Problems and Questions in Atheism

[element771]

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 know if I agree fully.

For example, the question of whether God exists is one such question. Ultimately, the question is answerable I suppose but I would argue that it is not currently answerable. So, both atheists and theists attempt to answer this question using evidence that they feel is pertinent.

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.

I agree but two wrongs don't make a right.

Also, a lot of people assume that arguments like these provide evidence for the Christian God. This is also in error is that it is just a pertinent to a deistic God as well.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I don't know if I agree fully.

For example, the question of whether God exists is one such question. Ultimately, the question is answerable I suppose but I would argue that it is not currently answerable. So, both atheists and theists attempt to answer this question using evidence that they feel is pertinent.

There's a difference between proposing hypotheses for unanswerable questions and presuming answers to unanswerable questions. If an atheist were to say, "The question is unanswerable, therefore I am justified in the belief that God certainly doesn't exist," his claim would be just as fallacious as if a theist were to say, "The question is unanswerable, therefore I am justified in the belief that God certainly does exist." Both of these are argument from ignorance fallacies.

However, if a person were to say, "I do not yet know how to demonstrate it, but perhaps X is the answer to the question," that would be perfectly reasonable, whether that person is an atheist or a theist. It admits that the hypothesis being presented is speculative and unfounded, while still proposing that it is worth our consideration and thought.

I agree but two wrongs don't make a right.

Certainly not! I never meant to imply otherwise.

Also, a lot of people assume that arguments like these provide evidence for the Christian God. This is also in error is that it is just a pertinent to a deistic God as well.

Some of them don't even point to a God, at all. Take, for instance, the popular formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has been presented by Dr. William Lane Craig:

1. Anything which began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Even if this argument was sound-- which I think is far from the case, mind-- it says nothing at all about deity of any sort. It would only imply that the universe has some sort of cause, whatever that cause may be. Dr. Craig alleviates this problem by amending the KCA with two more bullet points in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, but he generally omits these amendments when he brings up the KCA in talks, and I think they are even more poorly argued than the main KCA.

[37818]

In order for something to exist, there, by definition, has to be a state where it cannot exist.

No one has yet proved a state of 'nothing' can even happen. Perfect vacuum the size of the Universe?? A Space-Time devoid of energy/matter?
Easy for humans to form conjectures about nothing due to imagining the opposite of 'something'. Whole other problem of proving or demonstrating it.

So if there is no alternative to the given state of existence, then there was no cause needed to bring it about.

Existence always 'is'(or perhaps better stated as 'does'), did not have a cause.

Well, what begins to exist has a cause. Nothingness never existed, therefore [uncaused] existence always was and is.

No need for an uncaused cause, in either A-Theory or B-Theory of time.

"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."

'But it would have an uncaused cause for having no first cause'.

No, there is no cause for not needing an initial cause, because by definition, it has none.

The being is not contingent on anything because there is no other state other than existence.

If we have an infinite series of cause and effect there would be no first cause. So the cause of such series could be said to be a no cause. A no cause cause, that could constitute being an uncaused cause. My point being in any case there will be an uncaused cause.

[element771]

There's a difference between proposing hypotheses for unanswerable questions and presuming answers to unanswerable questions. If an atheist were to say, "The question is unanswerable, therefore I am justified in the belief that God certainly doesn't exist," his claim would be just as fallacious as if a theist were to say, "The question is unanswerable, therefore I am justified in the belief that God certainly does exist." Both of these are argument from ignorance fallacies.

However, if a person were to say, "I do not yet know how to demonstrate it, but perhaps X is the answer to the question," that would be perfectly reasonable, whether that person is an atheist or a theist. It admits that the hypothesis being presented is speculative and unfounded, while still proposing that it is worth our consideration and thought.

Right and I think when people are hard pressed, they will say it like that. However, given the format of this type of discussion...I would assume that all would admit these things. I don't know anyone that claims to know with certainty the answer to this question. It is a lot easier to say....God exists because of X rather than "my response to the question of whether God exists is formulated under the assumption that I do not yet know how to demonstrate it but perhaps X is the answer".

Certainly not! I never meant to imply otherwise.

Never meant to imply otherwise.

Some of them don't even point to a God, at all. Take, for instance, the popular formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument which has been presented by Dr. William Lane Craig:

1. Anything which began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Even if this argument was sound-- which I think is far from the case, mind-- it says nothing at all about deity of any sort. It would only imply that the universe has some sort of cause, whatever that cause may be. Dr. Craig alleviates this problem by amending the KCA with two more bullet points in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, but he generally omits these amendments when he brings up the KCA in talks, and I think they are even more poorly argued than the main KCA.

Sure but at some point, arguments can't be comprehensive...otherwise it can be a lot to digest and/or defend. Just think about how arguments usually go on this forum. When you try to say a lot in one single post, issues sometimes get crossed and dialogue breaks down. I think that WLC uses the KCA as presented above as laying the groundwork for future arguments that get to God being the cause.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Right and I think when people are hard pressed, they will say it like that.

That hasn't really been my experience with most theists. Most theists with whom I've conversed believe that the existence of God is something which they know for certain, rather than a speculative hypothesis. Many even seem to think that God's existence can be demonstrated by deductive logical proof. It's quite rare to find a theist who treats the existence of God as being simply hypothetical.

Sure but at some point, arguments can't be comprehensive...otherwise it can be a lot to digest and/or defend. Just think about how arguments usually go on this forum. When you try to say a lot in one single post, issues sometimes get crossed and dialogue breaks down. I think that WLC uses the KCA as presented above as laying the groundwork for future arguments that get to God being the cause.

He does. As I mentioned, he does precisely this in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. However, as I also said, he very rarely brings up those arguments; while he very frequently brings up the KCA as listed above, which does not say anything at all about the existence of deity.

This is one of the reasons that the question of the universe's beginning is quite often conflated-- by both sides-- for a question of theism. Many who have heard Dr. Craig present the KCA mistakenly believe it to be an argument for God, in itself, whether they are themselves theists or not.

[element771]

That hasn't really been my experience with most theists. Most theists with whom I've conversed believe that the existence of God is something which they know for certain, rather than a speculative hypothesis. Many even seem to think that God's existence can be demonstrated by deductive logical proof. It's quite rare to find a theist who treats the existence of God as being simply hypothetical.

Sure but the same thing can be said about a lot of atheists. (e.g. Science doesn't need God so God doesn't exist. Never mind that science deals with natural laws and cannot speak towards metaphysical claims).

I believe that this just has to do with the level of argument that you are having. After all, I can't prove that we didn't just come into being 5 minutes ago with all memories in tact. When I converse, however, it doesn't mean that I give this much thought. Ultimately, I think that this is just the nature of conversation. Have you ever asked these theists whether they know vs. whether they believe? I am just curious.

He does. As I mentioned, he does precisely this in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. However, as I also said, he very rarely brings up those arguments; while he very frequently brings up the KCA as listed above, which does not say anything at all about the existence of deity.

Sure but I think that someone reading this would be able to follow his logic in this context. This can be contrasted with presenting the idea to a lay audience. Increasing the number of points in his arguments may have its downsides as far as keeping everyone's attention and / or simplicity when debating his opponent.

This is one of the reasons that the question of the universe's beginning is quite often conflated-- by both sides-- for a question of theism. Many who have heard Dr. Craig present the KCA mistakenly believe it to be an argument for God, in itself, whether they are themselves theists or not.

This also can be in error. Given that WLC is an apologist, it may just be assumed that he is smuggling this argument in there. Not to say that you have, but I have been misrepresented in this way. I will scientifically argue something on this forum and some replies will automatically assume that I am smuggling an argument for God's existence in there. It is frustrating to say the least.

[psstein]

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.

It seems to be both atheists and theists, honestly.

My view is that it doesn't matter whether or not the universe is past-eternal or not when it comes to the existence of God. Craig's KCA fails on other grounds, primarily that he doesn't provide a particularly coherent defense for the idea that an actual infinite is impossible.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Sure but the same thing can be said about a lot of atheists. (e.g. Science doesn't need God so God doesn't exist. Never mind that science deals with natural laws and cannot speak towards metaphysical claims).

Sure! I generally criticize such arguments whenever I see them, whether they're being made by atheists or theists.

Have you ever asked these theists whether they know vs. whether they believe? I am just curious.

With a number of them, I have. Most claim to know. Very, very rarely, I find a theist who says that they do not know for certain whether God exists, but that they believe he does nonetheless.

Of those theists who claim to know with certainty, most of the ones with whom I've conversed seem convinced by personal experiences. Some believe that God's existence can be proven with simple deductive syllogisms. A rare few hold to the idea that God's existence is the prime axiom of all Logic.

Sure but I think that someone reading this would be able to follow his logic in this context. This can be contrasted with presenting the idea to a lay audience. Increasing the number of points in his arguments may have its downsides as far as keeping everyone's attention and / or simplicity when debating his opponent.

To be certain, it would make his position much more difficult to explain in a public forum. The two amended points for the KCA from Blackwell are:

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal, creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

That premise (4) is quite a doozy. There are more words in that single premise than in the entire main KCA syllogism. Because Dr. Craig attempts to shove a whole lot of stuff into a fairly small hole, an adequate discussion of (4) would take far longer than a discussion of the main KCA takes. So, in his public lectures and debates, Dr. Craig pulls the rather shady move of just saying that he's already addressed the arguments and objections for (4) in his published work. He concentrates on the main KCA because (at first glance) it seems more intuitive and easier for the layperson to grasp and retain than the more philosophically complex (4).

This also can be in error. Given that WLC is an apologist, it may just be assumed that he is smuggling this argument in there. Not to say that you have, but I have been misrepresented in this way. I will scientifically argue something on this forum and some replies will automatically assume that I am smuggling an argument for God's existence in there. It is frustrating to say the least.

People did the same thing with Lemaitre, so at least you're in good company.

But in all seriousness, whether Craig intends it or not, people often misconstrue his formulation of the KCA as being an inextricable part of theism. I completely agree that this is a misread of Dr. Craig's actual position, but that doesn't prevent people from making such conclusions on their own.

[Adrift]

Even if this argument was sound-- which I think is far from the case, mind-- it says nothing at all about deity of any sort. It would only imply that the universe has some sort of cause, whatever that cause may be. Dr. Craig alleviates this problem by amending the KCA with two more bullet points in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, but he generally omits these amendments when he brings up the KCA in talks, and I think they are even more poorly argued than the main KCA.

Craig regularly mentions in his talks that the Kalam Cosmological argument itself is not aimed at proving God's existence, but to get to the main point, which is that, if the universe had a cause, then that cause must have been personal. He has a whole nother set of reasons for why that cause must have been personal. This is something he mentions very very often. I'm surprised you've missed it.

[Adrift]

It seems to be both atheists and theists, honestly.

My view is that it doesn't matter whether or not the universe is past-eternal or not when it comes to the existence of God. Craig's KCA fails on other grounds, primarily that he doesn't provide a particularly coherent defense for the idea that an actual infinite is impossible.

Yes he does. He often uses Hilbert's paradox, or some other such coherent defense. At least, I find his argument against actual infinite coherent.

[Adrift]

With a number of them, I have. Most claim to know. Very, very rarely, I find a theist who says that they do not know for certain whether God exists, but that they believe he does nonetheless.

We've actually discussed this exact question a number of times on this forum. If I recall, the majority of Christians when asked will say something like "If I'm honest, no, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but the evidence (including personal experience) leads me to believe that it is far far more likely that God exists that that he does not".

Some believe that God's existence can be proven with simple deductive syllogisms.

What's wrong with that? If the default is agnosticism, then what's wrong with using deductive reason to come to one conclusion or another on the subject?

To be certain, it would make his position much more difficult to explain in a public forum. The two amended points for the KCA from Blackwell are:

4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal, creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

That premise (4) is quite a doozy. There are more words in that single premise than in the entire main KCA syllogism. Because Dr. Craig attempts to shove a whole lot of stuff into a fairly small hole, an adequate discussion of (4) would take far longer than a discussion of the main KCA takes. So, in his public lectures and debates, Dr. Craig pulls the rather shady move of just saying that he's already addressed the arguments and objections for (4) in his published work. He concentrates on the main KCA because (at first glance) it seems more intuitive and easier for the layperson to grasp and retain than the more philosophically complex (4).

He's covered this in far far greater detail than in the Blackwell Companion. Mostly in blogs on his website, and well as in his podcast, but he's often mentioned it in both his public lectures and his debates. I really wish skeptics would stop accusing Craig of being shady. I don't remember any particular time he's told someone in a debate format "I address the arguments and objections to a personal cause in my published works". He only ever uses the "I address this in greater detail elsewhere" sort of excuse if the subject is going well off the topic in the debate.

But in all seriousness, whether Craig intends it or not, people often misconstrue his formulation of the KCA as being an inextricable part of theism. I completely agree that this is a misread of Dr. Craig's actual position, but that doesn't prevent people from making such conclusions on their own.

No they don't. At least, not here they don't, nor on any other forum that I've been on that's addressed this subject. Craig brings up that the KCA is simply to introduce the idea of a personal cause all the time. Especially in his podcasts. When the argument has been used here, almost everyone on this forum who uses it points out that it's simply to get to the idea that the universe had a cause.

Is it possible that you're confusing people who discuss this stuff with you on your blog with people who use Craig's arguments in general?

[JimL]

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?

I don't think that the idea of the physical laws breaking down at the singularity means that the laws no longer exist, I think that it just means that we can no longer calculate the physical laws. Singularities within the universe, black holes wherein the physical laws break down, don't come from nothing, they come from collapsing stars. If the Big Bang were to reverse itself into a Big crunch ending in a singularity, even though the physical laws would "break down" at that point, said singularity would not have come from nothing. Perhaps within an area of the Greater Cosmos the entropy decreases to form a sort of singularity wherein the physical laws are obscured and hidden from us, in the same way as they are hidden with respect to black holes, and can only be understood when the singularity, within the which the laws exist, begins to expand. I don't know, again I'm no physicist, and this is just a laymans musings, but the idea is not exactly a presupposing, its based upon what we can observe of how things work within our universe itself and extrapolating that as an explanation of its own origins.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

We've actually discussed this exact question a number of times on this forum. If I recall, the majority of Christians when asked will say something like "If I'm honest, no, there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but the evidence (including personal experience) leads me to believe that it is far far more likely that God exists that that he does not".

Cool. Most of the Christians with whom I have had this conversation-- especially those with whom I've spoken in person-- tend to be Charismatic Evangelicals. Because they believe that they have interacted directly with God, they have expressed to me that they believe their personal experiences to be incontrovertible proof that God really does exist. It's something akin to the position Dr. Craig espouses about the proper basicality of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

What's wrong with that? If the default is agnosticism, then what's wrong with using deductive reason to come to one conclusion or another on the subject?

Oh, there's certainly nothing wrong with appealing to deductive reasoning! I'm a math guy-- I absolutely adore deductive reasoning. It only becomes a problem when the syllogisms which one claims as proof are not actually sound arguments. I've yet to be presented with any logical arguments demonstrating God's existence which are sound.

He's covered this in far far greater detail than in the Blackwell Companion. Mostly in blogs on his website, and well as in his podcast, but he's often mentioned it in both his public lectures and his debates.

He's also written about it elsewhere in his published books. I didn't mean to imply that he only presents this material in the Blackwell Companion. I simply meant that he usually omits this material when he speaks publicly on the KCA.

I really wish skeptics would stop accusing Craig of being shady. I don't remember any particular time he's told someone in a debate format "I address the arguments and objections to a personal cause in my published works". He only ever uses the "I address this in greater detail elsewhere" sort of excuse if the subject is going well off the topic in the debate.

Without trawling too greatly through debate transcripts for examples, one immediately pops to mind. In his debate with Dr. Carroll, Dr. Craig states, "As Jim Sinclair has shown in our article in the Blackwell Companion, all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe." This certainly was not "well off the topic in the debate." It was the very subject of the debate. And yet, Dr. Craig seemed content to punt to his published work instead of actually presenting the arguments that the models which Dr. Carroll had mentioned were either untenable or unable to avert a beginning for the universe.

No they don't. At least, not here they don't, nor on any other forum that I've been on that's addressed this subject. Craig brings up that the KCA is simply to introduce the idea of a personal cause all the time. Especially in his podcasts. When the argument has been used here, almost everyone on this forum who uses it points out that it's simply to get to the idea that the universe had a cause.

Here, on TWeb, we tend to have people who have given a great deal more thought to the subject than does the average person. However, most of the people who have presented the KCA to me as if it is a knockout-blow for theism are people who don't really spend much time thinking about these questions, but may have had some introduction to apologetics in their local churches or home groups. I'm not saying Craig intentionally misrepresents the argument. I'm simply saying that a great many people who have heard Craig's argument misunderstand it-- whether theist or not.

I don't think that the idea of the physical laws breaking down at the singularity means that the laws no longer exist, I think that it just means that we can no longer calculate the physical laws.

It's not even that we can "no longer" calculate the physical laws. It's simply that, in one particular case, we cannot calculate some particular physical law.

A lot of people who hear physicists use the word "singularity" are under the misconception that this refers to a physical object. It does not. A singularity is a mathematical term describing particular situation in which the mathematics becomes undefined. The simplest example I can show comes from the function f(x)=1/x, which is graphed as below:

singularity.jpg

The function is defined for all Real numbers, x, except for the case when x=0. That particular case is called a singularity. Notice that the function behaves perfectly well for x<0 and x>0. We can calculate any of those values with relative ease. It's simply when x=0 that the mathematics breaks down, because division by zero is undefined.

The singularities discussed by physicists are mathematical singularities. In fact, the Big Bang singularity and black hole singularities which you mentioned are examples of division-by-zero type singularities. The mathematics which describe those particular cases leads to a division by zero, and thus we have a singularity. Again, these singularities are not concrete objects in the real world. They are simply undefined operations in particular mathematical models.

[37818]

Yes he does. He often uses Hilbert's paradox, or some other such coherent defense. At least, I find his argument against actual infinite coherent.

Hilbert's paradox actually explains paradox quite well I think.

[Adrift]

Cool. Most of the Christians with whom I have had this conversation-- especially those with whom I've spoken in person-- tend to be Charismatic Evangelicals. Because they believe that they have interacted directly with God, they have expressed to me that they believe their personal experiences to be incontrovertible proof that God really does exist. It's something akin to the position Dr. Craig espouses about the proper basicality of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

I could be described as a Charismatic Evangelical (though I prefer simply, 'Christian'), and believe I've had personal experiences and interactions with God. That doesn't mean I have absolute certainty that God exists. There is an extremely remote possibility that I am/was experiencing some sort of delusional state. But I am far far more certain than not that those experiences were real.

Without trawling too greatly through debate transcripts for examples, one immediately pops to mind. In his debate with Dr. Carroll, Dr. Craig states, "As Jim Sinclair has shown in our article in the Blackwell Companion, all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe." This certainly was not "well off the topic in the debate." It was the very subject of the debate. And yet, Dr. Craig seemed content to punt to his published work instead of actually presenting the arguments that the models which Dr. Carroll had mentioned were either untenable or unable to avert a beginning for the universe.

Didn't both speakers have time constraints on them? Why would Craig need to waste his time on models that Carroll himself points out that he believes are not right? Carroll doesn't go into each of the models, rather he states, "So the question is, 'Are there realistic models of eternal cosmologies?' I spent half an hour on the Internet and I was able to come up with about seventeen different plausible looking models of eternal cosmologies. I do not claim that any of these are the right answer. We’re nowhere near the right answer yet but you can come up with objections to every one of these models. You cannot say that they are not eternal." Carroll doesn't go into each of these models. He primarily sticks to his own. You were expecting Craig to use his time to go into each of the models that Carroll may or may not have been referring to, and then rebut them in the same allotted time? I think you're being very unfair to Craig here.

Here is Craig's fuller reply to the seventeen models that Carroll himself does not go into,

As Jim Sinclair has shown in our article in the Blackwell Companion, all of the models that Dr. Carroll has mentioned have been shown to be either untenable or not to avert the beginning of the universe.[24] Alex Vilenkin says flatly, “there are no models at this time that give a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”[25]

Consider in particular Dr. Carroll’s own model...

By focusing on Carroll's own model rather than pinwheeling into different directions covering the other models that Carroll mentions, but claims he, himself rejects, he makes the best use of his allotted time on stage.

Anyhow, this is all neither here nor there, since it isn't an instance where Craig is referring to the cause that his Kalam argument points back to. I can't think of any time in any of his debates where he told an interlocutor, or even an audience member "read my book" when it came to explaining why God is the best reason for the cause of the universe.