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]

But it is reasonable to reason on the basis of assumption??? I am not sure what you mean by explosive algorithmic behaviour in this context. All of the things we see around us exhibit algorithmic behaviour which is why we are able to simulate within a computer or work out complex interactions. Would the detonation of an atomic bomb in this case constitute an explosive algorithmic behaviour.( IF particle (Xa OR Xb) hits Y THEN Y releases particle Ya + Yb) etc.

Yes, but that's not exactly what I mean. Explosive class means that the class allows other classes to evolve. For example, stellar evolution makes biological evolution eventually possible. That's because the class that defines stellar evolution is such that other classes are possible. A non-explosive class would be the case if stellar evolution didn't produce planets capable of producing life.

Actually isn't that precisely what they are not doing? In my experience, atheists disbelieve because they have no evidence to support that it does exist. You seem to be taking the view on the other hand that unless they can prove it impossible then they must accept it as a possibility. In which case they would have to claim agnosticism.

Atheists claim that God is not needed to explain the universe, and in fact, they believe that other factors are such that we can reject a God explanation to the world. However, those other factors require the universe to be an exploding class type, but atheists are firm in saying that as unlikely as this scenario is that they are proposing, it must be believed until proven wrong.

[Curious]

Explosive class means that the class allows other classes to evolve. For example, stellar evolution makes biological evolution eventually possible. That's because the class that defines stellar evolution is such that other classes are possible. A non-explosive class would be the case if stellar evolution didn't produce planets capable of producing life.

Then what would the formation of new elements (and elemental classes) be described as? Hydrogen for example can be created by the correct mix of subatomic particles. Hydrogen can then be further "evolved" to create all the elements(we can even create elements that don't exist naturally but which should exist if the calculations are correct). Some elements have vastly different properties than other elements and are then classified as inert gases, halogens, metals etc. These elements can form molecules and become substances with yet more qualities and are classified as acid, alkaline, salts, or others too numerous to mention. If what you have described as explosive classes is accurate then I don't see how you conclude that stellar evolution is anything other than an explosive class.

Actually isn't that precisely what they are not doing? In my experience, atheists disbelieve because they have no evidence to support that it does exist. You seem to be taking the view on the other hand that unless they can prove it impossible then they must accept it as a possibility. In which case they would have to claim agnosticism.

Atheists claim that God is not needed to explain the universe, and in fact, they believe that other factors are such that we can reject a God explanation to the world. However, those other factors require the universe to be an exploding class type, but atheists are firm in saying that as unlikely as this scenario is that they are proposing, it must be believed until proven wrong.

The atheist may say he agrees with the scientifically held view of the universe but this is due to evidence, not blind acceptance as you seem to believe. The simple fact is that every observation appears to support the scientific view of the universe. Far from saying that you must believe something until it is proven wrong, the atheist says that unless you can give evidence supporting the idea then it cannot be believed. To illustrate the point would you please tell me whether you are a believer in the Super Conducting Ashtray os simply agnostic?

[harvey1]

Then what would the formation of new elements (and elemental classes) be described as? Hydrogen for example can be created by the correct mix of subatomic particles. Hyrogen can then be further "evolved" to create all the elements(we can even create elements that don't exist naturally but which should exist if the calculations are correct). Some elements have vastly different properties than other elements and are then classified as inert gases, halogens, metals etc. These elements can form molecules and become substances with yet more qualities and are classified as acid, alkaline, salts, or others too numerous to mention. If what you have described as explosive classes is accurate then I don't see how you conclude that stellar evolution is anything other than an explosive class.

Stellar evolution is an explosive class. My point has to do with what is the first explosive class which is what would be considered a brute fact. This brute fact must be explosive enough to account for our universe, but likely enough to be something that we can realistically expect.

The atheist may say he agrees with the scientifically held view of the universe but this is due to evidence, not blind acceptance as you seem to believe. The simple fact is that every observation appears to support the scientific view of the universe. Far from saying that you must believe something until it is proven wrong, the atheist says that unless you can give evidence supporting the idea then it cannot be believed. To illustrate the point would you please tell me whether you are a believer in the Super Conducting Ashtray os simply agnostic?

Atheism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "no God" universe, but atheists believe this to be so. If this isn't blind acceptance, then what is it?

[harvey1]

I think, if, in an ongoing debate, you ask the same of others, and the others present you with answers that may not necessarily be satisfying to you, you don't have the license to make the call that they are indulging in wishful thinking.

Corvus, this is not a cheapshot by me. Wishful thinking is a specific kind of fallacy where a belief is proposed based on what one would like to believe rather than according to the actual evidence. Atheists free-willingly admit that they don't have evidence that supports the view that the universe was restricted to a beginning having only the type of class that would eventually allow our universe to form. They believe that this is the case because this is the only way to explain the universe in light of their atheism, and they would like to believe their atheism is correct. In other words, t is necessary that they believe this to be so or they couldn't be atheists.

This is why I'd rather we drop this particular topic.

As you like...

Firstly; I don't see how it's wrong based merely on a probability factor for a result that you feel is remarkable in some way.

I need to know your reasons why you think the "beginning" of the universe could not have been a non-explosive class. If you agree it could have conceivably been a non-explosive class, then you have either random luck or some mechanism that made the universe favor an explosive class versus a non-explosive class.

Secondly; why are you so certain atheism depends on the mechanisms for the universe's existence being entirely random? As far as I know, atheism, though frequently taken up by skeptics, does not rule out explicitly in its definition spirituality, mysticism and the supernatural. Couldn't atheists believe in a creator-being that isn't a god?

I don't think so. Atheism is a philosophy that says that there is no God or gods in the universe, outside the universe, or pantheistically equivalent to the universe that isn't also reference to the universe. Let me quote Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is a good source for philosophical definitions:

Owen (1971: 69-70) says, "if ‘God’ (theos) is identical with the Universe (to pan) it is merely another name for the Universe. It is therefore bereft of any distinctive meaning; so that pantheism is equivalent to atheism."

In other words, Owen equates atheism to certain kind of trivial identity (namely, God=universe). The article strikes this down as a misrepresentation of pantheism, but what is useful here is that atheism is also defined as what pantheism is being misrepresented as being. If there is something that exists, the thing that exists is trivially identical to the universe. The article calls atheistic concept of unity by the name of "formal unity":

Formal unity can always be attributed to the world on this basis alone. To understand the world as "everything" is to attribute a sense of unity to the world, but there is no reason to suppose this sense of all-inclusiveness is the pantheistically relevant Unity. Similarly, unity as mere numerical, class or categorical unity is irrelevant, since just about anything (and everything) can be "one" or a "unity" in these senses. Suppose "formal unity" to be "the sense in which things are one in virtue of the fact that they are members of one and the same class ... the same universal" (Demos 1945-6: 538). Then clearly formal unity is not pantheistic Unity.

In terms of spirituality, mysticism and the supernatural, these concepts would fit your traditional theist, polytheists, animists, polydemonism, pantheist, etc. beliefs. They would not fit atheism since "gods" are equivalent terms to entities such as spirits, angels, demons, goblins, etc.:

Couldn't they believe that the universe exists entirely in the mind?

A solipsist could be an atheist. But, an atheist cannot be an absolute idealist since this would be a reference to God.

More importantly, can you imagine how a universe might not have a deity but could still exist for a reason not dependent to its creation by deities? Earlier you questioned my attacking the particulars of theism before addressing the minimum. I redirected the charge back at you, but I think the answer got lost in the mail somewhere.

The problem that you have with that notion is that anything that is dependent on an external reality (e.g., external laws, thoughts, dreams, spells, truths, etc.) are attributes of language and or thought. Language and or thought requires a God or gods.

Thirdly - I've also mentioned this before - wouldn't this also rule out every god that isn't a creator if only gods that can be creators can account for the existence of the universe?

Well, atheism isn't just a rejection of God, it is a rejection of all gods or names that substitute for them.

Also, you seem to be saying is that two contradictory beliefs can't both be reasonable to the point of being true. I say of course they can. If I have a coin, and I say that it's reasonable to the point of being true that if I fling it into the air it will land on heads, and you say that it will be reasonable to the point of being true that it will land on tails, then we've done exactly that. Both beliefs are reasonable to the point of being true, both can't be true at the same time, and it's entirely reasonable to hold either view.

I disagree. If you don't have reason to favor one belief over another, then it is not reasonable to believe one and not believe the other.

It depends what version of pantheism one is talking about. Some pantheists simply say god is nature, but I consider meaningless, like saying "pie is duke". They aren't adding any additional properties to nature, but redefining god so that it only has some connotations of divine sublimity or something. Atheists know nature exists, and those pantheists aren't setting up any entity to reject. Other pantheists do believe nature is a intelligent super entity, and that would probably cover the sort of claims atheists reject.

As that article makes clear, a pantheist isn't a pantheist if all they are doing is advocating formal unity of the universe.

I don't believe we can know whether god exists, but I don't believe in god. Categorise me.

Do you hold beliefs that you don't think are reasonable (i.e., do not have enough evidence to your satisfaction that requires you to hold the belief)?

[Curious]

Stellar evolution is an explosive class. My point has to do with what is the first explosive class which is what would be considered a brute fact. This brute fact must be explosive enough to account for our universe, but likely enough to be something that we can realistically expect.

What the hell are you talking about??????????????? are you suggesting that the likelihood of something happening is dependent upon our expectation?

Atheism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "no God" universe, but atheists believe this to be so. If this isn't blind acceptance, then what is it?

There is no evidence that the universe didn't start out as a toasted teacake and the only reason I believe it didn't is the dearth of teacake found within the universe. However, there is more measurable evidence of teacake than of God. Is disbelieving the teacake origin of the universe blind acceptance even though there is overwhelming evidence to support it?

[bernee51]

Atheism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "no God" universe, but atheists believe this to be so. If this isn't blind acceptance, then what is it?

Or to put it another way...

Theism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "God-created" universe, but theists believe this to be so.

This is blind acceptance.

[Curious]

Or to put it another way...
Theism is a philosophy. It is not a scientific belief. There is no evidence that the universe started out as a "God-created" universe, but theists believe this to be so.
This is blind acceptance.

Its faith, there is a suble non-difference.

[NGR]

Its faith, there is a suble non-difference.

Probably has something to do with that wishful thinking Harvey1 and Corvus were arguing about earlier.

[QED]

Desire is a purely emotional state of a human being. God's existence brings forth a "desire" in that there exists an Omega attractor that everything is mathematically/logically compelled to evolve into becoming. This attractor satisfies a truth relation, and therefore, the degree of freedom seen in the universe is based on whether we are tending toward this attractor. If a conceivable event would take place that would push us away from that attractor, then this conceivable event is just not a possible event. The will of God moves the universe toward this Omega attractor.

Can you tell me a bit more about this Omega attractor? Are you thinking of the God that emerges from the evolution of intelligence as proposed by Frank J.Tipler? (I can't find out how this theory has a bearing on the beginning state though)

Or is it the Omega representing the final state of the universe when it has diverged to such a point that the temperature falls to absolute zero?

As the universe expands the universe is invariably becoming increasingly cold. Most everyone knows this, but there is also a hidden and very important underlying physical transformation occurring. At extreme cold temperatures far below water's freezing point, laboratory materials such as cesium gas become super conductive. At such temperatures, groups of oppositely charged particles magically arrange themselves into orderly columns and rows. Then at even colder temperatures, less than a millionth degree away from absolute zero, the individual particles actually unify into a single particle, a super atom. In a wave-like state, the many become one. This unified state of matter is called a condensate, a special form of matter first predicted by Albert Einstein and Satyendra Bose in 1924. A condensate was first created in a University of Colorado laboratory in 1995.

http://everythingforever.com/st_order.htm

I suspect that there are many more fascinating descriptions of Omega states, I'd like to get to know the one you refer to.

[harvey1]

What the hell are you talking about??????????????? are you suggesting that the likelihood of something happening is dependent upon our expectation?

Not at all. If you go back to a "beginning," then my question is why is there something versus nothing? Why do atheists suppose "something" of such an extraordinary type that it somehow transforms into galaxies, planets, life, etc.? Why must atheists assume that the universe started in such a special state versus nothng at all?

There is no evidence that the universe didn't start out as a toasted teacake and the only reason I believe it didn't is the dearth of teacake found within the universe. However, there is more measurable evidence of teacake than of God. Is disbelieving the teacake origin of the universe blind acceptance even though there is overwhelming evidence to support it?

No, it is not blind acceptance to believe the universe didn't start out as a toasted teacake. It is blind acceptance to advocate a belief without reason. We have good reason to think teacakes didn't precede modern culture. Similarly, we have good reason to think that atheists are wrong when they believe a random generated universe must have had to become galaxies and such. That's an unreasonable belief. It seems all the more likely to me that the universe would be nothing at all versus something so complex that we have not come close to designing an algorithm to emulate such a random start for the universe.