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.

[harvey1]

Hello QED. Before I forget, let me just say how much I enjoy discussions with you. You have a very solid mind and even though we have a totally different perspective on the world, I do enjoy your thoughts. Now, forgive me if I piss you off in the future by my comments.

First, before I forget again, you keep alluding to the fact that computer programmers have made billions of attempts to create a universe like ours and have failed. Where can I find out more about this area of research? I also better warn you I'm feeling a little jovial today!

This is not research I am citing. This is just ordinary computer programs in all their varieties and applications which demonstrate how algorithms can differ even after a few lines of code. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this reference is the fact that the environment that could have given birth to the universe could be anything. However, in all of the many algorithms that have been executed on a computer, none of them have generated calls to NASA from a computer programmer working at an insurance company saying that their app is doing something strange, a metauniverse is being simulated and they think there are big bangs and inflationary universes taking place. This just hasn't happened. And, it hasn't happened for a reason. The algorithm to make such a feat is so complex and would require so many lines of code, that it is far beyond our capabilities to make such a complex algorithm, let alone an algorithm that would be debug free on the first attempt.

This is the problem that atheism must contend. Why is it that the environment needed to cause our universe is so very complex, and yet atheism asks us that this is randomly the case? It clearly must be rejected without going into too much wasted energy. Just imagining it to be so doesn't qualify such a scenario as realistic.

This metauniverse might be eternal might it not?

Sure. However, it doesn't take away from the issue above that I am raising here. The temporal past might be infinite, however there are literally billions of such kinds of universes that we could consider as reasonable possibilities. Most of those eternal universes wouldn't produce a universe such as ours at any point in the infinite timeline for obvious reasons (i.e., they aren't sophisticated enough to produce a universe such as our's--an inflationary universe, for example). So... just imagining an eternal universe does not solve the problem of a random beginning state having the kind of environment capable of having inflationary universes. Why did the environment of this Universe have it correct right out of the gate. Keep in mind, we are talking about having it right in terms of possessing the potential to evolve (even down the line) into a universe like our own. Such Universe environments are not to be expected, and in fact, must be rejected as reasonable possibilities.

If there are an infinite number of logico-mathematical statements that exist and affect the world based on their theorems, then what prevents a whole infinite of other theorems such as in decision theory and information theory from affecting every aspect of our world, including the events that happen in our own lives such as what happens to us once we die? In principle, is there anything that prevents these infinite number of statements from being God?

But our universe has a horizon and is a fait accomplis from the BB event onwards. This explains why we do not observe the supernatural at work (if we did the Pentagon would have Militarized it by now).

To be honest, I don't see how your comments follow from my question. However, to answer your point, there's something of a misunderstanding about not observing the supernatural as it pertains to God. If God exists, then why would you expect to observe supernatural phenomena? That doesn't make sense to me. With a creator you would naturally expect consistency in their work. For example, would you expect to find a lost painting of Picasso by examining Monet look-a-likes? Of course not! If there is a lost painting by Picasso, you wouldn't expect it to look like a Monet painting. Similarly, if God's hand is involved in the universe, you'd expect all the acts of God to look like what we see, not what we do not see. Now, of course we would expect God's handiwork to be show the universe is directed by more than just random processes, but that's what we do see in the universe! Likewise, if atheism were true, we'd expect to see just randomness in the universe, but this is what we do not see! So, the observation of the universe is entirely consistent with their being a God, and not really consistent with an atheist interpretation. (I realize I responded to a point that is off the mark to what I was talking about, but you've subtly raised this point a few times, so I thought I would respond here to it.)

"The biologist thinks he is a chemist, the chemist thinks he is a physicist, the physicist thinks he is a God, and God thinks she is a mathematician"

It's funny QED. Both you and Spetey are funny. But, it's frustrating because I cannot seem to get either of you to address the real issues here. I guess I can sympathize a little since it's hard to change one's perspective, especially over night. But, I don't think that will happen. Instead, I think your mind has been so accustomed to thinking a certain way that it just doesn't compute to think any other way. So, when your responses go in different directions and do not instead address my claims (or just laugh them off), then I think that we'll just have to re-visit this issue again and again simply because we allow the ball to be dropped here when the opportunity is right to address these issues. But, like I said, I'm not apt to push these things in one or two close encounters as we broach the subject that atheists need to address. We can drop this issue for now. In due time it will come up again.

[harvey1]

Spetey, let's focus a little more on the issue at hand. My position is that a minimum conception of God, i.e., a pantheist conception, is certainly justified based on what we know of the universe, and therefore atheism is being unreasonable by rejecting the existence of God. It seems that your response is to redefine pantheism to avoid the consequence that atheism is just wrong. So, let's focus on this issue and push the other interesting discussions aside for now.

No, I don't think pantheism can be characterized as saying that Nature is necessarily intelligent. I think a better characterization of pantheism is the notion of Unity in nature.

It seems one can think that something has Unity and not think it is intelligent or an information-processor or any kind of god. A rock has Unity of a sort but I do not think that makes the rock a god. And of course the universe has unity; it's part of what we mean by "universe" to be inclusive.

Okay, so here you are challenging pantheism's claim to an understanding of God that is separate from the atheist's conception of unity. You wish this discussion to be about intelligence, and that's not what the pantheist is willing to admit about God. What the pantheist wishes to say is that Coleridge is wrong when he said, "every thing God, and no God, are identical positions." The pantheist says that their particular definition(s) of Unity all have one thing in common, they do not equate to "everything is God=no God." The pantheist has in mind an "all-inclusive unity" which, depending on the particular pantheism, does not equate to the same atheist attributes as an "all-inclusive unity" identity relation to the world that an atheist means by such a term. The Stanford article I cited calls the atheist meaning of unity a "formal unity." So, can we agree not to talk about formal unity anymore, since it only obfuscates the issues here?

Unity is an information-theoretic term. It does not necessarily imply intelligence, and it doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. However, it must imply information.

This is totally opaque. Why and how is "Unity" an "information-theoretic" term? What things have this weird kind of "Unity", and why? Why does such "Unity" make for a god? If you just say that Unity makes godliness and the way to have Unity is to be the universe, then this begs the question. I could as easily say make up weird words to do the same kind of work: to be any kind of theist is to be Xanfortleb, and to be Xanfortleb is to be mistaken about whether there's a God. Have I convinced you that you're mistaken?

The formal unity of atheism is vacuous. For example, if I said God is the unity in nature, and upon further inquiry I said "nature is that which is organized naturally," and, "organized naturally is what we find in our observations." Then, obviously, I am making a vacuous use of the term God. That is, nowhere in my reference to God have I described a unity that is any different than the formal unity that atheists describe when talking about how things are organized in the world.

However, what pantheists mean by saying "God is the unity in nature" is that there is something organizing nature that is a information-theoretic feature of the world. That is, there are principles responsible for organizing systems which are not physical systems. There are supra-physical structures that are needed to explain the physical processes, and these supra-physical structures are unifying structures in that they link non-local systems into a similar set of organizing behaviors. This is why I say this type of "all-inclusive unity" is an information-theoretic term since the link between non-local systems is bound by shared information (i.e., shared information is needed to organize non-local systems). For example, let's say that evolution of life is bound by the constants of nature, however the constants of nature are apparently randomly determined in an atheist scheme. According to the pantheist, there are not necessarily restrictions that prevent the constants being determined by a supra-physical structure that sets the constants in order to bring about life. This does not necessarily mean this supra-structure is intelligent since the two systems (the evolution of life and the evolution of the physical constants) can be affected by organizing principles that are in place (e.g., a mathematical equation that relates the evolution of life to that of physical matter, etc.). Now, this is a dramatic example, but what it demonstrates is that principles can exist that determine the type of universe that exists which is not explainable in terms of a formal unity advocated by atheists. We have reason to believe this is the universe in which we live, and therefore atheism is unreasonable.

I have given you reasons not to believe in such gods--reasons you accept when it comes to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why do you reject them when it comes to the Abrahamic God or the Unified Universe?

As I've shown, the universe appears to be working on principles where local interaction between systems is not possible (i.e., there is shared information which cannot be accounted for using local interactions to share that information), and therefore this is more consistent with the pantheist account. Since pantheism made these predictions prior to complexity theory and prior to quantum theory, we have to give pantheism credit for their view of the universe which is turning out to be correct about the organizing behavior of the universe. This means that atheism and your little invisible pink unicorn have been successfully kicked out. Time to convert Spetey. Atheism is all but history.

[QED]

harvey1, I very much appreciate our discussions here. You are somewhat of an enigma to me because you are evidently very well read in science, history and logic -- and while none of these things could be claimed to be entirely mutually exclusive with the philosophy of religion, they evidently lead you directly to the full panoply of Christianity. This is further than such things are usually taken and gives rise to some spectacular propositions. I can't wait to engage you over the witnessing of christ's ascension and the subtleties of quantum teleportation or such-like.

It is necessary for me to attack your reasoning to support my own, but this should never be construed as a personal attack. I for one, have no bible for anyone to flush down the toilet, so I'm not going to become murderous about anything that's said here.

This is not research I am citing. This is just ordinary computer programs in all their varieties and applications which demonstrate how algorithms can differ even after a few lines of code. What I'm trying to demonstrate with this reference is the fact that the environment that could have given birth to the universe could be anything.

I take it you are thinking about combinatorial explosions here?

However, in all of the many algorithms that have been executed on a computer, none of them have generated calls to NASA from a computer programmer working at an insurance company saying that their app is doing something strange, a metauniverse is being simulated and they think there are big bangs and inflationary universes taking place.

Your example is very poor. It mainly shows that programmers are quite specific about the code they write. A better example would be to have all the worlds computers churning out random instructions for a Universal Turing machine (the sort of experiment that I hoped you knew of). While nobody would expect there to be a big bang in the world outside the meta-computer I dare say something of interest would emerge eventually. For example, if we look at the infinite expansion of PI or any other irrational number, we will find within there all possible sequences of integers of finite length. Any arbitrary association with letters or machine codes would thus reproduce every conceivable literary work or computer program -- along with every piece of junk. Of this prodigious output we can expect anything and everything.

This just hasn't happened. And, it hasn't happened for a reason. The algorithm to make such a feat is so complex and would require so many lines of code, that it is far beyond our capabilities to make such a complex algorithm, let alone an algorithm that would be debug free on the first attempt.

You have a mental picture of an environment where this process can only have one go at getting any sort of a result. Why should we expect such a restriction?

This is the problem that atheism must contend. Why is it that the environment needed to cause our universe is so very complex, and yet atheism asks us that this is randomly the case? It clearly must be rejected without going into too much wasted energy. Just imagining it to be so doesn't qualify such a scenario as realistic.

You suddenly become very hasty in your dismissal. I need to remind you that in reality a lot of imagination is involved on both sides of this argument. We have abundant evidence all around us that complexity arises from simplicity. Excluding the initial 10^-43 seconds following the big bang our universe has been exemplary in this. The multiple-dimensionality of brane theory can be interpreted as the raw ingredients for all subsequent forces and energies and as far as I know, nobody has devised a way of assigning any degree of complexity to such a thing as a dimension so you can see why your reasoning is potentially fallible. I don't think I'm alone in seeing hydrogen as being more complex than the conditions which gave rise to it for example. Everything seems to flow in this direction.

This metauniverse might be eternal might it not?

Sure. However, it doesn't take away from the issue above that I am raising here. The temporal past might be infinite, however there are literally billions of such kinds of universes that we could consider as reasonable possibilities. Most of those eternal universes wouldn't produce a universe such as ours at any point in the infinite timeline for obvious reasons (i.e., they aren't sophisticated enough to produce a universe such as our's--an inflationary universe, for example). So... just imagining an eternal universe does not solve the problem of a random beginning state having the kind of environment capable of having inflationary universes. Why did the environment of this Universe have it correct right out of the gate. Keep in mind, we are talking about having it right in terms of possessing the potential to evolve (even down the line) into a universe like our own. Such Universe environments are not to be expected, and in fact, must be rejected as reasonable possibilities.

You keep insisting that the environment must have been "just right" -- the fact is we have a calculation for the probability of our own finely-tuned universe, but we do not have such a figure for the sort of precursor required. This is entirely analogous with the evolution of life on this planet (and I am not entirely surprised by this fact). There is a theory that universes like ours might actually evolve from parent universes and inherit physical laws just like genes. With respect to the selection criteria being that of "flatness", optimally flat universes will evolve after many successive generations and provide havens for higher-complexity products that require more extended timescales to allow for their emergence.

All things considered just how wild is this in comparison with the notion of a deity who's a dab-hand at maths, physics, chemistry and biology all without attending any university courses?

If there are an infinite number of logico-mathematical statements that exist and affect the world based on their theorems, then what prevents a whole infinite of other theorems such as in decision theory and information theory from affecting every aspect of our world, including the events that happen in our own lives such as what happens to us once we die? In principle, is there anything that prevents these infinite number of statements from being God?

But our universe has a horizon and is a fait accomplis from the BB event onwards. This explains why we do not observe the supernatural at work (if we did the Pentagon would have Militarized it by now).

To be honest, I don't see how your comments follow from my question. However, to answer your point, there's something of a misunderstanding about not observing the supernatural as it pertains to God. If God exists, then why would you expect to observe supernatural phenomena? That doesn't make sense to me. With a creator you would naturally expect consistency in their work. For example, would you expect to find a lost painting of Picasso by examining Monet look-a-likes? Of course not! If there is a lost painting by Picasso, you wouldn't expect it to look like a Monet painting. Similarly, if God's hand is involved in the universe, you'd expect all the acts of God to look like what we see, not what we do not see. Now, of course we would expect God's handiwork to be show the universe is directed by more than just random processes, but that's what we do see in the universe! Likewise, if atheism were true, we'd expect to see just randomness in the universe, but this is what we do not see! So, the observation of the universe is entirely consistent with their being a God, and not really consistent with an atheist interpretation. (I realize I responded to a point that is off the mark to what I was talking about, but you've subtly raised this point a few times, so I thought I would respond here to it.)

The bible tells us that god has shown a supernatural hand to a few chosen men on numerous occasions during a split-second in the history of the universe. You are fundamentally wrong to say that would we expect to see a state of total randomness in a godless universe. We see directed randomness. You know how this thing works, sticky things stick to smooth things, smooth things don't stick to other smooth things. Voila - we get a new class of things by stirring together simpler classes. Don't try telling me that god sits in every molecule of grease rejecting other molecules that he's sitting in as they try to make contact using his little electric charges. I don't buy into any theories that has god sitting at the controls like the Numbskulls in the Beano comic (little people that run around doing all the work inside a person). The obvious question that occurred to me when I first read that comic as a child was "are there more Numbskulls living inside the Numbskulls?"

It's funny QED. Both you and Spetey are funny. But, it's frustrating because I cannot seem to get either of you to address the real issues here.

I think you'll find many professional comedians are Atheists. This would make a good topic of its own, but briefly it's more than plain satire or cynicism -- I think it's a reaction to what many call natures ultimate cruel joke, something you defend against with a belief in the afterlife.

I would be most fascinated to here your opinion of Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2, Cambridge U.K. September 1998 It's titled "Is there an Artificial God?" but it meanders around the place in a stream-of-consciousness fashion. Adams actually makes a plea for the permissibility of faiths on the basis that they can serve useful purposes despite being founded entirely in our imagination.

I guess I can sympathize a little since it's hard to change one's perspective, especially over night. But, I don't think that will happen. Instead, I think your mind has been so accustomed to thinking a certain way that it just doesn't compute to think any other way.

Of course we're all guilty of that, but things have to make sense to us and we have to be totally honest with ourselves to ensure we aren't unduly rationalizing something due to our hopes fears or wishes. I don't wish to live a knifes-edge away from oblivion, but that is what it looks like from where I sit.

[harvey1]

Thanks, QED, for your kind comments.

You have a mental picture of an environment where this process can only have one go at getting any sort of a result. Why should we expect such a restriction?

Let's stick on this one issue for a moment since it's come up a few times and obviously we can't make any progress unless we agree on this issue.

Of course, if an environment exists that generates many attempts at something, then sooner or later, it has a chance to hit upon a good design. This is the principle of natural selection, and evolution of life occurred because of it so it is a very good principle. I'm not saying, geez, you could never get to our universe if you had an infinite number of go's at it. Obviously that's wrong. I think if you had enough go's at something, eventually you'd come upon the right process to bring about a big bang/inflationary cosmology. Let's call this the "magnitude problem" with the atheist conception of the universe.

Rather, the problem with the atheist conception is that the environment which allows you to have many go's at something (which I called cosmic burps), must itself be fine-tuned enough so that it's even able to in principle to allow you to reach a big bang/inflationary cosmology. So, my example with all the computer programs is meant to show this. Never in an infinite number of iterations will a computer program calculating actuary tables will you generate a process needed for a big bang/inflationary cosmology to appear. The algorithm for calculating actuaries just isn't that type of algorithm. Let's call this the "class problem" with the atheist conception of the universe.

Once we delineate the magnitude problem from the class problem, we can easily see that the magnitude problem is readily solvable if the class is suitable in principle to bring about a big bang/inflationary universe. However, if the class is in principle wrong for a big bang/inflationary universe to occur, then the magnitude problem is unsolvable by a random start since one cannot rationalize a universe that has the right class to achieve a big bang/inflationary universe such as our universe.

You suddenly become very hasty in your dismissal. I need to remind you that in reality a lot of imagination is involved on both sides of this argument. We have abundant evidence all around us that complexity arises from simplicity.

You're referencing the magnitude problem, which is solvable if the Universe is of the correct class to solve it.

Excluding the initial 10^-43 seconds following the big bang our universe has been exemplary in this. The multiple-dimensionality of brane theory can be interpreted as the raw ingredients for all subsequent forces and energies and as far as I know, nobody has devised a way of assigning any degree of complexity to such a thing as a dimension so you can see why your reasoning is potentially fallible. I don't think I'm alone in seeing hydrogen as being more complex than the conditions which gave rise to it for example. Everything seems to flow in this direction.

That's right, once the class is correct (e.g., brane cosmology, etc.) then the magnitude problem can be solved.

You keep insisting that the environment must have been "just right" -- the fact is we have a calculation for the probability of our own finely-tuned universe, but we do not have such a figure for the sort of precursor required. This is entirely analogous with the evolution of life on this planet (and I am not entirely surprised by this fact). There is a theory that universes like ours might actually evolve from parent universes and inherit physical laws just like genes. With respect to the selection criteria being that of "flatness", optimally flat universes will evolve after many successive generations and provide havens for higher-complexity products that require more extended timescales to allow for their emergence.

You take it for granted that our Universe is of the right class to solve the magnitude problem. That's a leap of faith on your part. Why should the class be correct for solving the magnitude problem? That's my question to you.

[QED]

You take it for granted that our Universe is of the right class to solve the magnitude problem. That's a leap of faith on your part. Why should the class be correct for solving the magnitude problem? That's my question to you.

Because of trends that we observe in nature. This excellent reduction of yours to matters of Class and Magnitude are in evidence all around us. We see it in the evolution of every organic and inorganic thing. It is behind every human accomplishment and every extant thing. Thus it is a process of linear extrapolation to consider a retreat through a continuum of ever less complex classes. This line on a graph is where an Atheist like me reads-off a zero rather than a god.

[harvey1]

Thus it is a process of linear extrapolation to consider a retreat through a continuum of ever less complex classes. This line on a graph is where an Atheist like me reads-off a zero rather than a god.

Okay, let's take it from this point. I agree that as we go back further and further, we see less complexity of whatever class (environment) the universe is within. But, notice, once we get to the point which is the cause of the big bang, you naturally say that this class is no longer simple, rather it is exceedingly complex because of the following reasons:

1. It is a metauniverse
2. It has certain complex regularities in place that allow big bang/inflationary universes to evolve
3. It has some kind of spatial dimension(s) (not necessarily a 4D space) to provide room for all these universes within the metauniverse
4. It has some kind of temporal dimension(s) to provide a before a universe and an after a universe (not necessarily our concept of time)

It's these physical attributes that you say exist as part of this metauniverse that is very troubling to me. Why do you assume that we happen to have a metauniverse that is capable of a big bang/inflationary universe? Why don't you accept the much more plausible view that the Universe causing the big bang is a more simple state? For example, if the universe has no certain matter/energy relation at t=0, then wouldn't that be a simpler universe?

[QED]

Okay, let's take it from this point. I agree that as we go back further and further, we see less complexity of whatever class (environment) the universe is within. But, notice, once we get to the point which is the cause of the big bang, you naturally say that this class is no longer simple,

I never said "naturally this class is no longer simple" those are your words. I say that a class can give rise to another class through its release of a higher magnitude. This is understandable precisely because the magnitude represents a change-up of cosmic gearing.

[harvey1]

I never said "naturally this class is no longer simple" those are your words. I say that a class can give rise to another class through its release of a higher magnitude. This is understandable precisely because the magnitude represents a change-up of cosmic gearing.

Yes, magnitude represents a change-up of cosmic gearing, but like I said before, you need a certain class (i.e., a metauniverse with regularities that are compatible with big bang/inflationary cosmologies) in order to "gear up" further. That is, when t=0 the current universe is as simple as it gets. However, the metauniverse is not zero. It has those 4 properties that I mentioned in my last post. My question to you is how is it that those 4 properties are present in the first place? Why not a Universe having none (or 1, 2, 3) of those properties?

Another set of questions. Why must that metauniverse be of a class that gives birth to a big bang/inflationary cosmology? Isn't it possible that such a class only give birth to universes incapable of big bang/inflationary cosmologies? Why are we so lucky as to be in the metauniverse class that we happen to be in? For example, had this metauniverse of yours been of a class unable to give birth to a big bang/inflationary cosmology, then such a universe as ours would never existed. Why do you assume that we had the right metauniverse cosmology for all of this to occur?

[QED]

Perhaps you can tell me at what point this sequence becomes unviable? Our universe is very finely-tuned to meet our particularneeds. But a universe that meets lesser needs would not require such fine-tuning. However, such a universe might be sufficient to spawn other universes from black-holes for example.

Once we set aside the notion that our universe from the BB onwards represents the only universe ever to be burped out then we find ourselves back on familiar territory. I don't necessarily mean comfortable territory, I just mean that we can see the potential for a continuation of states leading from lesser to greater complexity.

Another fundamental difference here is that you continually seek something special while I look for the mediocre. I defend my position by noting the fallacies of human thinking thus far: Paley's watch, Spontaneous generation of life, the orbit of the Sun around the Earth and countless other primitive illusions.

Induction is a powerful tool in the hands of a competent cosmologist and can provide insights into where we might be illuding ourselves over the weightiest of matters.

[harvey1]

Perhaps you can tell me at what point this sequence becomes unviable? Our universe is very finely-tuned to meet our particularneeds. But a universe that meets lesser needs would not require such fine-tuning. However, such a universe might be sufficient to spawn other universes from black-holes for example.

Well, if I rolled a die, and I need to roll a 6 to stay in the game, then I have only 1/6 chance. That's really pushing it for the Universe, but I imagine that if we only had a 1/6 chance of (eventually) getting the universe that we see, then I'd say that atheism is at least realistic in obtaining this class of Universe at the beginning state. However, if the odds are much worse than this, then some other process must be in play in order to explain our extraordinary luck. Again, let me remind you that we're talking about the class problem and not the magnitude problem. I'm already assuming that if we have the right class as the beginning state, then the magnitude problem can be solved eventually over time with enough permutations and favored probability.

If the "beginning state" class of the Universe is black-holes giving birth to other universes, then how many dice do we need in order to roll this particular class of Universe? My guess is hundreds or thousands of dice would be needed, and the combinatorial number they rolled would have to be exact. The reason I say you need hundreds or thousands of dice is because each die represents 6 possibilities. I think we can imagine literally thousands of possible states for the "beginning state" class for the Universe, many of them very realistic, so you'd have to tell me why your black hole class of Universe happens to be the one that exists. Why were we so lucky as to have a black hole class of Universe that can solve the magnitude problem, but we don't have a white dwarf class of Universe (for example) that cannot solve the magnitude problem.

Another fundamental difference here is that you continually seek something special while I look for the mediocre. I defend my position by noting the fallacies of human thinking thus far: Paley's watch, Spontaneous generation of life, the orbit of the Sun around the Earth and countless other primitive illusions.

Actually, I don't seek anything special. My solution to the magnitude problem is to submit a minimal class Universe. All that has to be true of this minimal class Universe is that it must obey logical and mathematical theorems. I think that's very reasonable since logical and mathematical theorems are theorems of what is possible, and the reason things that violate those theorems are not possible is because they are not consistent. This is a relatively simple set of propositions to hold as a given, and nothing compared to the atheistic one where we need hundreds or thousands of dice to represent a special class of Universe that can solve the magnitude problem.