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.

[spetey]

Hey Harvey--on pantheism and atheism:

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.

Right. I want to know what this "all-inclusive unity" is which is different from what you want to call "formal unity". That was the point of my weird-word example. It's easy to say that the universe has property BLAH (for some made-up property like "all-inclusive unity") and if the universe has BLAH then pantheism is corerct. Similarly I can say that all Christians have property BLEH, and to have property BLEH is to be mistaken about whether there's a God. I take it this is not a convincing argument, at least not until you hear what the property BLEH is. Similarly I have no reason to think that pantheism is correct until I hear what special property the universe has such that it entails pantheism.

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?

I think the obfuscation is in introducing a new term that is not related to our intuitive notion of unity. What is this other kind of "unity"?

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.

Okay. If there are principles above and beyond physical ones, this might go some way toward showing that atheism is wrong. But the kicker is: why believe that there is some such supernatural organizing principle?

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).

You say it is information-theoretic because it involves information. I hope you see why that is not an informative reason. It begs the question.

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.

Careful. You mean that on pantheism, there are (not just might be) constants determined by a supra-physical structure, right? An atheist might agree that there are no constraints against such a thing--it's possible--just not actual. Now: why think there are such supra-physical structures setting the constants?

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.

Why do we have reason to believe that the universe is one not explainable by atheists? Here again you simply beg the question.

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.

Wait, where did you "show" that local interaction is not possible? It sure seems possible when, for example, I type on this keyboard. And where did you show that in cases I take it you have in mind--like quantum entanglement--that this is a sharing of information (rather than merely physical influence) in a way that, say, gravitational influence on an apple is not? And where did you show that this notion of information is sufficient to think that a "supra-physical" structure is required to explain the universe? These all seem like very far-out claims that would be pretty hard to show.

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.

Which prediction was this exactly?

This means that atheism and your little invisible pink unicorn have been successfully kicked out. Time to convert Spetey. Atheism is all but history.

Whoa, whoa, why is the IPU ruled out? She is a supra-physical structure. Why can't She be the one that set the constants? What reason do you have to reject Her but to include God? Why whouldn't She be an equally good explanation of the constants that concern you? Of course the point of the IPU is that it seems purely arbitrary whether you pick the IPU or Zeus or Vishnu or Yahweh to fill in the gaps of current physical explanation, where it's supposed something supernatural must reside.

As you can see, I think atheism remains alive and kicking. We are still looking for reason to think that the universe requires some extra-physical explanation. Simply asserting that the universe requires supra-physical structures does not provide reason. Rhetorically ringing the death-knell for atheism is very different from actually dispatching (what you consider to be) the monster.


spetey

[spetey]

Spetey, I responded to most of your points here.

Oops, missed that, sorry, and thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to respond, though perhaps not tonight.

[Edited: I already did respond, above, and submitted it before this one by mistake!]

I'm not inclined to talk about the issue of meaning in this thread. I hope all of us can migrate to the thread you created for this purpose. Perhaps it's the lack of meaning in that thread that people stay away from it...?

While we're floating uncharitable hypotheses, here's another one: you're not willing to try to give reason for a premise that is fundamental to you, for fear that it will not turn out to have the reasons you'd hoped. Just another uncharitable hypothesis, mind you.

To the extent that "meaning" is proffered as a reason to resist atheism, it's also relevant to this thread, though I agree it would be more relevant to that one.


spetey

[foshizzle]

Yes, I think you bring up interesting points, though (as you can see) I have yet to see why this notion of meaning disappears if there is no God.

I don't think it disappears.

You said earlier than you would continue your influence for eternity, correct?

Say your influence was a numerical value over time. When creatures begin to die out (I don't see much reason to not believe we will die out), your influence level will drop. As more things perish and are eliminated, your level of influence will eventually reach an asymptote.

Eternal consequences involve saving a person from eternal torment. Something which will last forever, with the same amount of influence being exherted the entire time.

I do believe purpose requires God, but I don't think God is necessary for someone to see their life as having purpose.

[spetey]

Say your influence was a numerical value over time. When creatures begin to die out (I don't see much reason to not believe we will die out), your influence level will drop. As more things perish and are eliminated, your level of influence will eventually reach an asymptote.

If all sentience within my potential causal influence dies out, then I agree that my influence on sentience will die with them, of course. But

1. Why are you so sure sentience will die out?
2. If sentience did die out, but I brought happiness to many sentient creatures in the meantime, why would that mean my actions were ultimately meaningless?

I do believe purpose requires God, but I don't think God is necessary for someone to see their life as having purpose.

I don't think you mean this. Let me try to rephrase: you don't think God is necessary for having a purpose, but you do think God is necessary to think your life has purpose (to "see [your] life as having purpose")? In other words, even though I can in fact have a purpose without God, I can only think my life has purpose because God exists? First, this is a strange claim--why think that? Second, it grants what I was hoping to establish: a life can have purpose without God. (Even if for some bizarre reason we can't think life has a purpose without God.)


spetey

[harvey1]

If there are principles above and beyond physical ones, this might go some way toward showing that atheism is wrong. But the kicker is: why believe that there is some such supernatural organizing principle?

Not supernatural, supranatural. The difference is that supernatural is working outside of the natural realm, whereas supranatural means that it is naturalism working at a step higher than we can directly observe.

You say it is information-theoretic because it involves information. I hope you see why that is not an informative reason. It begs the question.

Are you asking for me to define information? As you know, there's no all-encompassing definition on what information is, but information implies meaning to a structure (e.g., signals) that must be correctly interpreted in order for that structure to be considered information. The information-theoretic structure doesn't have to be created by an intelligence, it just has to have some basic level of intent that is not trivial. A trivial intent is a rock's intent to roll down the hill. This kind of "intent" is trivial since the algorithm that describes why it is the rock is rolling down the hill is no different than an algorithm that describes the "intent" of a rock by rolling down the hill. A non-trivial intent would be a robotic-designed rock that rolls down the hill as described by the same algorithm as before, however the algorithm describing the non-trivial intent is not described by that algorithm. The robotic rock has a program running inside which intended to go down the hill so that it could meet some parameter of its robotic program. The trivial "intent" does not cover this possibility. The robotic rock possesses information that its processor must interpret as electromagnetic signals as they are transmitted in the robotic circuitry. However, the robotic rock is not intelligent. It is just interpreting electromagnetic circuitry which gives the robotic rock an intent, but not necessarily intelligence.

Similarly, the pantheist "all-inclusive unity" is information for the universe to behave in a supranatural fashion, versus a purely natural fashion where all intents of the universe are trivial. The atheist view is one in which the behavior of the universe is completely trivial. There are no guiding supranatural principles that direct the universe in one direction versus any other. Everything is random, and from that randomness there are regularities that can occur (e.g., the laws of physics), but there are no supranatural principles that in principle might lead the universe to favor the production of certain kinds of structures (e.g., life) to meet some non-trivial intent. No information is interpreted by the universe. Any kind of unity apparent in the universe is all formal unity. Trivial unity.

You mean that on pantheism, there are (not just might be) constants determined by a supra-physical structure, right? An atheist might agree that there are no constraints against such a thing--it's possible--just not actual. Now: why think there are such supra-physical structures setting the constants?

I don't think a pantheist is necessarily committed to the view that the universe favors life. The modal pantheist might only be committed to the view that the universe favors being in an infinite number of modes, and one mode is our universe that does in fact contain life. Perhaps we live in the mode that intelligence is favored, but it doesn't have to be so for other universes. This kind of modal pantheist is still different from an atheist stance since the modes of operandi must still be interpreted and therefore the universe still has non-trivial intent. This kind of modal pantheism is getting very near to atheism, and most people would call these people atheists, but they still believe in a God since they are saying there is this supranatural aspect to the universe which controls the direction of things, even though its a very loose type of control. Even you yourself might fall into this kind of pantheism, or at least be agnostic about this kind of pantheism.

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.

Why do we have reason to believe that the universe is one not explainable by atheists? Here again you simply beg the question.

If we need a supranatural structure to the world to explain nature, then atheism would fail in providing such an explanation since atheism cannot offer a supranatural explanation to the universe and still be considered as atheism. This is what we already have good reason to believe based on entanglement and quantum cloning. There's still options available to the atheist to explain quantum phenomena in purely non-supranatural terms, but I think those options are starting to run out. In any case, there's certainly enough reason to be agnostic about a pantheist view, and therefore atheism should be already off people's minds at this stage of the game. All that should be left are those atheists who simply like being called atheists because it makes them feel like they haven't caved in yet.

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.

Wait, where did you "show" that local interaction is not possible? It sure seems possible when, for example, I type on this keyboard.

I showed this in the quantum entanglement examples. Information is shared that is non-local between entangled particles.

And where did you show that in cases I take it you have in mind--like quantum entanglement--that this is a sharing of information (rather than merely physical influence) in a way that, say, gravitational influence on an apple is not?

The information is shared between entangled partners, but this is a physical influence as quantum teleporting demonstrates. You can teleport a quantum state without providing all the information of that state.

And where did you show that this notion of information is sufficient to think that a "supra-physical" structure is required to explain the universe? These all seem like very far-out claims that would be pretty hard to show.

What kind of argument are you asking for here? The quantum laws, for example, show what the entangled partner should be doing when a measurement is made to its other partner that is perhaps light years away, and that is sufficient to show that a supraphysical structure (e.g., quantum laws) are necessary to explain the universe.

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.

Which prediction was this exactly?

The prediction that the universe is operating on the notion that there is some kind of "all-inclusive unity" needed to explain the organizing behavior of the universe. We are seeing that the universe is organizing itself along some kind of supranatural set of laws. These predictions were made even while the mechanistic/materialist view of the universe was popular and sufficient to explain the universe's operation. Now that the mechanistic model has failed, the approach of pantheism has shown to take its place.

Whoa, whoa, why is the IPU ruled out? She is a supra-physical structure. Why can't She be the one that set the constants? What reason do you have to reject Her but to include God?

Well, of course anything can exist if it is not seen. However, it is not necessary to our explanation of the world to postulate complexity to the supranatural structure beyond that which is needed to explain the phenomena in question. As it turns out, all we need to explain the world is a logico-mathematical order to the world. We have to also postulate that mind is necessary for that world to function, but we don't have to postulate that such a mind is a person (i.e., possesses a personality).

Why whouldn't She be an equally good explanation of the constants that concern you? Of course the point of the IPU is that it seems purely arbitrary whether you pick the IPU or Zeus or Vishnu or Yahweh to fill in the gaps of current physical explanation, where it's supposed something supernatural must reside.

God is not a gap in physical explanation, it is a requirement of physical explanation. This makes sense from a purely deductive point of view. If the universe has a scientifico-mathematical explanation, then this scientifico-mathematical explanation must be independent of the universe it is trying to describe. Therefore, God exists since that scientifico-mathematical explanation is a metaphysical order to the world. That's not diving into a IPU type explanation. It is just pure deduction that we need this kind of explanation in order for there to be a scientific explanation for the world. I can't see why you would reject a scientific explanation for the world. That's all that is being asked of you in a belief in God.

[QED]

If we need a supranatural structure to the world to explain nature, then atheism would fail in providing such an explanation since atheism cannot offer a supranatural explanation to the universe and still be considered as atheism. This is what we already have good reason to believe based on entanglement and quantum cloning. There's still options available to the atheist to explain quantum phenomena in purely non-supranatural terms, but I think those options are starting to run out.

You only say this to give weight to your other opinions. There is nothing to suggest anything of the kind. It is misleading to those that do not understand the problems inherent in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. One thing is for sure, there has yet to be a fully coherent interpretation, which tells us that we do not yet posess a complete understanding. The history of such enquiry has always resulted in a naturalistic explanation so it is totally unjustified for you to guess at there being any other conclusion. This is just you trying to impress your wishes onto the matter.

In any case, there's certainly enough reason to be agnostic about a pantheist view, and therefore atheism should be already off people's minds at this stage of the game. All that should be left are those atheists who simply like being called atheists because it makes them feel like they haven't caved in yet.

Stop clubbing us over the head with your rhetoric and debate the issue sensibly. You insist that there is intent at large in the universe and I disagree. You need to demonstrate that evolution has to be the product of deliberate design if I am to accept your view.

God is not a gap in physical explanation, it is a requirement of physical explanation. This makes sense from a purely deductive point of view. If the universe has a scientifico-mathematical explanation, then this scientifico-mathematical explanation must be independent of the universe it is trying to describe

Therefore, God exists since that scientifico-mathematical explanation is a metaphysical order to the world. That's not diving into a IPU type explanation. It is just pure deduction that we need this kind of explanation in order for there to be a scientific explanation for the world. I can't see why you would reject a scientific explanation for the world. That's all that is being asked of you in a belief in God.

You can't expect to be allowed to get away with simply equating god to mathematics to prove that the Atheist viewpoint is wrong. You are doing no better than those who just point to the wondrous complexity of nature as being direct evidence for god. You know that evolution has been the mechanism that has cranked out every last drop of life and you know that this most "holy" of processes is wholly understandable in terms of its modus operandi. Again, you need to demonstrate that it is extraordinary that life exists. It will only seem extraordinary if it could only have been the product of deliberate design (or more to the point that the principle of evolution is the product of deliberate design).

The reason this appears so utterly absurd is that it ultimately comes down to the physical properties of bazillions of atoms jiggling about through the vagaries of Brownian motion. Out of this we get sticky things that stick to other things and some stuff that doesn't stick very much at all.

[harvey1]

QED, I'm still waiting for an answer about the class problem that we discussed. Why should we think that atheism is reasonable given all the possible ways the universe could have been at the beginning state which would not solve the magnitude problem? Why do you skirt this issue? Why do all atheists skirt this issue? Appealing to solving only the magnitude problem will not work. You also have to solve the class problem.

[QED]

QED, I'm still waiting for an answer about the class problem that we discussed. Why should we think that atheism is reasonable given all the possible ways the universe could have been at the beginning state which would not solve the magnitude problem? Why do you skirt this issue? Why do all atheists skirt this issue? Appealing to solving only the magnitude problem will not work. You also have to solve the class problem.

I told you that ever less complex magnitude solutions require and arise from ever less demanding classes. As a gross oversimplification, a one dimensional quasi-stable universe might be sufficient to spawn a two-dimensional universe and so on.

The reason for thinking this is simple: The theistic solution which invokes a clever god that understands exactly how to crash branes together to produce universes ultimately has no more explanatory power than the brute fact that the universe "just is". After all, you expect me to accept that this god "just is" -- but anything that can apply brane theory (or whatever theory turns out to be the GUT) has to be alot smarter than the smartest men alive today. If it isn't then it simply doesn't deserve the title god, can't hear your prayers and wouldn't be aware if you were worshiping it or not.

So the only rational possibility is that less demanding classes can give rise to smaller magnitudes and that this process can be audited all the way back to the simplest of brute facts. That makes sense to me.

[harvey1]

I told you that ever less complex magnitude solutions require and arise from ever less demanding classes. As a gross oversimplification, a one dimensional quasi-stable universe might be sufficient to spawn a two-dimensional universe and so on.

Yes, you said so, but you don't have any computer simulations that can come close to simulating how this can be done, nor have you demonstrated why it is that we happen to live in a universe that has had the right class to do it. Are you suggesting that any class type can eventually bring about this universe? Why can't we simulate this through cellular automata which require many thousands of code?

The reason for thinking this is simple: The theistic solution which invokes a clever god that understands exactly how to crash branes together to produce universes ultimately has no more explanatory power than the brute fact that the universe "just is". After all, you expect me to accept that this god "just is" -- but anything that can apply brane theory (or whatever theory turns out to be the GUT) has to be alot smarter than the smartest men alive today. If it isn't then it simply doesn't deserve the title god, can't hear your prayers and wouldn't be aware if you were worshiping it or not.

Well, hearing prayers, etc., is besides the point. If atheism is wrong it really doesn't matter if God hears prayers or extends people's lives into eternal bliss, all that matters is that atheism is wrong. What I want to know is why does an atheist take such a leap of faith when it comes to solving this class problem for a beginning state even though it can't possibly be a correct approach.

And, regarding God, all that I expect is that you accept that we live in a Universe where some version of causality exists. That's not asking too much, is it?

So the only rational possibility is that less demanding classes can give rise to smaller magnitudes and that this process can be audited all the way back to the simplest of brute facts. That makes sense to me.

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?

[harvey1]

You only say this to give weight to your other opinions. There is nothing to suggest anything of the kind. It is misleading to those that do not understand the problems inherent in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. One thing is for sure, there has yet to be a fully coherent interpretation, which tells us that we do not yet posess a complete understanding. The history of such enquiry has always resulted in a naturalistic explanation so it is totally unjustified for you to guess at there being any other conclusion. This is just you trying to impress your wishes onto the matter.

There's ample evidence to suggest that the EPR effect is a real effect.

Stop clubbing us over the head with your rhetoric and debate the issue sensibly. You insist that there is intent at large in the universe and I disagree. You need to demonstrate that evolution has to be the product of deliberate design if I am to accept your view.

That's just not so. That's not what I have to show. All I have to show is that there's good reason to think that the universe evolves according to pantheistic principles, and this is what power laws and basins of attraction in evolution demonstrate.

You can't expect to be allowed to get away with simply equating god to mathematics to prove that the Atheist viewpoint is wrong. You are doing no better than those who just point to the wondrous complexity of nature as being direct evidence for god. You know that evolution has been the mechanism that has cranked out every last drop of life and you know that this most "holy" of processes is wholly understandable in terms of its modus operandi.

If you read that paper, you'll see that this is not the case. Evolution apparently explores state spaces and settles in on attractor basins.

Again, you need to demonstrate that it is extraordinary that life exists. It will only seem extraordinary if it could only have been the product of deliberate design (or more to the point that the principle of evolution is the product of deliberate design).

"Deliberate design" is not a term that I would use since it implies that God is a human being going over every little detail and decides the best design possible. I don't think that's how a timeless God connects to the universe. Rather, God's will exists in the universe, and that will has many levels of interaction with the world. As systems become vunerable to change (i.e., near a phase transition) they are judged to see if there is any new direction that is needed for them to go in order to meet the criteria of God's divine will. If there is no such requirement to alter a random course, then nature continues on randomly. If there is a requirement to move in a different direction in order to conform to God's will (e.g., introduction of life on earth, etc.), then it happens only to the degree that God's will is minimally accomplished. This is what we in fact see in evolution. Design happens minimally, and it happens naturally.

The reason this appears so utterly absurd is that it ultimately comes down to the physical properties of bazillions of atoms jiggling about through the vagaries of Brownian motion. Out of this we get sticky things that stick to other things and some stuff that doesn't stick very much at all.

So says you! I think complexity theory is much closer to the way things are actually happening in the cosmos on all levels. And, I'd say I have the evidence to back it up!