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]

Not so fast QED. You haven't answered my questions. Had you answered my questions then I would know why you think it likely that we had a beginning class that was able to explode in a manner to solve all magnitude problems.

This takes us back to the question of just how much time/how many material interactions there can have been, counted from across all the tiny little universe-sized bubbles.

If you have provided that answer, please tell me what it is. I really want to know. For example, can we rule out a universe that begins as a 2D spacetime with gliders floating around? How about 3D, 4D, 5D,..., nD? Wasn't this lucky that we didn't end up with that kind of universe since nothing interesting would ever emerge? Why don't you answer these questions?

You know I don't like discussing this at the level of computer simulations because they don't properly reflect the sort of leverage available to nature. This means that to perform similar functions we have to write reams of code - to which you then ascribe colossal improbabilities. There is no proper measurement taking place in these analogies. All that they can legitimately be used for is demonstrate that simple rules can produce complex results. It is lessons such as these that support a belief that it does not take a supreme being to put stuff together.

QED, you have to understand something, the reason why I reject atheism is because atheism cannot answer these kind of questions. I find the responses you are providing as grossly unsuitable because they simply assume that the class is a given and therefore atheism is correct.

When it comes to givens, yours seem far more more unsuitable given that they do not follow the rest of the pattern. Eternity is one of the important elements of your belief, I happen to think that alot can be achieved with very little during the course of an eternity.

I don't see why you assume such a major assumption since it seems to me that it is quite impossible for the universe to have this kind of class. You have to show me how there aren't more than 5-10 other possibilities for that class, otherwise your explanation for the universe looks very suspicious. How do I know that the five-year old that you once were was just mistaken about their emerging atheist beliefs? Five-year olds can be mistaken, can they not?

All human beings are fallible. We often make mistakes which is why the best we can do is to learn from our mistakes. We have learnt much about the deceptiveness of nature and once we see how it has managed to scale such dizzyingly improbable heights we have before us a process that has truly cosmic proportions.

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

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

Atheism for me admirably expresses my opinion that if there is any brute fact it is purely that of raw material (read material as branes, strings, dimensions or whatever). Any higher level of organization is simply an additional burden required by those who can't get over the fact that the whole gig looks like the product of some deliberate construction project. The universe most definitely does not look like this to me despite its initial appearances. This is a powerful vector away from theism and towards atheism.

[harvey1]

This takes us back to the question of just how much time/how many material interactions there can have been, counted from across all the tiny little universe-sized bubbles.

But, why was this material interaction with tiny little universe-sized bubble universe likely? Why do you think this is the universe that was the beginning state of the universe versus a 1D universe?

You know I don't like discussing this at the level of computer simulations because they don't properly reflect the sort of leverage available to nature. This means that to perform similar functions we have to write reams of code - to which you then ascribe colossal improbabilities. There is no proper measurement taking place in these analogies. All that they can legitimately be used for is demonstrate that simple rules can produce complex results. It is lessons such as these that support a belief that it does not take a supreme being to put stuff together.

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that the class that started everything off is inevitable? Based on what reasons are you saying that? Why do you think the behavior of this beginning state was so sophisticated versus most simple classes where nothing interesting happens? Why do you assume something must happen when all the behaviors that we can easily imagine (e.g., 1D world) would not produce anything interesting such as inflating universes? It seems you just want to assume this is the case, but you don't provide any means to show why it must be that way.

When it comes to givens, yours seem far more more unsuitable given that they do not follow the rest of the pattern. Eternity is one of the important elements of your belief, I happen to think that alot can be achieved with very little during the course of an eternity.

My assumptions of a primitive causal nexus do follow naturally in the world. That is what we see in terms of networks of attractor basins in the world. The world is just one big attractor basin network. That is why things evolve, they are exploring the state space of reality according to the mathematical rules that apply per the primitive causal nexus.

Atheism for me admirably expresses my opinion that if there is any brute fact it is purely that of raw material (read material as branes, strings, dimensions or whatever). Any higher level of organization is simply an additional burden required by those who can't get over the fact that the whole gig looks like the product of some deliberate construction project. The universe most definitely does not look like this to me despite its initial appearances. This is a powerful vector away from theism and towards atheism.

Forgive me, but I just don't see your position as viable. You are assuming that just because classes in our universe can solve magnitude problems that this automatically gives you warrant to dismiss all class problems as trivial. This is not the case. Science struggles every day against class problems, and if it were just a matter of waiving our magic wand for all class problems, then no science would ever be constructed. We have to find the appropriate class before we can resolve magnitude problems. However, with atheism we have a case which in principle the class problem is unsolvable. It is unsolvable because there are no restrictions to what the beginning class can be, and the majority of classes don't do anything interesting--let alone explode into a class that solves the magnitude problems of inflationary universes. I cannot seem to get you to face this issue since you want to waive a magic wand and get rid of the problem. As long as you do so, I have to keep asking my questions.

[spetey]

Hi folks!

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.

Sorry, supranatural, I missed that distinction. And thank you for giving a first definition of this term. I'm not sure it's one you'd commit to, though. According to you, is natural selection an example of a supranatural phenomenon? It is surely naturalism working at a step higher than direct observation (it had to be inferred). Is natural selection alone enough to establish pantheism, according to you? The mere force of natural selection means there is a god?

However, the robotic rock is not intelligent. It is just interpreting electromagnetic circuitry which gives the robotic rock an intent, but not necessarily intelligence.

To have a genuine intentional state is normally a sufficient condition for (some amount of) intelligence. So I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing here.

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.

An atheist such as I am would say that the universe has no intent at all (and, what's roughly equivalent, no intelligence). So your point about the universe's having "all-inclusive unity" seems to reduce to the same question I've been asking all along--that is, why think the universe is intelligent (has "intent" in any literal sense, has this "all-inclusive unity")?

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.

As you defined "supranatural", I think we need lots of supranatural structures to explain the universe. Natural selection, quantum mechanics, Einsteinian relativity--they are all naturalistic mechanisms not directly observable, and so "supranatural". But I don't see why this would mean there is a god.

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.

What quantum entanglement (maybe) shows is that sometimes there isn't local interaction. It doesn't show that local interaction is impossible. Most other physical interactions seem to demonstrate amply that local interaction is possible. This may sound like nit-picking, but it's worthwhile to try to be clear and careful in debates like this, paying close attention to fine distinctions.

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.

Note again you simply state that there is a sharing of information. I want to know why we should think of this as a case of information and intent. Again, why does one physical phenomenon (quantum entanglement) demonstrate intent (or information-sharing or whatever), while another (gravitational attraction) doesn't?

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.

Okay, if by "supraphysical structure" you just mean (in this case) quantum laws, then that's consistent with your definition, and quantum entanglement does seem like a good demonstration of quantum laws. But the argument I'm asking for is the argument that the mere existence of "supraphysical phenomena" such as laws of physics means there must be a god. After all, you grant that the atheist view is consistent with the existence of physical laws:

Everything is random, and from that randomness there are regularities that can occur (e.g., the laws of physics) ...

Of course this sentence continues:

... 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.

But that seems to contradict your earlier definition, and your earlier claim that the quantum laws are supranatural phenomena. Are the laws of physics supranatural structures or not? If not, what other definition do you offer?

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.

You've said this kind of thing before: that God is (by definition) whatever explains the universe. You are quick to say this kind of thing. Imagine someone saying 200 years ago that God is (by definition) whatever explains the complexity of life. Such a person would today be commited to saying God is natural selection. It's easy to define God as whatever fits in our explanatory gaps, but it looks awfully implausible as our knowledge grows.

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.

I don't reject a scientific explanation of the world--I seek it wherever I can. I reject the God explanation. We've given God explanations a lot in the past, such as for how flowers grow, or why the moon wanes, and then later such explanations were replaced by what we call scientific ones. Sure, there are gaps left where God can still fit. But they're ever-shrinking.


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello again,

Sorry, supranatural, I missed that distinction. And thank you for giving a first definition of this term. I'm not sure it's one you'd commit to, though. According to you, is natural selection an example of a supranatural phenomenon? It is surely naturalism working at a step higher than direct observation (it had to be inferred). Is natural selection alone enough to establish pantheism, according to you? The mere force of natural selection means there is a god?

By using the phrase "direct observe" I am talking about conducting experiments and observations of those structures and processes such that we can eliminate the underlying structure in a scientific manner--not excluding scientific inferred processes and objects. For example, quarks are not really observable, but their presence has kickability that particle scientists can monitor statistically, and that's how we know there are quarks. There are experimental means to directly observe their phenomena and that's why particles such as quarks are part of science. Similarly, natural selection is not beyond "direct" observability in that natural selective schemes have predictable results, and those predictions is what makes natural selection a science versus a philosophy of science. Metaphysical structures (or supranatural structures), on the other hand, cannot be directly observed since experiments and observations cannot eliminate other possibilities. I realize it's a confusing phrase as you pointed out, so I won't use it anymore.

To have a genuine intentional state is normally a sufficient condition for (some amount of) intelligence. So I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing here.

I'm not sure how you are defining intelligence, but in my view intelligence is an act of cognition. Genes, instinct, and computer processing is a step toward intelligence, but it is not intelligence in the cognitive sense. I would say that language and self-awareness is a key attribute of real intelligence. Just as an example, if we came upon a garden on Mars where the plants flower buds tracked the sun as it moved through the Martian sky, few astrobiologists would make the claim that intelligent life has been found on Mars. However, if an intentional state is all that is required to consider something intelligent, then plants that track the sun to gain direct sunlight may qualify as having an intentional state. I wouldn't consider them intelligent at all.

An atheist such as I am would say that the universe has no intent at all (and, what's roughly equivalent, no intelligence). So your point about the universe's having "all-inclusive unity" seems to reduce to the same question I've been asking all along--that is, why think the universe is intelligent (has "intent" in any literal sense, has this "all-inclusive unity")?

Again, I want to avoid the word "intelligence" since this seems to me to be a word that conjures up pictures of God that most pantheists would recoil at. However, if we are looking for all-inclusive unity in the universe that doesn't imply formal unity, then the organizing principles of complex systems certainly provides a strong argument that the atheist must at least be agnostic about a pantheists belief system. If the universe has intention to move toward complexity based on a universality hypothesis (see the article I cited here), and right away that takes on strong pantheist overtones.

[quote="

Note again you simply state that there is a sharing of information. I want to know why we should think of this as a case of information and intent. Again, why does one physical phenomenon (quantum entanglement) demonstrate intent (or information-sharing or whatever), while another (gravitational attraction) doesn't?

Entanglement is explained by an equation showing a non-local interaction between two entangled partners at a (potentially) considerable distance from each other. If one of the particles is measured, there is an intent on the behalf of the laws of the universe to keep the unmeasured particle in agreement with what was measured at a (potentially) considerable distance. Local effects, e.g., gravitational propagation, can be explained without appeal to a non-trivial intent (e.g., a rock's intent to roll down the hill).

... 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.

But that seems to contradict your earlier definition, and your earlier claim that the quantum laws are supranatural phenomena. Are the laws of physics supranatural structures or not? If not, what other definition do you offer?

I was referring to atheism's formal unity approach to the universe, here's the entire quote:

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've said this kind of thing before: that God is (by definition) whatever explains the universe. You are quick to say this kind of thing. Imagine someone saying 200 years ago that God is (by definition) whatever explains the complexity of life. Such a person would today be commited to saying God is natural selection. It's easy to define God as whatever fits in our explanatory gaps, but it looks awfully implausible as our knowledge grows.

Over 200 years ago Spinoza was referring to God as that which explains the world, but he wasn't referring to a personal God. Heraclitus, over 2500 years ago didn't believe in a personal God, but said the following:

The Logos, which is as I describe, proves incomprehensible, both before it is heard and even after it is heard. For although all things happen according to the Logos, many act as if they have no experience of it...

God is day/night, winter/summer, war/peace, fullness/hunger; the experience of God changes in teh way that [wine], when it is mixed with spices, is named according to the scent of each

So, I think that history is on my side in this discussion. God has not been one definition throughout recorded history. However, God has always been referred to as a metaphysical structure that "all things happen according to...."

[QED]

Just to throw some cold water on the entangled states argument this paper appears to dismiss the issue of non-locality:

It is currently believed that the local causality of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is destroyed by the measurement process. This belief is also based on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and on the so-called Bell’s theorem, that are thought to prove the existence of a mysterious, instantaneous action between distant measurements. However, I have shown recently that the EPR argument is removed, in an interpretation-independent way, by taking into account the fact that the Standard Model of Particle Physics prevents the production of entangled states with a definite number of particles. This result is used here to argue in favor of a statistical interpretation of QFT and to show that it allows for a full reconciliation with locality and causality. Within such an interpretation, as Ballentine and Jarret pointed out long ago, Bell’s theorem does not demonstrate any nonlocality.

[harvey1]

Just to throw some cold water on the entangled states argument this paper appears to dismiss the issue of non-locality

Careful QED. This paper hasn't been cited for any response by anyone in the field. I looked at the author and I didn't see anyone ever contributing with them in any of their papers, nor has any of their papers been cited as producing some kind of result. I don't think any of us have the expertise to judge the merit of their claim, however usually these kind of claims get responses if they are taken seriously enough.

That's not to say that EPR is a proven phenomena. There are a few credible voices that deny EPR effects as being non-local, and the experiments that will finally decide the matter are still on-going. It might be a couple of decades before it is firmly decided if quantum mechanics is really non-local. The thing is, the evidence looks pretty good and teleporting of quantum states has already been performed in experiment. So, welcome to the joy of science.

I think for my purposes here though, I only want to emphasize what is reasonable to believe. That's been my key note this entire thread. What I don't like is when atheists say that something is not reasonable to believe even though they have no good reason for rejecting it.

[QED]

Well, I was being careful thankyou. That's why I said seems to dismiss. I generally try to avoid digging out research papers as "evidence" for my position because there are always snippets that can be patched together to build any case. I know it's difficult to keep from doing this, but I think it's much more valuable to discuss things at a broader level.

We both exist in a wonderful world. How did we get here? We know it has a finite age but we don't know what went before. You think it is all the result of gods master plan, I think that it is entirely un-planned and the result of contingency. Ironically, all reliable investigations performed so far seem to be broadly compatible with both views but not necessarily with all the esoteric details.

So my opinion is that your view is coloured by your human propensities to plan and create, to be a subject of a higher authority and to seek meaning in what you otherwise perceive to be a meaningless existence. My view takes the same observational data and applies nothing more to my interpretation other than the sort of contingency that I can see happening out in the woods at the end of my garden.

[harvey1]

My view takes the same observational data and applies nothing more to my interpretation other than the sort of contingency that I can see happening out in the woods at the end of my garden.

I think where your view fails, QED, is that it attributes too much capability to Las Vegas gambling. I think in order to be realistic one must abandon a view that resides primarily on randomness, and replace it instead with one that resides primarily on lawful order in the universe. The universality of this order requires that we accept a metaphysical order in the world, and as an extension, we begin to commune with that order by having religious yearnings of that metaphysical existence. I think you do that to some extent, but because you attribute its existence to randomness I think it causes you to miss the bigger picture of our existence. This is the essence of religion, and I think it is well justified given our human need for a meaningful existence.

[harvey1]

The following post I made to Spetey last night had an error in the URL address, I referenced. I edited that post for a correct, but here is the correction of that URL (it should have referred Spetey to an article that provides a good introduction to complex systems):

Again, I want to avoid the word "intelligence" since this seems to me to be a word that conjures up pictures of God that most pantheists would recoil at. However, if we are looking for all-inclusive unity in the universe that doesn't imply formal unity, then the organizing principles of complex systems certainly provides a strong argument that the atheist must at least be agnostic about a pantheists belief system. If the universe has intention to move toward complexity based on a universality hypothesis (see the article I cited here), and right away that takes on strong pantheist overtones.

Sorry about that...

[QED]

I think where your view fails, QED, is that it attributes too much capability to Las Vegas gambling. I think in order to be realistic one must abandon a view that resides primarily on randomness, and replace it instead with one that resides primarily on lawful order in the universe.

What is so unrealistic about randomness? It is a known property of the cosmos. The only reason it gets a bad press is because certain people have misunderstood it's role in the evolution of life. But you are not entirely in that camp from what I can tell, yet you still find it disdainful. Therefore I can only suspect that your objections arise because it removes the magic from things you hold dear.

The universality of this order requires that we accept a metaphysical order in the world

It is all too easy come out with this sort of statement. We always pin the label of metaphysics to those things just beyond our understanding. But we're slowly chipping away at improving on our understanding and in doing so have settled countless mysteries thus far. Even if you can demonstrate that an area exists that is off-limits to our understanding I still fail to see why this would entitle you to insert a deity above anything else.

and as an extension, we begin to commune with that order by having religious yearnings of that metaphysical existence.

Here lies a massive clue to the conundrum. How many times have we brought up the subject of wishful thinking. I just don't see how you can deny that this is utlimately what motivates you.

I think you do that to some extent, but because you attribute its existence to randomness I think it causes you to miss the bigger picture of our existence. This is the essence of religion, and I think it is well justified given our human need for a meaningful existence.

When you talk as you do here about yearning and needs I think you totally give the game away. Looking at all this logically I can conclude that humility is ultimately what separates us.

Some time ago I read that you agonised over arriving at your position. You strived to give as much careful consideration to all the issues you could and in the end you decided that theism was the thing for you. Are you sure that you were not being influenced by your own ego? The bible tells us that man is special and working our way back from that idea it is easy to see how the path we've been discussing can only lead to one place.

There are no shortage of whacky suppositions being bandied about to support the notion that man is the "final product" of gods master plan. Just look at otsengs view of our planet being the centre of the universe despite it forcing our galaxy and everything else into a wildly eccentric orbit. Surely you must constantly tut at those who twist and turn reality in order to impose their literal interpretation of the Old Testament, the amazing events of the great flood that "sorted" the fossils into what we now mistake as a chronological order?

You can see this going on all around you, and yet you do not seem to question the motives ~ to me you appear to be caught in the same vortex. I feel like I'm standing to one side watching it happen from a safe distance.