Problems and Questions in Atheism

[InspectorG]

Well, one of them involves believing in a logical contradiction, and it isn't belief in a supernatural agency.

- Its possible, though not probable the Universe blinked itself into existence similar to vacuum fluctuation, though given the scale we experience reality, this is hard to relate to. This concept has more explaining power than Supernatural Agency. Requires no magic.

What about our current understanding (about what?) has made belief in a SA more problematic?

- The explaining power of the Supernatural is fading compared to human technological development and aggregate understanding of the Universe.

No idea what you mean by Peak Experiences, so I can't comment on that.

- VERY interesting topic. Basically, what would be called 'first hand experiences' of the divine. They tend to have consistent characteristics across all cultures and times as well as demographics.
I would say this is the last remaining bastion for theists but they would have to supply agency that explains the phenomenon without Dimethyltriptamine or mental illness.
The proof of the experiences and changes in behavior in those affected are observable, though i dont know how they could be measured.

I don't know a single argument for theism that starts by presupposing the existence of God.

- as an uncaused cause(God) that turned nothing into something. They dont prove the initial nothing. The nothing is presupposed to give the uncaused cause a function.


As opposed to caricaturing your opponents standpoint to make it easier to shoot down?

- Not a caricature. The 'laziness' derives from assuming there was ever a state of 'nothing' in the above argument. Proof of the initial non-existence would REALLY help the argument but who is working to prove it? It is assumed.

[JonathanL]

- Not a caricature. The 'laziness' derives from assuming there was ever a state of 'nothing' in the above argument. Proof of the initial non-existence would REALLY help the argument but who is working to prove it? It is assumed.

Proofs don't exist other than in mathematics. But if you're asking for evidence and arguments for the beginning of the universe there's quite a few of them. Perhaps you don't know of them because you're too lazy to do the necessary research?

[shunyadragon]

In order for there to be uncaused anything there has to be uncaused existence. The universe has to be defined to include that uncased existence.

At present the only objective evidence available is for an uncaused Natural existence. To believe there is an uncaused existence beyond our physical existence requires a theological presupposition that a Source some call God(s) existence beyond any objective evidence and falsifiable hypothesis and theories.

No. All you need is a beginning for anything. Uncaused existence has no beginning. An infinite series of cause and effect would need no first cause. But it would have an uncaused cause for having no first cause. Being contingent on there being the uncaused existence.

First, by definition, an infinite series of cause and effect, can only exist as an 'actual infinite' set within a greater finite or infinite existence. Yes, an infinite series of cause and effect would have an uncaused cause, but that uncaused cause could possible be a Natural Cause in the greater Natural existence which could be possibly be potentially infinite or eternal in nature.

Yes, an uncaused existence would have no beginning, but it is possible that the uncaused existence could possibly be natural.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't know a single argument for theism that starts by presupposing the existence of God.

You've never interacted with a Presuppositionalist?

[JonathanL]

You've never interacted with a Presuppositionalist?

Not directly, no.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Not directly, no.

Wow! Well, consider yourself lucky.

[shunyadragon]

Proofs don't exist other than in mathematics. But if you're asking for evidence and arguments for the beginning of the universe there's quite a few of them. Perhaps you don't know of them because you're too lazy to do the necessary research?

There is also evidence and models for possible universes without beginnings. The models for beginnings like those that begin with the singularity and then what is call the big 'bang,' do not conclude that this an absolute beginning. In fact by far most physicists propose these beginnings from prior existing energy and/or matter.

Regardless all the known models and hypothesis are limited in their ability to falsify specific beginnings that would not include the possibility of pre-existent energy and/or matter.

[element771]

We dont know: therefore God, is lazy intellectualism.

This applies to atheism as well.

If you scientifically or philosophically dig down deep enough, you always reach a point that you have to make a choice.

Just because some people choose God for their answer doesn't make them any more intellectually lazy than those who choose "that just happens to be the way it is" for theirs.

[JimL]

This applies to atheism as well.

If you scientifically or philosophically dig down deep enough, you always reach a point that you have to make a choice.

Just because some people choose God for their answer doesn't make them any more intellectually lazy than those who choose "that just happens to be the way it is" for theirs.

Yes actually it does, there is no evidence that anything comes from nothing, so to presuppose that the universe itself came from nothing just because its source can not be gleened is to make a choice for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

[element771]

Yes actually it does, there is no evidence that anything comes from nothing, so to presuppose that the universe itself came from nothing just because its source can not be gleened is to make a choice for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

At the singularity, all laws that we have break down. Why do you presuppose that the laws that apply to our universe, apply before the universe we live in existed? Furthermore, what did the universe come from then?

All of us presuppose things based on our philosophical outlook.

Also, I have not even stated an argument about the universe's begginings, however this has not stopped you from presupposing my stance on the matter.

We are all in the same boat. We choose what makes sense to us and go from there. There are things that we choose to believe that can be defended and those that can't. For example, I would be hard pressed to defend a position of the earth being flat, 6000 years old, etc.

Finally, what do you think counts as evidence?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This applies to atheism as well.

If you scientifically or philosophically dig down deep enough, you always reach a point that you have to make a choice.

Just because some people choose God for their answer doesn't make them any more intellectually lazy than those who choose "that just happens to be the way it is" for theirs.

I'll certainly agree that, "It just is," is just as intellectually lazy as, "God did it." If I were to see such an argument, I would likely criticize it, even if the ultimate point of the person making the argument aligned with my beliefs.

That said, "I don't know, but I will try to discover the answer, if possible," is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Far more reasonable, in fact, than saying, "It has not been proven otherwise, so I will believe X." The fact that an answer is unknown does not justify belief in an arbitrary answer.

[element771]

I'll certainly agree that, "It just is," is just as intellectually lazy as, "God did it." If I were to see such an argument, I would likely criticize it, even if the ultimate point of the person making the argument aligned with my beliefs.

That said, "I don't know, but I will try to discover the answer, if possible," is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Far more reasonable, in fact, than saying, "It has not been proven otherwise, so I will believe X." The fact that an answer is unknown does not justify belief in an arbitrary answer.

I agree but I think that there are some questions that are not answerable. Science cannot answer every question that there is. It is for those questions that I believe that you can say...well, I choose to believe that the answer is God or I choose to believe that there is no answer.

There are also questions that may be able to be answered scientifically in theory but not practice. If I disagree with those "scientific answers", it doesn't make me intellectually lazy (as long as I have good scientific reasons to doubt these answers).

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I agree but I think that there are some questions that are not answerable. Science cannot answer every question that there is. It is for those questions that I believe that you can say...well, I choose to believe that the answer is God or I choose to believe that there is no answer.

The fact that a question is unanswerable does not make it reasonable to hold that an arbitrary answer is therefore true.

In mathematics, there's a well-known idea called the Continuum Hypothesis. For about a century, mathematicians were trying to discover whether this hypothesis is true or false, until it was proven (somewhat ironically) that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven true or false.

Imagine if a mathematician were to claim, "The question is unanswerable, therefore the answer to the question is that the Continuum Hypothesis is true." That would be fairly obviously preposterous. Now substitute any other unanswerable question for the Continuum Hypothesis, and it's clear that the same holds true for them.

There are also questions that may be able to be answered scientifically in theory but not practice. If I disagree with those "scientific answers", it doesn't make me intellectually lazy (as long as I have good scientific reasons to doubt these answers).

Well , sure. If I doubt that classical views of spacetime hold at quantum scales, for example, then it is justifiable to doubt that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem describes the real world.

That does not, however, justify my supplanting the BGV with an arbitrary and ad hoc answer which is otherwise unjustified.

[element771]

The fact that a question is unanswerable does not make it reasonable to hold that an arbitrary answer is therefore true.

In mathematics, there's a well-known idea called the Continuum Hypothesis. For about a century, mathematicians were trying to discover whether this hypothesis is true or false, until it was proven (somewhat ironically) that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven true or false.

Imagine if a mathematician were to claim, "The question is unanswerable, therefore the answer to the question is that the Continuum Hypothesis is true." That would be fairly obviously preposterous. Now substitute any other unanswerable question for the Continuum Hypothesis, and it's clear that the same holds true for them.

Two things...

1. You example assumes that someone is answering an unanswerable mathematical question with an arbitrary "mathematical" answer. I agree with you 100% in this case as you can't assume to answer a given question with your preferred answer without justification.

2. What I am referring to are more metaphysical questions. If there is no empirical way to determine an answer, it is completely justifiable to give a metaphysical answer assuming that you can back it up with an appropriate line of reason. In this regard, theistic answers are no more arbitrary than atheistic answers.

Well , sure. If I doubt that classical views of spacetime hold at quantum scales, for example, then it is justifiable to doubt that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem describes the real world.

That does not, however, justify my supplanting the BGV with an arbitrary and ad hoc answer which is otherwise unjustified.

I don't know if anyone is actually doing that. Simply affirming that the universe has a beginning does not commit someone to theistic explanations. It may be that the universe had a beginning and that beginning is an outworking of natural laws with no supernatural agency. I don't understand how the idea that the universe had a beginning has become a theistic argument to many on this forum. I would argue that at that point, the argument goes from scientific to metaphysical (or philosophical). These are completely separate arguments and should be dealt with independently.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

What I am referring to are more metaphysical questions. If there is no empirical way to determine an answer, it is completely justifiable to give a metaphysical answer assuming that you can back it up with an appropriate line of reason. In this regard, theistic answers are no more arbitrary than atheistic answers.

I agree! An atheist is making just as arbitrary an answer as is a theistic if he simply presumes his preferred explanation to an unanswerable question.

If a question is unanswerable, then by definition, no answer to that question can be reasonably justified. If an answer to a question can be reasonably justified, then the question is not unanswerable.

I don't understand how the idea that the universe had a beginning has become a theistic argument to many on this forum. I would argue that at that point, the argument goes from scientific to metaphysical (or philosophical). These are completely separate arguments and should be dealt with independently.

I agree that the question of whether or not the universe had a beginning is independent of the question of the existence of deity. The former implies absolutely nothing about the latter. Unfortunately, there do exist a number of theists who believe otherwise. Such people are convinced that if the universe had a beginning, then it is necessarily true that God exists. Unfortunately, there are a great many such people, and because of that, many on both sides of the issue have come to the false idea that a beginning is inextricably linked with theism.