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]

It is more than custom, there's good reason to attribute holistic processes to a God since such behavior in the cosmos is inconsistent with a "no God" universe.

So you say. And your reason is:

If the universe was not run by holistic principles, then we would not see universality in the behavior of hundreds of different systems all across the world and universe.

Except that this is the only type of universe that will support life and hence what we expect to see when we look out of the window. But as you agree this isn't the only sort that there can be:

A self-extracting lawful universe, the kind that atheism would need in order to be right, wouldn't behave with any kind of universality in place. It would just be one of a large number of other potential worlds that would not self-extract enough to explain what we see.

So here's an example of one that doesn't cut the mustard because it's not self-extracting enough. Evidently only Atheists are entitled to live in these universes but because they don't support life there can't be such a thing as an Atheist. All this tells us is that one of us is wrong.

Curious keeps running into the same brick-wall that I discovered in your notion of a non-single-shot beginning to everything. Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen then why can it not happen more than once?

Ugh. QED, I post a response to this question and you do not answer the posts! Please, if you want to seriously discuss this issue, when I post a response to that issue please post your response.

Well I post up something nice and simple like the quote above and it gets a reply like this:

Again, a process is a structure. The structure of a process is an algorithm. An algorithm tells us how the process behaves. If the behavior is sophisticated and unique enough, the process will A) produce self-extracting behavior. If the process is still more unique, you will B) get multi-generational self-extracting behavior but still predictable and nothing very interesting happens beyond that pont. If the behavior is yet more sophisticated and unique, you will C) get an evolving system whose future is so complex that the self-extracting entities that will come to exist cannot be predicted, but we will be able to know what it is not capable of producing due to the limitation of its underlying structure. A yet more sophisticated behavior of this process will result D) in such complexity that an infinite system in principle could produce an infinite array of complex features, including inflating universes, galaxies, planets, life, and intelligence, etc..

Now, the one-time issue is why did the behavior of our beginning state environment happen to have the structure of (D) such that it could produce the latter description of a sophisticated process versus (A)-(C) with those descriptions where no universes such as ours form? Had the universe been (A), (B), (C) [or nothing for that matter], then there is no universe. These represent a perhaps infinite number of dead universes. What I want to is why you think the universe was so lucky that (A)-(C) did not happen, but (D) happened. You have to explain how the one-time situation could exist even though it is entirely in contradiction to what we would expect of the nature of an algorithm for a much more sophisticated structure to exist from random luck over (A)-(C) [or nothing at all for that matter].

In the case of God, we need to re-examine our primitive assumptions in the first place. Notice that for the beginning state we make the assumption of causality and possibility. It is this assumption that we must make for the world to be a rational place, but it is the very assumption that entails a mind to exist. Therefore, for the universe to be a rational place requires for there to exist a God. Therefore, God exists as a result of the world being causal. Why is the world causal? Even the question assumes causality. There just exists no world, or concept of a world, that is outside causality. Therefore, there exists no world, or concept of a world, that God could not be required to exist.

"A process is a structure.
The structure of a process is an algorithm.
An algorithm tells us how the process behaves..."

Despite all these fine words your first two paragraphs only address a problem facing the one-time issue, whereas I am asking why we are restricting things to a one-time only event. In the last paragraph you tell me that God exists because the world is causal. We're not really getting anywhere despite all the words.

Please don't ignore this argument any further. If you doubt it, then discuss your doubts so that we move along in our discussion.

I'm going to go back to this simple issue: Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen once then why can't it happen again and again until it comes up trumps?

Notice that I mention meta-universe, you seem to be arguing from the perspective of there only ever being one chance for this coming into existence. I'm not.

[Cephus]

I think Huxley was just trying to be clever and his coinage of the agnostic term was wasted effort. An atheist does not have the answers to the big question, all that he is sure of is that theists don't either. As such the term atheist would adequately describe Huxley's position.

Isn't it nice that we have Harvey here to tell us all what everyone thinks and what everyone's position is? You know... instead of just dealing with reality and all...

If as an Agnostic you don't think there is sufficient evidence for God why would you still be sitting on the fence. I don't think unicorns, dragons or leprechauns exist either and I'm sure the majority of atheists, theists and agnostics would agree with me. If you think that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of something the normal course of action is to make the commitment and not place some reservation on your decision. Why would you assign special treatment to the existence/nonexistence of God?

Agnostics don't believe it is possible for man to comprehend the existence or characteristics of a god. We must remain ignorant of such things because the questions are inherently beyond us. It's a question that isn't worth thinking about because it's one we can never find answers for.

Someone who finds insufficient evidence to believe in something is an atheist, or more specifically a weak atheist. They simply lack belief because there is no reason to believe.

[harvey1]

So here's an example of one that doesn't cut the mustard because it's not self-extracting enough. Evidently only Atheists are entitled to live in these universes but because they don't support life there can't be such a thing as an Atheist. All this tells us is that one of us is wrong.

No, it tells us more. It tells us that atheism incorrectly takes for granted the universality in the universe and does not have a satisfactory explanation that is also consistent with the type of universe the atheist says we live in (i.e., a universe that just happened to be self-extracting enough to produce observers).

Curious keeps running into the same brick-wall that I discovered in your notion of a non-single-shot beginning to everything. Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen then why can it not happen more than once?

Ugh. QED, I post a response to this question and you do not answer the posts! Please, if you want to seriously discuss this issue, when I post a response to that issue please post your response.

Well I post up something nice and simple like the quote above and it gets a reply like this:

I'm trying to explain my stance so that it can be understood. If I could explain it in one sentence then there would be no chance you would understand it. But, since you insist: the environment of the universe is a one-time situation since what you see is what you get, if you don't get complex enough features it won't self-extract well enough to produce the universe we see. Is that helpful?

"A process is a structure. The structure of a process is an algorithm. An algorithm tells us how the process behaves..."

Despite all these fine words your first two paragraphs only address a problem facing the one-time issue, whereas I am asking why we are restricting things to a one-time only event. In the last paragraph you tell me that God exists because the world is causal.

How do you figure? Are you saying that luck was not involved in the universe happening? Based on what reasoning can you say luck was no factor in the universe being here?

going to go back to this simple issue: Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen once then why can't it happen again and again until it comes up trumps?

Because the "something" that happens to put God in place is due to logical necessity, the opposite of luck. The "something" that happens to put a certain kind of (meta)universe in place is based on luck. You depend on luck, and I ask you why we should be so lucky. You haven't given me a reason to this very simple question.

Notice that I mention meta-universe, you seem to be arguing from the perspective of there only ever being one chance for this coming into existence. I'm not.

Here is the source of our talking past each other. We have a failure to communicate. Let me give you an outline and if you can, respond to that outline and tell me where you disagree:

1. There is a universe and it exists for X reasons
2. X reasons are due to an unknown process happening at some (meta)universe level
3. If given enough time and resources, this unknown process will meet the criteria of X reasons, and therefore our universe would necessarily come to exist
4. If the unknown process lacks a certain level of sophistication, it will not meet the criteria of X reasons, and therefore our universe would necessarily not come to exist
5. If the unknown process did exist, then it is lucky (versus necessary) that the unknown process had the certain level of sophistication needed to produce our universe
6. There are an infinite unknown processes that do not produce our universe
7. Hence, we are extremely lucky that the unknown process was the one that existed
8. This is a one-time lucky situation since having the unknown process is a hit or miss situation

[C] We should not be so lucky in a one-time situation, therefore atheism is false

[harvey1]

Isn't it nice that we have Harvey here to tell us all what everyone thinks and what everyone's position is? You know... instead of just dealing with reality and all...

Ad hominem.

Agnostics don't believe it is possible for man to comprehend the existence or characteristics of a god. We must remain ignorant of such things because the questions are inherently beyond us. It's a question that isn't worth thinking about because it's one we can never find answers for. Someone who finds insufficient evidence to believe in something is an atheist, or more specifically a weak atheist. They simply lack belief because there is no reason to believe.

The strong agnostic might believe it is obligatory to not believe in God because the evidence is in principle inaccessible. However, a weak agnostic would say that agnosticism is permissive given the state of evidence we have on God's existence. See Graham Oppy's paper on this delineation.

[harvey1]

There is nowhere in the cosmos(micro or macro) that has the total absence of everything. If we are to use what we know regarding the laws of conservation, then the assumption of a state of total absence of all is completely contradictory.

You should let the physics make that determination. Right now many physicists believe it is a reasonable possibility.

Even your own viewpoint dismisses the notion of nothing as you believe (I presume) that before the universe there was God.

As I mentioned before, when I say "nothing" I am talking about the absence of spacetime or, if you prefer, the radius of the universe is zero.

If, as you believe, it is possible for God to exist without having to have had a beginning then how can you insist that the universe must have had a beginning as we understand it.

In the case of God, I say God exists as a matter of logical necessity. That is, causality requires a mind to exist, and therefore God exists. In the case of the universe, instead of saying that "causality exists" or "truth exists," we be saying the "universe exists." However, as simple as that sounds we aren't just saying the "universe exists" we are saying a certain kind of universe exists--namely, the kind that self-replicates and evolves. To say that kind of structure exists is to put an emphasis on luck. The luck in this case is too extreme to be believable. Therefore, the sensible approach is to look to logical necessity (or mechanism) to explain why we are here, and this requires a God.

As for the notion that by shrinking the universe eventually leading to a zero state, How many times would you have to tear a paper in half before you eventually were left with nothing?

Quantum tunnelling doesn't require that you shrink the universe to infinitesimal size. And, it isn't necessary that we succumb to a Zeno's paradox since this paradox would afflict all physical processes, not just the first moment of the universe. Presumably, either the universe is discrete in which case the next discrete step is t=1 planck moment to t=0 planck moment (or some other unit of discrete function). Another possibility is that once the size reaches a certain minimum size, the singularity happens at infinite speed, in which case nothing may be reachable by shrinking at infinite speed. Take your pick in the above.

There is nothing in science that requires us to eliminate the existence of fairies but that doesn't mean they exist.

Science doesn't suggest that fairies exist, but science--based on very reasonable reasons--suggests that particles and perhaps the universe itself popped in from nothing. If you want to rule out reasonable approaches, then there is no way for us to discuss these issues.

To suggest that string theory can be counted amongst the best theories really does take the biscuit.

Well, string theory is a very strong contender for a theory to account for GR on the quantum scale. If you want to fluff it off, there's nothing that I can say but that you are being unreasonable.

Virtual particles, according to all observational data, cannot be seriously considered to pop out of nowhere. The higher energy the particle has, the quicker the energy must be repayed (or shorter the lifespan).

That's because of the uncertainty principle relation. If you don't think these particles pop in from nowhere, then how do you explain the Casimir effect?

One possible origin of these particles, as far as we can tell, could be enharmonic dissonance ( which in the loosest possible way could be compared with string theory).

Okay, I never heard of this as a hypothesis for virtual particles and I searched LANL and no hit came back. Are you making that up? Give me some references on LANL if possible.

As for atheism being unreasonable I disagree. While being a theist myself, I can see why the reasoning mind might come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Based on what reasoning leads you to theism? If theism has no explanatory advantage for the beginning state, then atheism can be consistently applied based referencing pure massive quantities of universes. You can always use the strong anthropic argument and weak anthropic argument to resolve any mystery. That's the danger in using those arguments. If used in every circumstance they would blot out reasoning altogether.

[spetey]

... So, in other words, you are an agnostic. What I want though is an argument for atheism.

To be fair, you've had them. In most of this thread (during what you might call its late antiquity period), you spent much your efforts in defense, trying to show why maybe the argument is not good.

My argument began, you might remember, from inference to the best explanation. You accept this argument pattern when it comes to the Invisible Pink Unicorn but you got awfully sticky trying to show why the same argument doesn't apply to Yahweh. You dabbled with arguing against IBE and such, then realized you needed it. Next you tried to establish that God is strictly identical with the laws of physics, and so since I believe in the laws of physics I must believe in God (and therefore, I guess, my argument for atheism must be poor). Eventually you ended up backing into an attempt at defending pantheism. Even on that much-weaker position it looked to me like you were having a very hard time demonstrating that the universe itself has even the intelligence of a plant, which seems to be required for saying it is god-like. That's how I see where I left things with this thread before its popularity exploded. (And may I say: let a thousand blossoms bloom!)

Just wanted to stop by this old thread to point out that you can no longer claim not to have heard an argument for atheism! It seems to me you've run into a fairly challenging one.


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello Spetey,

Good to see you popping in...

Just wanted to stop by this old thread to point out that you can no longer claim not to have heard an argument for atheism! It seems to me you've run into a fairly challenging one.

I showed the invisible pink unicorn concept was an invalid argument. My counterargument, in case you missed it in the 50 or more pages, is that we are justified in believing in pantheistic unity due to the nature of eternal laws and the level of intelligent-like action these laws perform, and therefore the exaggeration of the IPU argument (i.e., the argument by analogy) would necessarily cast doubt on a known justified belief (e.g., a platonist belief of the laws), therefore the analogy itself is not acceptable to refute pantheism.

My argument began, you might remember, from inference to the best explanation. You accept this argument pattern when it comes to the Invisible Pink Unicorn but you got awfully sticky trying to show why the same argument doesn't apply to Yahweh.

Oh geez, I think we're gonna need another thread to discuss the argument of this thread and how it evolved, etc.. Do you really think that is necessary? I think I won, you think you won, so be my guest to create that thread. I'll respond accordingly.

Next you tried to establish that God is strictly identical with the laws of physics, and so since I believe in the laws of physics I must believe in God (and therefore, I guess, my argument for atheism must be poor).

So, you don't remember this exchange:

Since you like Quine, is a platonist God to your liking? How about an Einsteinian cosmic God? Or, Hawkingian mathematical God? These are the beliefs in God I would like to test your faith with.

I don't know, but I would guess "nope" "nope" and "nope". Put it this way: if belief in that god asks me to violate naturalistic principles, then I don't believe in it.

Yeah, but you denied here that you believed in the actual existence of some "laws of physics." Oops, this should be included in our new debate about this debate...

Eventually you ended up backing into an attempt at defending pantheism.

I was never "backing" into such an attempt as this last quote shows. It was clear that my approach from the beginning was to focus on a Hawkian/Einsteinian view, that's why I asked those series of questions. Unfortunately later you recanted your view of God and then we had to define pantheism (however you wanted it to be defined as a belief in an intelligent God, which you might still falsely believe that pantheists believe that...).

Even on that much-weaker position it looked to me like you were having a very hard time demonstrating that the universe itself has even the intelligence of a plant, which seems to be required for saying it is god-like. That's how I see where I left things with this thread before its popularity exploded. (And may I say: let a thousand blossoms bloom!)

I did demonstrate the universe is intelligent with the whole quantum ghost experiments. However, as I made clear, it was never my intention to equate pantheism with intelligence as you wished, but I only wished to stay with pantheism's own vision of an all-inclusive unity which you had a very hard time with. That's where we left things.

Just wanted to stop by this old thread to point out that you can no longer claim not to have heard an argument for atheism! It seems to me you've run into a fairly challenging one.

Well, I suppose you believe that, but I think I satisfactorily answered your objections. This is why I search for a convincing atheistic argument as if I'm searching for the Holy Grail. Any case, you got pretty busy, and I'm getting pretty busy too. I don't think I can keep my activity going much longer. I wish the concepts I'm trying to explain were easier to communicate. That's the frustrating part of all of this.

Nice to hear from you, Spet!

[NGR]

All observable facts are "facts" because of the overall assumptions we hold to be true. The assumptions of atheists are wrong, and therefore their understanding of God in the universe is skewed.

The substitution of theist for atheist in your statement is equally valid so it seems superfluous for you to have made such a statement at all and it certainly doesn't advance the debate.

On the contrary, atheism is a security blanket for those who find it displeasing that some of their freedoms are bounded by an infinite God.

It is easy to understand the concept of a security blanket in connection with the origin of theism because that is clearly what the history of theism shows us. Justifying your inverse statment in connection with atheism is I feel problematical.

I suspect your view is derived from all the wrestling with your "consistent atheist" strawman that you have undertaken in other sections of the forum. The only thing consistent about atheists is their non belief in a God/Gods, all other aspects of their behaviour is subject to their own characters and society generally. The character profile of an atheist can fall anywhere between that of Mother Teresa and Attilla the Hun with no particular reason to cluster around any end of the spectrum. A number of athiests here have mentioned in the past that they have no particular sociopathic tendencies and I will add to the chorus. We could all be lying of course but if you made such an assumption, the whole debate would be pointless anyway. So without railing against your own theoretical construct can you explain how atheism is a securty blanket?

However, as the knowledge of the universe has grown, so has our understanding of the eternal nature of God and the gradual erosion of materialist and mechanistic concepts that atheism bet so much of its future.

Your kidding right? Theism is the construct that man has been operating on since the year dot. It has only been during the last few hundred years that the voices of reason have finally started to strip away such surperstitious baggage.

If your question is whether God is like a mountain, or God is like thunder, or God is like the Sun, then the answer to all those questions is "yes, absolutely." Of course, theism has continued to make progress and has learned that God is infinite and even though analogies are helpful to understand God's nature, no physical analogy comes close to fully describing God's immanent and transcendent nature.

This appears to be a lot of hand waving. If we can worship a rock or the Cosmos with equal validity your concept of God is certainly very nebulous and one wonders just what meaning you derive from such a construct.

[QED]

I'm trying to explain my stance so that it can be understood. If I could explain it in one sentence then there would be no chance you would understand it. But, since you insist: the environment of the universe is a one-time situation since what you see is what you get, if you don't get complex enough features it won't self-extract well enough to produce the universe we see. Is that helpful?

This is clearly the Anthropic Principle and as we know it can always be applied in opposing ways. To avoid confusion between the different flavours (original, weak, strong, and final) I'm going to refer to them as TAP (Theistic Anthropic Principle) and AAP (Atheistic Anthropic Principle). Your argument makes use of both versions, you cheerfully use AAP when it comes to such classes as the evolution of life on Earth, but when it comes to the beginning state you switch to TAP. Is this right?

Are you saying that luck was not involved in the universe happening? Based on what reasoning can you say luck was no factor in the universe being here?

Maybe, in the sense that the AAP can give us luck-deluxe under the right conditions, and you're just about to describe one candidate for such conditions:

going to go back to this simple issue: Something must happen to put a god in place, something must happen to put a (meta)universe in place. If something can happen once then why can't it happen again and again until it comes up trumps?

Because the "something" that happens to put God in place is due to logical necessity, the opposite of luck. The "something" that happens to put a certain kind of (meta)universe in place is based on luck. You depend on luck, and I ask you why we should be so lucky. You haven't given me a reason to this very simple question.

Here you attempt to pull-off another heist by claiming that only gods can be put in place by logical necessities. You remind me of the infamous German holiday-maker getting his towel down at the pool-side before everyone else.

Notice that I mention meta-universe, you seem to be arguing from the perspective of there only ever being one chance for this coming into existence. I'm not.

Here is the source of our talking past each other. We have a failure to communicate. Let me give you an outline and if you can, respond to that outline and tell me where you disagree:

1. There is a universe and it exists for X reasons
   This is our universe
2. X reasons are due to an unknown process happening at some (meta)universe level
   Which may be very much removed from our universe, and might represent an infinite number of parallel cosmic gear-changes from simpler to more complex lawful universes along the way
3. If given enough time and resources, this unknown process will meet the criteria of X reasons, and therefore our universe would necessarily come to exist
   so far so good
4. If the unknown process lacks a certain level of sophistication, it will not meet the criteria of X reasons, and therefore our universe would necessarily not come to exist
   This process is the series of cosmic gear-changes, but it is not just sequential like a real gearbox, at some levels it can bifurcate (e.g. multiple singularities emerge from activity in one particular universe to re-shuffle the deck of laws for new universes emerging from black-holes)
5. If the unknown process did exist, then it is lucky (versus necessary) that the unknown process had the certain level of sophistication needed to produce our universe
   Here we go: paper, scissors, stone. If it did exist why just the once? You can't argue yourself out of this loop, so your remaining points fade.
   
   
6. There are an infinite unknown processes that do not produce our universe
7. Hence, we are extremely lucky that the unknown process was the one that existed
8. This is a one-time lucky situation since having the unknown process is a hit or miss situation

You said on page fifty-two that Atheism was not impossible, giving it an infinitesimal chance in hell that it is right in terms of producing the structures that we see. But I think this opinion is the product of an unjustified claim for certain properties to be gods own. I think you'll find if you do the calculations fairly it has a precise probability of 50:50 to any number of decimal places you care to go to.

Spetey sounds like he's off, I hope he continues to find gainful employment elsewhere. I'm still available for comment, however I think this debate is reaching a stalemate. I give the god of harvey1 my full respect for if his argument is heading off in the right direction then he is the slightest of beings having the lightest of touch imaginable. No way could he breath a word to a human or walk on water before us, so long as this conservation is complete and infinite then yes, I will not argue that you should not call him by the name of god.

[harvey1]

This is clearly the Anthropic Principle and as we know it can always be applied in opposing ways. To avoid confusion between the different flavours (original, weak, strong, and final) I'm going to refer to them as TAP (Theistic Anthropic Principle) and AAP (Atheistic Anthropic Principle). Your argument makes use of both versions, you cheerfully use AAP when it comes to such classes as the evolution of life on Earth, but when it comes to the beginning state you switch to TAP. Is this right?

Yes, it seems workable. I have some concerns since the anthropic principle is usually referring to the cosmic coincidences, and this is not exactly what we mean by the AAP or TAP. (We mean an explanation that can explain all structural features of a complex universe, not just the "coincidental" ones).

Here you attempt to pull-off another heist by claiming that only gods can be put in place by logical necessities. You remind me of the infamous German holiday-maker getting his towel down at the pool-side before everyone else.

Actually, I came very late to this gorgeous day, but this chair was open and my towel is in my hand.

[*]If the unknown process did exist, then it is lucky (versus necessary) that the unknown process had the certain level of sophistication needed to produce our universe

Here we go: paper, scissors, stone. If it did exist why just the once? You can't argue yourself out of this loop, so your remaining points fade.

Okay. This is important parting of the ways, and still the source of our confusion. So, let me do some fine graining on this one point.

1. [5]If the unknown process did exist, then it is lucky (versus necessary) that the unknown process had the certain level of sophistication needed to produce our universe
2. If a process A, B, C, ..., preceded this unknown process M, then it is not necessary that the unknown process M had a certain level of sophistication needed to produce our universe. This unknown process M would have been a necessary result of processes A, B, C, ..., and hence it would not have been lucky for us that process M was so sophisticated.
3. If a process A, B, C, ..., preceded this unknown process M, then there exists some other process that is a brute fact reality, let's call this brute fact process unknown process F (for final process).
4. If unknown process F has some other process that precedes this process, then F is not a brute fact reality by definition. This is not allowed since we wish to refer F to the simplest and most fundamental process operating to bring about or describe the (meta)universe to bring about the reasons X for our universe.
5. If the unknown process F did not have enough sophistication to produce unknown process M, then it is lucky (versus necessary) that the unknown process F had the certain level of sophistication needed to produce unknown process M which eventually led to our universe.

I'm still available for comment, however I think this debate is reaching a stalemate.

It's not reaching a stalemate. Rather, we have to start focusing in on the exact nature of our disagreement. I think we are on the right path in this approach.

I give the god of harvey1 my full respect for if his argument is heading off in the right direction then he is the slightest of beings having the lightest of touch imaginable. No way could he breath a word to a human or walk on water before us, so long as this conservation is complete and infinite then yes, I will not argue that you should not call him by the name of god.

God could influence events on earth (e.g., during critical points of phase transitions), but it would be inconsistent to say that God violates laws of physics. God would have to find a way to be consistent with those laws. We see how this is done already with the way in which QM, SR, and GR can "violate" classical physics. It's not a violation per se, rather the classical laws are only approximations. For miracles to occur, the approximation of the laws which we know of in the classical regime would need to fail in their approximations in those instances due to higher physics. The degree of freedom during critical points is infinite, so this becomes a reasonable source for God reaching the divine hand into the universe and making the necessary changes to the direction of the world.