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.

[bernee51]

Atheism speaks of the belief or not of the existence of god(s).

Could you re-phrase that?

Sure why not. Atheism speaks only of a lack of belief of the existence of god(s).

Is that better?

]
Cosmology is irrelevant to the philosophy of atheism, but all of atheism has one thing in common, namely the belief that the universe was restricted in it's beginning.

The only 'restriction' is not allowing for a creator god.

The restriction is that there is no mind that chooses a preferred universe, rather, the "preferred universe" is a result of a random brute fact.

That is a false dichotomy. There is at least one other option.

Care to guess?

Good reasons is the use of evidence to construe a logical interpretation of that evidence. If you would like to show how I have misconstrued what we know, then please feel free to present your counterargument.

Like you said it is 'an interpretation'. Who am I to judge your interpretations - to you they are quite valid - other than to suggest that one interpretation does not equate to factual evidence.

What came first for you - the belief in a creator god or your interpratation of the supposed evidence to support your belief?

[harvey1]

I didn't make any assertions about what form the beginning of the universe took. In fact, I try to avoid these sorts of questions because I think it involves far too much speculation to be realistic even in a discussion limited to speculating on the unknown. To do so would be attempting to establish probabilities for a possibility that will be used in turn for calculating the probability of another possibility (the existence of gods).

What is there to speculate on? The (meta)universe is either infinitely old or finitely old, right? If the (meta)universe was infinitely old or finitely old, there either is a cause of the (meta)universe being the way it is or the way it is uncaused. If uncaused then the (meta)universe is the way it is because it is a random structure that just exists (or just came to exist). If there is a cause, then it is the way it is because there is something that precedes the (meta)universe (by definition).

Now, comes the question, with these possibilities can we look at each possibility and see its impact on the theist/atheist debate? Why not?

1. Infinitely old/Finitely old (meta)universe: Neither of these categories affect the debate between theists and atheists since theists can think God caused an infinitely old universe (e.g., Aquinas) or think God caused a finite old (meta)universe (e.g., Genesis). Atheists too can say the (meta)universe didn't have a beginning or say that the (meta)universe is an uncaused thing that happens every now and then.
2. Cause or no cause: Theists can believe the (in)finite universe is caused (of course!), but a theist would be a little strange to suggest the (in)finite (meta)universe was uncaused since the primary role of God within theism would not be God's actions. Although I suppose it's possible a theist could say that God becomes involved in uncaused universes, it would not be terribly consistent of the theist to suggest that. So, let's rule it out as a theist belief.

Atheists can believe the (meta)universe is uncaused, of course, but can atheists believe the (meta)universe was caused? I don't think they can. The reason is that a causal agent would have to be something other than a physical reality otherwise we're just referring to the wrong (meta)universe when we were talking about a caused universe. What we really want is the (in)finite state of the (meta)universe that has no other universe causing it's existence. If time loops around and re-creates the universe, then the (meta)universe is the entire looping structure. The entire looping structure is either caused or uncaused. (This is what I mean by (meta)universe.)

So, if there is something non-physical that caused the (meta)universe, then atheism runs into ground since something that is non-physical is necessarily a mental concept (e.g., law, theory, mind, etc.). If such a mental thing existed to cause the (meta)universe, then this would require a mind of some sort. That would be in contradiction to atheism.

So, I don't think this is speculation. It is simply deducing the possibilities and evaluating the ramifications

...I don't see how you've shown believing in the supernatural is equivalent to believing in gods.

I showed that atheism requires that the (meta)universe be uncaused. That's what we are discussing.

And as for supernatural creatures or even considering a creator-who-is-not-a-god; perhaps you could show me what you consider to be the minimum definition of a god, to see if they correlate?

A god is any non-physical entity having intent and/or mind. God is a non-physical structure to the universe having an intent and/or mind.

You seem to be saying that an atheist must be a materialist. Why?

No, I'm saying that an atheist must be a theist. There are no grounds for atheism. However, if one just closed their ears an atheist could be a materialist, idealist, platonist, mystic, etc..

Another huh? I must have missed the post where you proved language or thought requires a God or gods.

If the structure of reality needs a mind to interpret language or have a thought, then this is contradiction to atheism. Mind is the presence of a God or gods.

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.

I disagree, and I will give a real world example to show why. At the moment the coin is on the ground and you have yet to glance down to see how it has landed. Maintain that glance heavenward and ponder on the outcome of the toss. We can both agree it is not reasonable to believe the coin landed on both heads or tails, or neither heads nor tails, since they are two opposing positions. It's entirely acceptable to say "I don't know how the coin landed" or "I refrain judgement on the resting state of the coin", but I don't see how this is more reasonable than taking a punt at it and guessing how the coin landed.

You can guess, but you don't have a reason for holding that belief. The belief itself is unreasonable since you have no reason to favor heads over tails, or vice versa.

If we have repeated the coin toss 50 times prior to the current situation and results were 30 heads, 20 tails, then its very likely the outcome of our most recent coin toss will be tails. But is it still reasonable to expect that the coin will come up heads for the 41st time? Yes, I believe so. That thing that we call reason is what we are using to determine the likelihood of something, or a probability if you will allow me to call it that, and what my little example with the coin shows is that the probability alone is not enough to determine whether a belief is false or whether it is true. Then we have to also take into consideration that our understanding of what is probable or what is improbable to some extent rests on the diverse experiences of we the gamblers, possibly to the effect that we can arrive at different conclusions.

If you have more reason to believe heads versus tails, then it is not reasonable to believe the coin will flip tails. The only way you can reasonably favor tails is if there is something that you know that you haven't disclosed, in which case you just withholding evidence.

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)?

I believe so.

You are an agnostic then. The reason you are agnostic is because if you were to insist on being reasonable, then you would say that you are an agnostic. This is what an agnostic is. Someone who doesn't believe the evidence is such that we can have good enough reason to believe there is a God, or believe there is not a God.

[harvey1]

That is the thing. What I am saying is that this universe need not be the only universe.

True, but are you saying that a meta-universe had to be the type of structure which you are imagining? If so, based on what evidence are you saying a meta-universe had to be what you have in mind?

In fact the whole theory insists that other realities must exist to allow for the existence of this universe. These could include your singular,multi and null dimensional realities.The infinite possibilites would make it a certainty that a universe with the complexity of ours would at some point exist as well as simpler or more complex ones. It would also be inevitable that at some point, someone would ask this very question and get this reply.

Sure, and like I said, I'm excited that you found a possible metauniverse that explains this one. However, what about the other possible metauniverses that don't explain this one? Why did the nature of reality favor the one that you are proposing versus nothing at all? It would seem nothing at all is much more likely since there doesn't appear to be any reason why that wasn't the case.

[harvey1]

Sure why not. Atheism speaks only of a lack of belief of the existence of god(s).

So, in other words, it is a proponent of a random uncaused (meta)universe.

The restriction is that there is no mind that chooses a preferred universe, rather, the "preferred universe" is a result of a random brute fact.

That is a false dichotomy. There is at least one other option. Care to guess?

An irrational reason for a "preferred universe"?

What came first for you - the belief in a creator god or your interpratation of the supposed evidence to support your belief?

Well, that's easy, I was always into philosophical thought even as a kid. I remember someone asking me if I believed in God, and I said maybe the universe started itself. They raised the argument of a beginning, and that's when I started to think about it. At that time I came to this conclusion that any atheistic beginning would need a random state of affairs to explain this universe, but that would be absurd since you would need the right kind of state of affairs to organize into what we see. It seemed to me back then that atheism was not reasonable, so from that point I've never reverted back into an agnostic mindset. I have, though, continued to pursue a better understanding. My conclusion is that most atheists just haven't thought of the beginning too much. I imagine most of their attention has focused on the 6 o'clock news and after an hour they say, "surely there cannot be a God." That's my take on it.

[QED]

Well, that's easy, I was always into philosophical thought even as a kid. I remember someone asking me if I believed in God, and I said maybe the universe started itself. They raised the argument of a beginning, and that's when I started to think about it. At that time I came to this conclusion that any atheistic beginning would need a random state of affairs to explain this universe, but that would be absurd since you would need the right kind of state of affairs to organize into what we see. It seemed to me back then that atheism was not reasonable, so from that point I've never reverted back into an agnostic mindset.

But what answer did you give to yourself when you asked the obvious question "where did god come from?" I say that anything that can be stated to account for God can equally well be applied to the starting condition of the (meta)universe. You often claim that the requirement for a mind to hold logic or the satisfaction of law implies the existence of God while I say it can equally imply the existence of a (meta)universe.

Then we can see that the other question is a question too far.

I have, though, continued to pursue a better understanding. My conclusion is that most atheists just haven't thought of the beginning too much. I imagine most of their attention has focused on the 6 o'clock news and after an hour they say, "surely there cannot be a God." That's my take on it.

Oh no, that's just the cherry on the cake.

[bernee51]

So, in other words, it is a proponent of a random uncaused (meta)universe.

"random uncaused"...that could almost be a tautology. I have no problem imagining an uncaused universe...as you may remember from previous conversations.

An irrational reason for a "preferred universe"?

why is there a necessity for a 'preferred universe"?

Well, that's easy, I was always into philosophical thought even as a kid. I remember someone asking me if I believed in God, and I said maybe the universe started itself. They raised the argument of a beginning, and that's when I started to think about it. At that time I came to this conclusion that any atheistic beginning would need a random state of affairs to explain this universe, but that would be absurd since you would need the right kind of state of affairs to organize into what we see. It seemed to me back then that atheism was not reasonable, so from that point I've never reverted back into an agnostic mindset. I have, though, continued to pursue a better understanding. My conclusion is that most atheists just haven't thought of the beginning too much. I imagine most of their attention has focused on the 6 o'clock news and after an hour they say, "surely there cannot be a God." That's my take on it.

That's interesting Harvey. I came at it from a slightly different direction. I could (can) see no other reason for the existence of god (univeral creator not withstanding). If the the only reason to believe in a deity is to expalin the existence of the universe and that deity has (had) no other function, not much of a deity, hardly worth calling 'god' - as 'god' is understood by the monothiesic religions. If there was a 'god' who pushed the start button, he's long gone. This assumes there was a need to push the start button on the univese as we currently percieve it.

[QED]

So, if there is something non-physical that caused the (meta)universe, then atheism runs into ground since something that is non-physical is necessarily a mental concept (e.g., law, theory, mind, etc.). If such a mental thing existed to cause the (meta)universe, then this would require a mind of some sort. That would be in contradiction to atheism.

I have already stated that I do not accept that non-physical things such as laws imply mind. We never see examples of software running without hardware in the real world and I would be prepared to stake important body-parts against you being able to provide me with a single example.

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.

Is the problem here that you are thinking in serial terms, as if the chain is only as strong as its weakest link? Because I am thinking in parallel terms where there are no such dependencies. You appear to focussed on the exclusive nature of the initial class, yet I say that any explosive class can make us a home. Other than a personal distaste for all that is random I cannot see any other objection that can be raised. If you are in the game of accepting anything as brute fact, be it an infinity or transition, what is there to lead you to conclude it can only happen just the once?

[Curious]

That is the thing. What I am saying is that this universe need not be the only universe.

True, but are you saying that a meta-universe had to be the type of structure which you are imagining? If so, based on what evidence are you saying a meta-universe had to be what you have in mind?

I'm not saying it had to be as I imagined. This is an argument against what you claim "had to be" based on your reasoning. This is the point of my post, that what you say "had to be" due to your reasoning is no more valid than my argument of "might have been" by my reasoning.

In fact the whole theory insists that other realities must exist to allow for the existence of this universe. These could include your singular,multi and null dimensional realities.The infinite possibilites would make it a certainty that a universe with the complexity of ours would at some point exist as well as simpler or more complex ones. It would also be inevitable that at some point, someone would ask this very question and get this reply.

Sure, and like I said, I'm excited that you found a possible metauniverse that explains this one. However, what about the other possible metauniverses that don't explain this one? Why did the nature of reality favor the one that you are proposing versus nothing at all? It would seem nothing at all is much more likely since there doesn't appear to be any reason why that wasn't the case.

I thought I explained this earlier so to avoid repetition I will explain differently. The likelihood of you being in a particular place at any particular time in the universe is astronomically small. However, it is likely that at anytime you look in a mirror you will be able to see your own reflection. The likelihood of seeing your reflection is therefore not dependent upon the chance of your being in a particular location at any particular time but on the availability of a mirror and your perception. Anybody could look at the mirror and see themselves although the chance of them being at that particular place at that particular time is very small indeed. There could be a thousand mirrors all reflecting a thousand different reflections. What is the chance of all these people being at their own particular mirror at that particular time. They might all believe that theirs is the only mirror in the universe or that they have the only reflection but then again they might not.

[harvey1]

I'm not saying it had to be as I imagined. This is an argument against what you claim "had to be" based on your reasoning. This is the point of my post, that what you say "had to be" due to your reasoning is no more valid than my argument of "might have been" by my reasoning.

You misunderstand my point. I'm not saying a particular primitive cosmology "had to be," in fact, that's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that we cannot restrict ourselves to one primitive cosmology, so not one primitive cosmology is likely, therefore we have to base the most likely primitive cosmology on the most numerous type of primitive cosmology. We base this premise on the principle of simplicity, which means the most simplest primitive cosmologies are most likely. That means the primitive cosmologies that do the least in terms of function (i.e., less number of lines in an algorithm) are more likely, and sophisticated algorithms are least likely (such as what you imagined). Even if we cannot judge primitive cosmologies on this scale of likelihood, we still cannot give priority over sophisticated algorithmic cosmologies such as what you imagined, and therefore disordered primitive cosmologies having no self-extracting behavior is more numerous than types that self-extract (or explode). Hence, your primitive cosmology is extremely unlikely and can be safely ruled out as a primitive cosmology which explains the world that we see.

I thought I explained this earlier so to avoid repetition I will explain differently. The likelihood of you being in a particular place at any particular time in the universe is astronomically small. However, it is likely that at anytime you look in a mirror you will be able to see your own reflection. The likelihood of seeing your reflection is therefore not dependent upon the chance of your being in a particular location at any particular time but on the availability of a mirror and your perception. Anybody could look at the mirror and see themselves although the chance of them being at that particular place at that particular time is very small indeed. There could be a thousand mirrors all reflecting a thousand different reflections. What is the chance of all these people being at their own particular mirror at that particular time. They might all believe that theirs is the only mirror in the universe or that they have the only reflection but then again they might not.

That's just a slight re-phrasing of the weak anthropic principle (WAP). The problem with using the WAP to explain the universe is that it still does not explain the unlikeliness of a sophisticated primitive cosmology existing when we should expect a very primitive cosmology (e.g., nothing at all, 1D universes that don't do anything interesting, etc.). You have to explain why this is the case, not just cite that we're here and that's why we see what we do. Of course anyone could use that explanation for any phenomena not understood, and that would be about as satisfying as telling someone don't ask such questions because they lead nowhere.

[harvey1]

But what answer did you give to yourself when you asked the obvious question "where did god come from?" I say that anything that can be stated to account for God can equally well be applied to the starting condition of the (meta)universe. You often claim that the requirement for a mind to hold logic or the satisfaction of law implies the existence of God while I say it can equally imply the existence of a (meta)universe.

Back then the answer that I came up to was that God was more likely in a primitive cosmology because God represented possibility and possibilty is a concept of mind. The universe can be expressed in terms of possibility (e.g., quantum cosmology), but what does that mean if there is no matter/energy (universe) to be possible about? As I've looked into the situation further, I've come to see that God is not just possibility, but God is that which decides what is possible and what is true. You can't do without the notion of possibility and truth, hence you cannot do without the notion of God.

Oh no, that's just the cherry on the cake.

Well, you can't ask the theist a question without answering their question.