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.

[Curious]

My apologies if I miss out relevant statements but I am trying to keep the quote quota down so we don't get to page 100 anytime soon.

...why are we so lucky that this meta-universe exists versus a 1D universe?

This is the point I keep trying to get across. Why is it lucky? We just happen to live in a universe that allows our existence. if innumerable universes exist then someone somewhere would have to live in some of them. You could just as easily say how are those universes so unlucky as not to support life.

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

That's not a correct understanding... In order to obey logical relations a mind is needed. If no mind, then no logical relations, and therefore no causality.

Why is a mind needed? What drives this mind? How did this mind originate? Where did this mind initially reside?

How is it reasonable to suggest that a particle can pop out of nothing when the particles that have been observed coming into existence have come into existence in the medium of spacetime and mass/energy?

Perturbation theory requires the creation and annihilation operators. QED, for example, has been one of the most successful theories in terms of accuracy of prediction that humanity has ever produced, I think that qualifies the theory as being reasonable.

And I ask again how is it reasonable to believe that a particle can appear from nothing. Using this logic it would be reasonable to believe that a fish could evolve in the middle of outer space. To say "as fish can evolve in the sea it is reasonable to assume that they can evolve in the vacuum of space" is a stretch too far don't you think?

... then why do virtual particles occur for particles that are not electrically charged (e.g., the W boson)?

Why would they have to be electrically charged?

Is this your idea? Have you published this idea?

I think anyone who has ever been to the beach is well aware of what waves do. I don't think it would be news to most people.

If the atheistic version of the anthropic principle is suitable to explain the universe, then it would seem to me that QED would be right. That is, evolutionary theory demonstrates how life can evolve naturally using many worlds to explain coincidences and lucky breaks, and if just by adding more worlds we could explain the universe quite well without the existence of God. That leave the "explanation of the spiritual" as the one attribute of God's existence that needed to be explained without God existing, but in all honestly why not just add a few more worlds then to finish off the natural explanation?

Due to our physical and mental limitations we are limited in our reasoning regarding the physical nature of the universe. If you want to learn about eggs then study eggs but if you want to learn about birds you must study birds. While it is good to exercise the deductive faculties by physical observation this will always be limited by our senses and mental capacity. The spiritual side of ourselves is however far superior in this respect as this is unrestricted by the linear nature of logic and reason. If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

[Curious]

My apologies if I miss out relevant statements but I am trying to keep the quote quota down so we don't get to page 100 anytime soon.

...why are we so lucky that this meta-universe exists versus a 1D universe?

This is the point I keep trying to get across. Why is it lucky? We just happen to live in a universe that allows our existence. if innumerable universes exist then someone somewhere would have to live in some of them. You could just as easily say how are those universes so unlucky as not to support life.

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

That's not a correct understanding... In order to obey logical relations a mind is needed. If no mind, then no logical relations, and therefore no causality.

Why is a mind needed? What drives this mind? How did this mind originate? Where did this mind initially reside?

How is it reasonable to suggest that a particle can pop out of nothing when the particles that have been observed coming into existence have come into existence in the medium of spacetime and mass/energy?

Perturbation theory requires the creation and annihilation operators. QED, for example, has been one of the most successful theories in terms of accuracy of prediction that humanity has ever produced, I think that qualifies the theory as being reasonable.

And I ask again how is it reasonable to believe that a particle can appear from nothing. Using this logic it would be reasonable to believe that a fish could evolve in the middle of outer space. To say "as fish can evolve in the sea it is reasonable to assume that they can evolve in the vacuum of space" is a stretch too far don't you think?

... then why do virtual particles occur for particles that are not electrically charged (e.g., the W boson)?

Why would they have to be electrically charged?

Is this your idea? Have you published this idea?

I think anyone who has ever been to the beach is well aware of what waves do. I don't think it would be news to most people.

If the atheistic version of the anthropic principle is suitable to explain the universe, then it would seem to me that QED would be right. That is, evolutionary theory demonstrates how life can evolve naturally using many worlds to explain coincidences and lucky breaks, and if just by adding more worlds we could explain the universe quite well without the existence of God. That leave the "explanation of the spiritual" as the one attribute of God's existence that needed to be explained without God existing, but in all honestly why not just add a few more worlds then to finish off the natural explanation?

Due to our physical and mental limitations we are limited in our reasoning regarding the physical nature of the universe. If you want to learn about eggs then study eggs but if you want to learn about birds you must study birds. While it is good to exercise the deductive faculties by physical observation this will always be limited by our senses and mental capacity. The spiritual side of ourselves is however far superior in this respect as this is unrestricted by the linear nature of logic and reason. If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

[QED]

...why are we so lucky that this meta-universe exists versus a 1D universe?

This is the point I keep trying to get across. Why is it lucky? We just happen to live in a universe that allows our existence. if innumerable universes exist then someone somewhere would have to live in some of them. You could just as easily say how are those universes so unlucky as not to support life.

harvey1 claims that the buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere represents a singular event or place or whatever. This is the meta-universe (although going meta usually means taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture - which can be normally done indefinitely in an arbitrary number of ways). Therefore I can see no reason why the buck must stop at a given singularity. It's convenient for harvey1 to make the solemn statement that this must be the case, but I disagree mostly on the grounds of the generalized principle of regressive behavior.

Strange logic. Something must have a beginning and must have a cause so we can say that it was caused by something else that doesn't need a beginning or a cause?

That's not a correct understanding... In order to obey logical relations a mind is needed. If no mind, then no logical relations, and therefore no causality.

Why is a mind needed? What drives this mind? How did this mind originate? Where did this mind initially reside?

This question of logic dictating things is being addressed in this debate:Can there be such a thing as nothing? I refer back to my assertion that hardware comes before software, matter before mind:

I have previously argued how software is always dependant on pre-existing hardware (I'm resisting the temptation to use the word supervene here) and have challenged you to produce a single counter-example to make your position more believable. Unless you can do so, I suggest that your claim to the rights of god in this role should not be granted exclusivity.

As I said, we have good reason to believe the uncertainty principle brings about hardware.

But how do you know that this principle does not arise from the material realm itself? The physics of the situation is far from complete. Maybe when we find the Higgs Boson experimentally and understand the nature of dark matter we will get to see the framework from which this principle emerges. This is the regular pattern of things and the persistent reason for my bias.

If the atheistic version of the anthropic principle is suitable to explain the universe, then it would seem to me that QED would be right. That is, evolutionary theory demonstrates how life can evolve naturally using many worlds to explain coincidences and lucky breaks, and if just by adding more worlds we could explain the universe quite well without the existence of God. That leave the "explanation of the spiritual" as the one attribute of God's existence that needed to be explained without God existing, but in all honestly why not just add a few more worlds then to finish off the natural explanation?

Patterns are the best predictive tools we have. You yourself acknowledge the self-similarity of the universe. Evolutionary principles abound giving rise to structure at all levels. I think you are too harsh on Atheists when they refuse to accept your discontinuity. You complain of a lack of open-mindedness, but I have dared to walk in your territory and all I found there was a god who himself was but another creature evolved along the same lines as us, conducting a grand experiment. For all I know, he might even have believed in god himself.

[harvey1]

This is the point I keep trying to get across. Why is it lucky? We just happen to live in a universe that allows our existence. if innumerable universes exist then someone somewhere would have to live in some of them. You could just as easily say how are those universes so unlucky as not to support life.

It's this "we just happen to live" part that I think you should re-examine. There are many, many other possibilities where complex structure is impossible for the whole (meta)universe. Why did the (meta)universe that exists happen to be the one with complex structures? Why not a universe that's just a 1D universe throughout the whole universe? In that scenario, there are no innumerable other universes. Just one universe, and it's a 1D world. Why?

Why is a mind needed? What drives this mind? How did this mind originate? Where did this mind initially reside?

If causality is required, then so is logic. However, logic is composed of a metaphysical structure that is distinguishable from gibberish. So, for example, if the logical structure of the universe were:

xlwer2.a~894&#EL

Then in that case, the "logic" of the universe is gibberish. On the other hand, if the logic of the universe were:

C^2=A^2+B^2

Then, in that particular case, those labels must have meaning to be distinguishable from the first case. The labels themselves of course do not exist. However, the structure exists, and the structure must have meaning otherwise the structure itself is gibberish (i.e., there is no material world to give them meaning onto themselves). For this reason, mind must exist. Mind gives these logical relations a reference to their truth. In other words, if Mind is satisfied that C^2=A^2+B^2, then it is true that C^2=A^2+B^2. If it is true, then this structure exists and has potential application to limit the structure of any universe that exists. This is why, I think, our universe is limited by mathematics. Ramunajan was right when he said that mathematical equations are the mind of God. That's exactly what they are.

And I ask again how is it reasonable to believe that a particle can appear from nothing. Using this logic it would be reasonable to believe that a fish could evolve in the middle of outer space. To say "as fish can evolve in the sea it is reasonable to assume that they can evolve in the vacuum of space" is a stretch too far don't you think?

It is reasonable since this is what the physics tells us is possible given certain physical assumptions that have proven to be very reliable in producing some of the finest results ever produced by humanity. The classical experiences are limited cases of what physics tells us goes on at a deeper level in the cosmos.

I think anyone who has ever been to the beach is well aware of what waves do. I don't think it would be news to most people.

Maybe that is so, but with all respect, I think it is better to leave cosmology to the cosmologists and particle physics to the particle physicists.

Due to our physical and mental limitations we are limited in our reasoning regarding the physical nature of the universe. If you want to learn about eggs then study eggs but if you want to learn about birds you must study birds. While it is good to exercise the deductive faculties by physical observation this will always be limited by our senses and mental capacity. The spiritual side of ourselves is however far superior in this respect as this is unrestricted by the linear nature of logic and reason. If the flesh came into being because of spirit, it is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

I agree with you, however once someone reasons any scientific problem by just throwing worlds of chance at it, any problem can be resolved. Afterall, this is what mechanisms and minds do, they sort out the possible worlds and throw out the inefficient ones. Of course, no one would serious consider that there are no scientific laws. However, one could in principle use the anthropic principle to say that the reason the universe doesn't start obeying a different set of physical laws is because we live in the world that happens not to, but at any moment we could be in a world that was "obeying" our physical laws and then stopped. Is that possible? Sure. But, is it reasonable? No. It's not reasonable because we think it is no fluke that we have physical laws. We don't chalk them up to worlds just behaving wildly (you can buy the video if you want to see them).

[harvey1]

I refer back to my assertion that hardware comes before software, matter before mind... But how do you know that this principle does not arise from the material realm itself? The physics of the situation is far from complete. Maybe when we find the Higgs Boson experimentally and understand the nature of dark matter we will get to see the framework from which this principle emerges. This is the regular pattern of things and the persistent reason for my bias.

The uncertainty principle follows naturally from the Fourier Transform along with the Cramer-Rao inequality.

Patterns are the best predictive tools we have. You yourself acknowledge the self-similarity of the universe. Evolutionary principles abound giving rise to structure at all levels. I think you are too harsh on Atheists when they refuse to accept your discontinuity. You complain of a lack of open-mindedness, but I have dared to walk in your territory and all I found there was a god who himself was but another creature evolved along the same lines as us, conducting a grand experiment. For all I know, he might even have believed in god himself.

QED, you stop everytime we pursue the discussion and each time you come back a day or so later replying to a different post. It's very frustrating since each time we should re-start the dialogue from scratch.

We were at the point to where (meta)universe F is a brute fact. Now, I showed that we were lucky that our world came from F versus some other possibility (e.g., F=Nothing). What I want to know from you, is how you can rationally accept that we had such kind of luck. Have you ever gambled? Perhaps your experience is better than my own, but I always lose my shirt when I gamble. I don't trust Vegas could give a one-time beginner such as (meta)universe F such a lucky break in winning all that could possibly be won. Literally, everything.

You have to explain this, because it surely looks to be an irrational decision on your part.

[Curious]

It's this "we just happen to live" part that I think you should re-examine. There are many, many other possibilities where complex structure is impossible for the whole (meta)universe. Why did the (meta)universe that exists happen to be the one with complex structures? Why not a universe that's just a 1D universe throughout the whole universe? In that scenario, there are no innumerable other universes. Just one universe, and it's a 1D world. Why?

Because this does not remain in equilibrium or abide by the laws of conservation of energy as the other theory does. It's not just a case of thinking up a random hypothesis and sticking to it, the maths has to work.

If causality is required, then so is logic. However, logic is composed of a metaphysical structure that is distinguishable from gibberish. So, for example, if the logical structure of the universe were:

xlwer2.a~894&#EL

Then in that case, the "logic" of the universe is gibberish. On the other hand, if the logic of the universe were:

C^2=A^2+B^2

Then, in that particular case, those labels must have meaning to be distinguishable from the first case. The labels themselves of course do not exist. However, the structure exists, and the structure must have meaning otherwise the structure itself is gibberish (i.e., there is no material world to give them meaning onto themselves). For this reason, mind must exist. Mind gives these logical relations a reference to their truth. In other words, if Mind is satisfied that C^2=A^2+B^2, then it is true that C^2=A^2+B^2. If it is true, then this structure exists and has potential application to limit the structure of any universe that exists. This is why, I think, our universe is limited by mathematics. Ramunajan was right when he said that mathematical equations are the mind of God. That's exactly what they are.

I'm sure what you said makes sense to you. It is of course total nonsense.
I really don't see how this logic is in any way distinguishable from gibberish.

And I ask again how is it reasonable to believe that a particle can appear from nothing. Using this logic it would be reasonable to believe that a fish could evolve in the middle of outer space. To say "as fish can evolve in the sea it is reasonable to assume that they can evolve in the vacuum of space" is a stretch too far don't you think?

It is reasonable since this is what the physics tells us is possible given certain physical assumptions that have proven to be very reliable in producing some of the finest results ever produced by humanity. The classical experiences are limited cases of what physics tells us goes on at a deeper level in the cosmos.
?

I really don't understand your defence of the "from nothing" argument. This argument is in direct opposition to that of creator God. But, for the sake of argument, I will once again say that this has not been shown to be possible at all. The creation of a particular energy signature in an energy rich environment cannot be used as evidence that such a signature could appear in a energyless system.

..with all respect, I think it is better to leave cosmology to the cosmologists and particle physics to the particle physicists.

And what branch would you deem acceptable for the theoretical physicist to explore. In the words of Stephen Fry "table is as table does".

I agree with you, however once someone reasons any scientific problem by just throwing worlds of chance at it, any problem can be resolved. Afterall, this is what mechanisms and minds do, they sort out the possible worlds and throw out the inefficient ones. Of course, no one would serious consider that there are no scientific laws. However, one could in principle use the anthropic principle to say that the reason the universe doesn't start obeying a different set of physical laws is because we live in the world that happens not to, but at any moment we could be in a world that was "obeying" our physical laws and then stopped. Is that possible? Sure. But, is it reasonable? No. It's not reasonable because we think it is no fluke that we have physical laws. We don't chalk them up to worlds just behaving wildly (you can buy the video if you want to see them).

I'm not suggesting we might at anytime pop into an alternative dimension or anything like that. I am not saying that there are no laws or that other laws may be different or must be the same. To try to reason this would be impossible with the single set of rules that we understand(not very well at that). Of course there is interaction but this does not, as you claim, imply that a mind must have set these rules. To attempt to understand the origin of the universe it is necessary to apply what we KNOW about it. We know that it isn't 1D or totally without order. This does not give us any clue as to whether or not such a universe may exist elsewhere.

[QED]

QED, you stop everytime we pursue the discussion and each time you come back a day or so later replying to a different post. It's very frustrating since each time we should re-start the dialogue from scratch.

We were at the point to where (meta)universe F is a brute fact. Now, I showed that we were lucky that our world came from F versus some other possibility (e.g., F=Nothing).

I answered this in post#532 and your reply in the following post looked like an attempt to clarify the meaning of "necessary". I can't see a reason to respond to it, am I missing something?

The persistent problem that we have here is, as I said above, that you insist on there being a point at which the buck stops. This "point" therefore has to be of sufficient stature to evolve towards universes like ours. To my mind this scenario is contrived in order to furnish you with your preferred conclusion. I do not think as neat and tidily as you (although I believe I once must have in the past). The best I can do is summarise some of the points that I bear in mind during these discussions:

1) There may or may not be a be a brute fact (giving rise to a starting class)
2) There may be multiple brute facts
3) We don't know what leverage any brute fact might give (hence we don't quantitavely know how lucky were are if it pays-off)
4) The regression of classes may be finite or infinite
5) We can only assess our luck by knowing the answers to points 1 to 4.

What I want to know from you, is how you can rationally accept that we had such kind of luck. Have you ever gambled? Perhaps your experience is better than my own, but I always lose my shirt when I gamble. I don't trust Vegas could give a one-time beginner such as (meta)universe F such a lucky break in winning all that could possibly be won. Literally, everything.

You have to explain this, because it surely looks to be an irrational decision on your part.

Of course I appreciate the odds against winning at gambling. I have never been in a casino or bought a lottery ticket in my life. But it looks as if you have set-up a strawman regarding the lottery in this debate. You define a singular starting point to the ensemble of possible universes and point to the vanishingly small odds of it being productive as a reason to dismiss it.

[Cephus]

Rather than accept it, you imagine a world where atheism means what you want it to mean. Sorry. It doesn't.

Sheesh Harvey, you're really got to stop reading your own posts. But you keep on thinking whatever you want to think, the rest of us will just keep on laughing.

[QED]

Rather than accept it, you imagine a world where atheism means what you want it to mean. Sorry. It doesn't.

Sheesh Harvey, you're really got to stop reading your own posts. But you keep on thinking whatever you want to think, the rest of us will just keep on laughing.

It is difficult to steer away from rhetoric, but let's try. Both sides are bound to get frustrated in a debate like this. But let's stick to the arguments. It is provocative when someone claims that a position is ridiculous when the position has survived intact for millennia, so let's avoid calling it like this. It's also inflammatory when claims are made that a belief system is all but consigned to the scrapheap. These sorts of comments are bound to stir passions so please don't go there. It's not at all productive.

[harvey1]

Sheesh Harvey, you're really got to stop reading your own posts. But you keep on thinking whatever you want to think, the rest of us will just keep on laughing.

Stop with the ad hominem attacks please.

(Edited for politeness.)