as a whole. It also requires a pre-existing state of nothing still obey the usual laws of physics: why such a state exists and whether it can spawn infinite other universes is also to be understood.(p. 43)

Even if spacetime(as we might one day understand it) came about with the creation of this universe, this is not to say that other realities might not have existed "previously" or in parallel with ours.

True, but why are we so lucky that this meta-universe exists versus a 1D universe?

In the case of God, I say God exists as a matter of logical necessity...The luck in this case is too extreme to be believable. Therefore, the sensible approach is to look to logical necessity (or mechanism) to explain why we are here, and this requires a God.

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

That's not a correct understanding. The beginning state of the universe is a causal state, and as such, it obeys logical relations. In order to obey logical relations a mind is needed. If no mind, then no logical relations, and therefore no causality. "No causality" is not a possible condition for the beginning state since talking about a beginning state assumes causality. Consider it a primitive if you must, but I consider it the only possible primitive.

How is it reasonable to suggest that a particle can pop out of nothing when the particles that have been observed coming into existence have come into existence in the medium of spacetime and mass/energy?

Perturbation theory requires the creation and annihilation operators. QED, for example, has been one of the most successful theories in terms of accuracy of prediction that humanity has ever produced, I think that qualifies the theory as being reasonable.

As for saying "string theory", which particular version of the many out there do you mean?

My understanding is that "bubbles of nothing" is not tied to any specific Kaluza-Klein theory, but is representive of all KK theories (e.g., M-theory, F-theory, etc). The reason is due to an unstable vacuum (a hole in space that forms) in an Mikowski n-space (via a semiclassical decay) as Ed Witten discovered way back in 1982.

because of the uncertainty principle relation. If you don't think these particles pop in from nowhere, then how do you explain the Casimir effect?

Electromagnetic fluctuation. Surely you don't suggest EMF can be described as nothing.

So, if that's the case, then why do virtual particles occur for particles that are not electrically charged (e.g., the W boson)?

I can do better than that, I can explain it in essence. When 2 waves meet they might cancel each other out or make a bigger wave. Sometimes the wave has an unstable peak and throws off part of itself to maintain stability. The example is very crude but I hope it gives you some idea. Very apt that you should previously mention the Casimir effect.

Is this your idea? Have you published this idea?

While you claim God is a necessity to explain the physical I would suggest that an explanation of the spiritual would be more productive. Of course, then most of what you would say would be subjective and have little effect on the convicted atheist.

If the atheistic version of the anthropic principle is suitable to explain the universe, then it would seem to me that QED would be right. That is, evolutionary theory demonstrates how life can evolve naturally using many worlds to explain coincidences and lucky breaks, and if just by adding more worlds we could explain the universe quite well without the existence of God. That leave the "explanation of the spiritual" as the one attribute of God's existence that needed to be explained without God existing, but in all honestly why not just add a few more worlds then to finish off the natural explanation?

[harvey1]

Actually this pretty much says it all and appears to underline much of harvey1's reasoning. The overall problem with a diety is it is a naive attempt to break a logical causal chain of infinite length and has never made any sense to me on that basis alone.

No, it's not even close to understanding what I'm talking about. What your assuming is just really impossible. I don't even think you are aware of the assumptions you are making.

[harvey1]

All observable facts are "facts" because of the overall assumptions we hold to be true. The assumptions of atheists are wrong, and therefore their understanding of God in the universe is skewed.

The substitution of theist for atheist in your statement is equally valid so it seems superfluous for you to have made such a statement at all and it certainly doesn't advance the debate.

The difference, though, is that when we talk about the beginning state of the universe you ask everyone to take for granted that atheism is right, but you can give no reason why the universe couldn't have been something less sophisticated such that the universe could never have arisen by the processes at play in the beginning state. In other words, you ask that we expect miracles at Vegas as first time and only time gamblers, and that is too much to take for granted.

It is easy to understand the concept of a security blanket in connection with the origin of theism because that is clearly what the history of theism shows us. Justifying your inverse statment in connection with atheism is I feel problematical.

Why? Coming from my perspective that's the main reason for atheism. Why is it that atheists won't admit that perhaps pantheism is reasonable. Heck, most like Cephus won't even admit they are wrong about the definition of agnostics even when agnostics tell them what they believe. From my perspective, atheists as a lot are not very open-minded people. I don't mean that to be insulting to atheists, but I think it is true. So, I keep asking myself the question, "what drives this individual to be so fixated on their beliefs that they would even hang out on a Christian website to prove to the people there that they are wrong?" Clinging to certain freedoms makes sense to me after reading the comments of many atheists in how they feel after giving up their theism. If freedom is the reward, then freedom must also be what atheists wish to protect. Of course, I could be wrong. There are other possibilities, such as a deep-seated fear that they cannot face, or a deep-seated resentment from their past, etc.. Some people are extremely driven to snuff out theism, so you have to think there are other issues going on inside themselves besides issues of freedom.

The only thing consistent about atheists is their non belief in a God/Gods, all other aspects of their behaviour is subject to their own characters and society generally.

Boy, you say that, but I've debated many atheists over the years and all the arguments and beliefs look pretty identical. I think even within my own denomination there is more variation in opinions than all the atheists whom I have debated over the years.

So without railing against your own theoretical construct can you explain how atheism is a securty blanket?

This is another thread, of course, and to tell you the truth I simply don't have time any more. It's a shame because I enjoy discussing subjects with open-minded people who really can place themselves outside of their own beliefs, even temporarily, to see the world the way someone else sees it. However, since I don't have time, all I can say on this subject is that I see atheists as generally those individuals who are a little vain intellectually, and they tend to look down at others, especially theists. I think what they find so displeasing about there being a God is that they cannot accept that there is something out there that alludes their ability to know. The freedom in this case is intellectual freedom. In my view, atheists tend to see the concept of God as a straight jacket on their intellectual freedom. Of course, there are a number of theists out there that do try and put people in straight jackets, so this doesn't help.

But, to be more specific, I think the apostle Paul had it correct when he said that the carnal mind is at enmity with God. That is, there's a struggle in the mind of humanity to be independent of God (like a young child will push away the hand of a parent as it seeks independence from them), and I think this is a symptom especially pronounced in atheists and agnostics. Perhaps its chemical related.

However, as the knowledge of the universe has grown, so has our understanding of the eternal nature of God and the gradual erosion of materialist and mechanistic concepts that atheism bet so much of its future.

Your kidding right? Theism is the construct that man has been operating on since the year dot. It has only been during the last few hundred years that the voices of reason have finally started to strip away such surperstitious baggage.

I'm not kidding. Atheism basically should have ended with Hubble's discovery that the universe came with the big bang, or when Dirac found large coincidences in the physical constants. I'm not saying that this is proof of God, but it certainly makes the possibility of a God a reasonable belief. Since this time there has been more evidence to indicate that materialism and mechanism have faultered. All of this is trending toward some kind of theism (e.g., pantheism).

This appears to be a lot of hand waving. If we can worship a rock or the Cosmos with equal validity your concept of God is certainly very nebulous and one wonders just what meaning you derive from such a construct.

The universe is a self-similiar structure. The organization of this structure favors a nucleus principle whether that be the nucleus of an atom, or the nucleus of a cell, or the nucleus of the solar system as the sun, etc.. The fact that humans naturally gravitate their activities around something that their lives revolve around, I think, demonstrates the concept of attractors that in the largest picture is one that paints God's role to the universe.