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]

I ought to mention that I am Agnostic about life elsewhere in the universe, because I cannot think of a single reason why it could not be so. That was the matter I was referring to above. However, you will find that I am Atheistic about god. I think that Agnosticism is a perfectly valid position to hold about go if somebody cannot see a reason why he could not exist in principle.

[NGR]

I ought to mention that I am Agnostic about life elsewhere in the universe, because I cannot think of a single reason why it could not be so. That was the matter I was referring to above. However, you will find that I am Atheistic about god. I think that Agnosticism is a perfectly valid position to hold if somebody cannot see a reason why god could not exist in principle.

Just about anything can exist in principle but most people draw the line at improbable things like dragons, fairies etc. An agnostic doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence for God just as I presume he sees insufficient evidence for dragons and fairies. Why is the God concept given different consideration?

[harvey1]

Hello NGR,

Firstly, QED is an atheist. He was merely pointing out that an agnostic position does not require a commitment to the negative position.

We don't know whether there is life elsewhere in the Universe but we do know that life exists. If it happened once there is no logical reason that I can think of that it would not occur elsewhere. We may well be the only life in the Universe but ruling out the possibility with our current fledgling exploratory efforts would I think be premature.

Of course. However, I would take the position that there is life in other parts of the universe. I think there is enough evidence that life developed soon after the formation of earth that life can evolve in hostile environments, and therefore life should be common in the universe.

In contrast God was promulgated by man from the time he first became sufficiently intellectually aware to ponder his existence. God is an invention of man it has no objective manifestation. All the Gods of the past were worshipped with the same enthusiasm as the current crop of theists worship theirs. In fact out ancestors were often more enamoured with their Gods and frequently sacrificed sundry animals people and their own children to curry favour. We could be considered a little more civilised now and these practises are no longer observed. Theology is an evolutionary process and current religions are built on the foundations of those practised in the past but only the general principal is the same the Gods themselves continuously change.

Okay, this is a new argument for atheism which hasn't been presented on this thread. Not surprisingly, I don't think it holds water. One can be right for the "wrong" or misdirected reasons, and one can also be wrong for the "right" or well-directed reasons. Had the same ancestors glorified evolutionary theory (e.g., the pantheist Anaximander in the 5th century BC), then you would be talking about how perceptive and brilliant they were even though they came up with their views for reasons other than the reasons that Darwin et al. used to be convinced of evolutionary theory.

From a theist perspective, it is understandable that ancients did not have a good grasp on God. The universe requires a scientific understanding to conceive of the complex relationships that exist, so it is understandable to confuse those relationships in a manner that leads to an inaccurate view of God. However, as humans continued to understand the world, their understanding of God improved as we see from the history of theism.

There is no evidence at all that our ancestors worshiping a mountain or Sun God gained any benefits from their efforts and current theists would consider past efforts misguided because they have the right answer and it clearly has nothing to do with a mountain or the Sun.

Evidence of this type is impossible to obtain even if their efforts did have some effect on their existence. We would need a parallel world where every attribute was exactly the same except that in parallel world B the people were all atheists.

[harvey1]

Just about anything can exist in principle but most people draw the line at improbable things like dragons, fairies etc. An agnostic doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence for God just as I presume he sees insufficient evidence for dragons and fairies. Why is the God concept given different consideration?

You'd have to ask an agnostic, but an agnostic should believe in God since a "no God" world is not realistically possible. As I mentioned to QED et al., the beginning state of the universe would require a God in order to explain why it is that we happened to have the class of universe that was capable of having inflationary universes. The algorithm for this kind of universe is exceedingly difficult for us to construct, and so far has alluded the best minds, so it is not reasonable to say that the universe had this special status at the beginning as a matter of random luck. Therefore the agnostic is being too uncommitted by not moving over to theism.

[Cephus]

An agnostic is someone who doesn't believe there is enough evidence that a reasonable person would conclude that God exists based on that evidence. However, unlike an atheist, the agnostic would not conclude from any evidence that God does not exist either.

Well let me let you in on a little secret... EVERYONE is an atheist/theist *AND* an agnostic/gnostic. Both of these deal with completely different subjects.

Atheism/theism deals with belief.

Agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge.

Those might not be the common dictionary definitions, but dictionaries are written by people with particular biases.

[harvey1]

Well let me let you in on a little secret... EVERYONE is an atheist/theist *AND* an agnostic/gnostic. Both of these deal with completely different subjects. Atheism/theism deals with belief.

As Huxley mentioned, agnosticism was a term he coined to avoid the commitment to an ontology that he didn't feel he had enough evidence to make that kind of commitment.

Agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge. Those might not be the common dictionary definitions, but dictionaries are written by people with particular biases.

I see that you are not skilled in epistemology. Skepticism and fallibilism deal with knowledge. Skepticism deals with whether we can know something and fallibilism deals with whether we can be mistaken about our knowledge. The term gnosticism is used to refer to early Christians who believed that "gnosis" (or esoteric knowledge) was needed to understand the scriptures.

[Curious]

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.

Sorry It took so long to reply to this post Harvey as I have been busy.
I think you misunderstand my point and this will be made clearer in the reply to the quote below.

"]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.

It is not the likelihood of this particular universe existing that I am trying to argue. The point I try to make is that it is the necessity of a complex universe that allows beings such as you to ask such questions. A universe of "nothing" would not allow the existence of such beings and so such questions would not be asked. In my example you would roughly equate to the observer of a red tinted mirror believing that the redness was somehow prefered over all other colours and that your mirror was the only mirror in existence.
Also, although I have used the term nothing I am unsure what you mean by it. Nothingness is purely conceptual and is nowhere in the universe a physical fact. Where could you find in the universe the absence of everything? To use nothingness as an alternative or likely state whan it has never been observed to exist in anything other than the mind is a little confusing.

[QED]

You'd have to ask an agnostic, but an agnostic should believe in God since a "no God" world is not realistically possible. As I mentioned to QED et al., the beginning state of the universe would require a God in order to explain why it is that we happened to have the class of universe that was capable of having inflationary universes. The algorithm for this kind of universe is exceedingly difficult for us to construct, and so far has alluded the best minds, so it is not reasonable to say that the universe had this special status at the beginning as a matter of random luck.

I don't accept this argument at all. Why do you think that our best minds might represent a good standard to judge nature by? Look how long it has taken us to figure out the simplest of stuff -- like flying for example. No, you cannot judge the sort of algorithms that lie within nature by the standards of our feeble minds. This has been my argument all along, that we cannot get a handle on the complexity/simplicity of nature. Scientists routinely judge theories on how elegant they are (i.e. how elegant nature is) the implication being that simple, not complex, mechanisms are at work on a fundamental level.

This fact and the clear vector towards a simple origin (implicit in regressive classes) is what builds the case for a god-free beginning to things i my mind. On the other hand, the unprecedented appearance of an intelligent creator with a will to create represents a massive discontinuity and a major explanatory problem for us.

This is not the only problem, like the icing on the cake we also have the questions of free-will, the Epicurean puzzle concerning the existence of evil (and general nastiness that befalls life every now and then) and the fact that every so often (but always in the dim and distant past) men make extraordinary claims about seeing and hearing from god himself. A major part of all scriptures are accounts of one-to-one meetings with the almighty, yet all this activity seems to have ceased during more recent, (dare I say critical or less gullible) ages.

The concept of god is an obvious one and has always been around. It is one which fits right into the vacuum of human imagination when run-out to it's maximum extent. It also has the handy property of imbuing the self-appointed messengers of the notion with vicarious authority. Indeed an ultimate authority that cannot be questioned.

[harvey1]

It is not the likelihood of this particular universe existing that I am trying to argue. The point I try to make is that it is the necessity of a complex universe that allows beings such as you to ask such questions.

Let me ask it this way. Was it conceivable that the complex system we call the universe could have been a simple system having no possibility of producing inflating universes, galaxies, planets, life, intelligent beings, etc.? Was it conceivably possible those things could have not occurred because the universe just wasn't complex enough to make it so?

A universe of "nothing" would not allow the existence of such beings and so such questions would not be asked. In my example you would roughly equate to the observer of a red tinted mirror believing that the redness was somehow prefered over all other colours and that your mirror was the only mirror in existence.

But, would you agree had we have had a universe of "nothing," then there was a certain amount of dumb luck in there being a complex universe? In other words, the universe could have been nothing at all (probability 50%), or the universe could have been complex enough to produce us (probability 50%), right? If you agree, then what if the universe has another possibility of just being a 1D world, but just not complex enough to produce us. In that case, the chances for a world of "nothing" would be 33%, our world 33%, and the 1D world 33%. Now, what if we add another possibility. The world was just a 2D world. Then the probability for a world of "nothing" is 25%, our world 25%, the 1D world 25%, and the 2D world 25%.

There are an infinite number of worlds that are conceivable that for one reason or another are not complex enough to produce an inflationary universe. That puts the probability of this one world at 0.0000....0001% (infinitesimal=zero percentage). Regardless of the fact we are here, what I want to know is why was the universe so extremely lucky to have this world that was complex enough to produce such sophisticated structures when there was basically zero probability of it happening? Your argument using the weak anthropic principle does not address this issue.

Also, although I have used the term nothing I am unsure what you mean by it. Nothingness is purely conceptual and is nowhere in the universe a physical fact. Where could you find in the universe the absence of everything? To use nothingness as an alternative or likely state whan it has never been observed to exist in anything other than the mind is a little confusing.

We can extrapolate the size of the present universe back to the big bang. If we do so, we know there was a point in the history of the universe where the geometry of the universe was less than the width of a single hydrogen atom. If we extrapolate this shrinkage to the t=0, we have a universe with no spacetime geometry. This is what I mean by nothing.

Given the expansion of the universe starting out very small, it is certainly conceivable that there was no spacetime at t=0. What I want to know is why do you rule out the possibility that the world could have had no spacetime geometry, and just been that way "forever and ever"? It seems like you are giving no reason why we shouldn't accept this possibility as more likely than what we know has occurred.

[Curious]

Let me ask it this way. Was it conceivable that the complex system we call the universe could have been a simple system having no possibility of producing inflating universes, galaxies, planets, life, intelligent beings, etc.? Was it conceivably possible those things could have not occurred because the universe just wasn't complex enough to make it so?

Of course it is and highly likely. It's just not our universe.

But, would you agree had we have had a universe of "nothing," then there was a certain amount of dumb luck in there being a complex universe? In other words, the universe could have been nothing at all (probability 50%), or the universe could have been complex enough to produce us (probability 50%), right?

Quite possibly(although the either or is a little simplistic) there may be universes as you describe but they would not bring forth such questions as we are discussing.

There are an infinite number of worlds that are conceivable that for one reason or another are not complex enough to produce an inflationary universe. That puts the probability of this one world at 0.0000....0001% (infinitesimal=zero percentage).

Any probability not zero is infinitely closer to 1 than it is to 0. No matter how small the number used it is still definately NOT 0.
This argument also assumes that it is a one shot universe(ie. 1 chance in infinity) but this is not my contention. Although you are obviously correct in your reasoning if there was a single shot and we were it then it would be very unlikely that this was the case (although not as you state zero chance). Infinite possibilities allow infinite probabilities so the realisation of an infinitesimal probability, although small in the one shot universe, would become inevitable in a "universe" of infinite opportunity.

We can extrapolate the size of the present universe back to the big bang. If we do so, we know there was a point in the history of the universe where the geometry of the universe was less than the width of a single hydrogen atom. If we extrapolate this shrinkage to the t=0, we have a universe with no spacetime geometry. This is what I mean by nothing.

We are unable to extrapolate to nothing in this way. We always are left with something. Furthermore if we are to say t=0, by the same logic we must also accept that t= infinity. Spacetime geometry does not reduce to zero it merely takes on a different spacetime ratio.

Given the expansion of the universe starting out very small, it is certainly conceivable that there was no spacetime at t=0. What I want to know is why do you rule out the possibility that the world could have had no spacetime geometry, and just been that way "forever and ever"? It seems like you are giving no reason why we shouldn't accept this possibility as more likely than what we know has occurred.

As I mention above this spacetime reduction to zero is itself a flawed argument. The only thing that this reasoning supports is that of infinite possibility leading to infinite probability.