ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

[watsup]

Yes it is. Its a fact that makes the claim it was intentionally caused or unintentionally caused more probable than it if didn't exist.

Name something that exists that was wasn't intentionally caused to exist or unintentionally caused to exist?

You may not realize it, but you are in way over your head with BabaVoss.

 

[watsup]

You see ‘evidence’ that isn’t really evidence. I suspect you don’t know any atheists. They don’t see what you think you see, and they’ve already given it a lot of thought. Once you decide you don’t believe in magical stuff, you really don’t care that much. As far as I can tell, most feel as I do - I am a rationalist, but I also recognize there are always things we do not yet understand. Show me some evidence. I am open to it, but it has to be rooted in scientific observation.


Or it has been here all along, and we just don’t understand what we see (yet). None of this helps your cause. There is nothing to indicate it was intentionally caused.


If we didn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter. But the probability of its origins remain unchanged. Since we see no evidence of supernatural beings, it is very probably that they do not exist. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe has natural origins.


???


You’ve lost me here. I stand by my statement. That the universe exists means It exists. That life exists on planet earth means life exists. You can extrapolate the obvious - of course the conditions were right of life to exist as it is. To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the great thing about science is that it doesn’t care whether you believe in it or not.


The answer is no. There is no reason to leap to “therefore it must be magic” when you don’t fully understand something.


The universe does exist. The only condition needed for theism to be true is the existence of the supernatural god or gods that particular theism believes in. Faith is required to believe in them precisely because science, by definition, has nothing to say about the supernatural.


You are twisting a lot here. For atheism to be true, the supernatural beings of theism do not exist. Since there is no evidence they do, atheism requires little but simple observation of the world around us as we see it.

Logical and rational versus “belief”. The former always wins, but proponents of the latter steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that.

 

[DrewPaul]

You see ‘evidence’ that isn’t really evidence. I suspect you don’t know any atheists. They don’t see what you think you see, and they’ve already given it a lot of thought. Once you decide you don’t believe in magical stuff, you really don’t care that much. As far as I can tell, most feel as I do - I am a rationalist, but I also recognize there are always things we do not yet understand. Show me some evidence. I am open to it, but it has to be rooted in scientific observation.

I've been arguing theism vs atheism for many years. I hosted a discussion board called Challenging Atheism.

1. The fact the universe exists

Or it has been here all along, and we just don’t understand what we see (yet). None of this helps your cause. There is nothing to indicate it was intentionally caused.

The existence of anything is evidence it was intentionally caused or unintentionally caused. Do you know of any other circumstance? The fact the conditions not just for life, but for stars, planets, solar systems, the laws of physics, dark matter, dark energy and gravity (all of which we humans need to exist) obtained is evidence it was intentionally caused. This observation is rooted in scientific observation. If you watch any science documentaries on the universe the phrase you will hear most often is 'if so and so didn't happen we wouldn't be here'. If this condition isn't within an extremely narrow range we wouldn't be here. Question: why would mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if humans existed cause all the conditions for the universe and life to occur?

If we didn’t exist, it wouldn’t matter. But the probability of its origins remain unchanged. Since we see no evidence of supernatural beings, it is very probably that they do not exist. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe has natural origins.

If we didn't exist theism would be false. Theism requires intelligent life exist, naturalism doesn't. Its precisely because we do exist and the conditions for our existence obtained that raises the question was it intentionally caused? If not then explain why the conditions for our existence obtained? The current quasi scientific naturalistic explanation is this is one of an infinitude of universes. The fact the theory stipulates an infinitude of universes only informs us just how incredibly fine-tuned the universe is for life. This is why I know when you folks ask for evidence you're being disingenuous. This is exactly the kind of evidence one would look for if they thought something was intentional rather than inadvertent. A laptop exists and even if no one had ever seen one or had any idea how it was caused to exist everyone would infer it was intentionally caused. Why? Because of the fine-tuning that goes into making it work. The slightest deviation would cause it not to function. Because it was intentionally caused the rules of logic and deduction apply.

The answer is no. There is no reason to leap to “therefore it must be magic” when you don’t fully understand something.

I'm not leaping to it must be magic or that intentionally causing something to exist is a magic act. Intentionally causing and designing things can seem like magic. To someone from 200 years ago the world is fully of magical contrivances. We have a better explanation for such contrivances, cell phones aren't magic, they are the result of intelligence, design and engineering. The virtual universe was intentionally caused to exist. They didn't use magic either. Some scientists believe (many years from now) they can cause a real universe to exist. I don't think they'll use magic incantations. If successful would you at least concede that universe intentionally caused to exist? If you prefer magic, the idea mindless forces without plan, intent, blueprint or caused the universe with the conditions for life fits the bill.

 

[DrewPaul]

Its possible its always been here, no one knows, including you.

That's a naturalism in the gaps explanation. You folks never notice when you make those. The weight of modern scientific evidence strongly suggests the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. Deal with it.

 

[watsup]

I've been arguing theism vs atheism for many years. I hosted a discussion board called Challenging Atheism.

And this repetitive nonsense is the “best” you’ve been able to come up with????????

 

[watsup]

That's a naturalism in the gaps explanation. You folks never notice when you make those. The weight of modern scientific evidence strongly suggests the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. Deal with it.

The weight of modern scientific evidence strongly suggests that the claim of a “Creator” is pure nonsensical speculation. Deal with it.

 

[DrewPaul]

That isn't what theism means though. Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods. It is not a requirement of theism for those gods to be defined as intentional creators of the universe, and many gods aren't.

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.

Again, that is a misguided definition. Atheism is not believing any god or gods exist (regardless of whether they're defined as creator gods or not). It would be possible to believe in some form of sentient creative force or beings that don't meet the definition of a god.

Let's be clear you reject the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist true? It was caused by brute force and happenstance.

 

[watsup]

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.


Let's be clear you reject the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist true? It was caused by brute force and happenstance.

How was your Creator caused?

 

[HonestJoe]

1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.

Even with the subtle Western Judeo-Christian bias, that supports my point; theism doesn't automatically involve a singular creator god, especially when referring to the opposite of atheism. If you want to talk about philosophical theism, you should say so, though you should also acknowledge that is a specific concept and not a simple opposite of atheism.

I still think it would be more honest to accept that the arguments you are making are in support of their having been some form of sentient creator. You're not making any arguments for any god, especially not a specific God you may well have in mind.

Let's be clear you reject the belief the universe was intentionally caused to exist true? It was caused by brute force and happenstance.

This isn't about what I might believe or not believe, it is about the validity of the specific arguments you're proposing. That is why I suggested not treating it as some kind of binary argument. I could agree with your conclusion but still disagree with the route you're using to reach it.

 

[BabaVoss]

The existence of anything is evidence it was intentionally caused or unintentionally caused.

Seems like those are the two options.

Do you know of any other circumstance? The fact the conditions not just for life, but for stars, planets, solar systems, the laws of physics, dark matter, dark energy and gravity (all of which we humans need to exist) obtained is evidence it was intentionally caused.

Or not. Why do you see intention in the chaos of the universe?

This observation is rooted in scientific observation. If you watch any science documentaries on the universe the phrase you will hear most often is 'if so and so didn't happen we wouldn't be here'.

Of course.

If this condition isn't within an extremely narrow range we wouldn't be here. Question: why would mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if humans existed cause all the conditions for the universe and life to occur?

Chance. Why would your supernatural creator go to all that trouble and not leave a trace?

If we didn't exist theism would be false.

Theism is false and we do exist. Theism is made up stories to explain things we don’t understand. Many different gods have been invented over large spans of time.

Theism requires intelligent life exist, naturalism doesn't.

Naturalism is a philosophical construct, but the idea of a natural universe is its essence. Yes, it does not require “intelligent“ life. In fact, it does not require life at all. Not sure what you r point is here.

Its precisely because we do exist and the conditions for our existence obtained that raises the question was it intentionally caused? If not then explain why the conditions for our existence obtained?

Your use of the word “obtained‘ here is odd. Our existence or its conditions are what they are. We exists because the conditions allow it, and the right things happened at the right time.

The current quasi scientific naturalistic explanation is this is one of an infinitude of universes.

That is one theory, yes.

The fact the theory stipulates an infinitude of universes only informs us just how incredibly fine-tuned the universe is for life.

One has nothing to do with the other, but yes science does recognize that our universe is fine tuned for life and a lot of other stuff on which our reality depends.

This is why I know when you folks ask for evidence you're being disingenuous. This is exactly the kind of evidence one would look for if they thought something was intentional rather than inadvertent.

How do link those two things? You stipulate there is a supernatural creator, but when asked for evidence you can produce none. The question should not be a surprise, and it not disingenuous at all. It is a perfectly logical response to your claim.

A laptop exists and even if no one had ever seen one or had any idea how it was caused to exist everyone would infer it was intentionally caused. Why? Because of the fine-tuning that goes into making it work. The slightest deviation would cause it not to function. Because it was intentionally caused the rules of logic and deduction apply.

OK.

I'm not leaping to it must be magic or that intentionally causing something to exist is a magic act.

Yet you are. You say the universe sure looks like it was designed for us, so therefore…

Intentionally causing and designing things can seem like magic. To someone from 200 years ago the world is fully of magical contrivances…

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” - Arthur C. Clark

I still see no reason to believe the universe is anything other than chaos. We are a happy accident. We are surely not the only ones.

 

[watsup]

How do link those two things? You stipulate there is a supernatural creator, but when asked for evidence you can produce none. The question should not be a surprise, and it not disingenuous at all. It is a perfectly logical response to your claim.

He absolutely refuses to engage in a discussion about the potential origins of his “Creator”. Plenty of people have asked him to do so. It is HE who is being disingenuous by positing such an entity and then refusing to go any further in trying to discern its origin. Not disingenuous, downright dishonest.

 

[watsup]

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists (or must exist) independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion.

I have no idea why you don’t understand that just because you cast aside theology/religion in positing a “Supreme Being”, that does not make such an entity any more likely. It’s still just a fabrication of the human imagination. And there’s still not an iota of evidence for said entity. What’s so difficult to understand about this?

 

[BabaVoss]

He absolutely refuses to engage in a discussion about the potential origins of his “Creator”. Plenty of people have asked him to do so. It is HE who is being disingenuous by positing such an entity and then refusing to go any further in trying to discern its origin. Not disingenuous, downright dishonest.

That is fairly typical in these types of arguments - at least it is in my experience. The creator is singularly special, and cannot be held to any of the other arguments that follow any particular logic or rationale. 'Everyone has a beginning' except the creator. You just have to take that on faith, I guess.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Yes it is. Its a fact that makes the claim it was intentionally caused or unintentionally caused more probable than it if didn't exist.

Name something that exists that was wasn't intentionally caused to exist or unintentionally caused to exist?

This is prattle.

 

[DrewPaul]

Or not. Why do you see intention in the chaos of the universe?

In the fact the conditions for our existence obtained and the degree of precision required for those conditions to obtain. If the universe was sheer chaos (no laws of physics) it would be life prohibiting and no one would claim that universe was intentionally caused.

Question: why would mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if humans existed cause all the conditions for the universe and life to occur?

Chance. Why would your supernatural creator go to all that trouble and not leave a trace?

Right, chance would be the only method available. Scientists realize it happening with only one chance is zero. That's why multiverse theory is gaining steam. However, multiverse is also the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps theory.

Theism is false and we do exist. Theism is made up stories to explain things we don’t understand. Many different gods have been invented over large spans of time.

You don't know if our universe was unintentionally caused.

Naturalism is a philosophical construct, but the idea of a natural universe is its essence. Yes, it does not require “intelligent“ life. In fact, it does not require life at all. Not sure what you r point is here.

I'm comparing philosophical construct of theism to naturalism. The only thing naturalism requires is nature exists. It doesn't require sentient beings exist, stars, planets, galaxies, laws of physics, gravity, dark matter or a host of other conditions for humans to exist.

The fact the theory stipulates an infinitude of universes only informs us just how incredibly fine-tuned the universe is for life.

One has nothing to do with the other, but yes science does recognize that our universe is fine tuned for life and a lot of other stuff on which our reality depends.

They do recognize it and are seeking an explanation. The fine-tuning of life is exactly the kind of evidence one would seek to substantiate the claim the universe was intentionally created to cause life.

How do link those two things? You stipulate there is a supernatural creator, but when asked for evidence you can produce none. The question should not be a surprise, and it not disingenuous at all. It is a perfectly logical response to your claim.

Its disingenuous because I have listed facts that make my claim more probable. That's what evidence is. The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused. Barring some better theory why not?

 

[Questerr]

We know such forces came into existence. They were caused to exist and the natural forces we observe were not the cause of their own existence.

Are you now saying the universe wasn't created by natural forces?

“Came into existence” implies we know they didn’t exist at some time. What is your evidence for this?

 

[Questerr]

In the fact the conditions for our existence obtained and the degree of precision required for those conditions to obtain. If the universe was sheer chaos (no laws of physics) it would be life prohibiting and no one would claim that universe was intentionally caused.

Question: why would mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if humans existed cause all the conditions for the universe and life to occur?


Right, chance would be the only method available. Scientists realize it happening with only one chance is zero. That's why multiverse theory is gaining steam. However, multiverse is also the ultimate time and chance naturalism in the gaps theory.


You don't know if our universe was unintentionally caused.


I'm comparing philosophical construct of theism to naturalism. The only thing naturalism requires is nature exists. It doesn't require sentient beings exist, stars, planets, galaxies, laws of physics, gravity, dark matter or a host of other conditions for humans to exist.

The fact the theory stipulates an infinitude of universes only informs us just how incredibly fine-tuned the universe is for life.

They do recognize it and are seeking an explanation. The fine-tuning of life is exactly the kind of evidence one would seek to substantiate the claim the universe was intentionally created to cause life.


Its disingenuous because I have listed facts that make my claim more probable. That's what evidence is. The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused. Barring some better theory why not?

If you see a pothole in the road filled to the brim with water, would you reduce that the pothole must have been intentionally designed with that exact shape and depth to hold that exact amount of water?

Or would you deduce that the water conformed to the conditions of the pothole?

 

[BabaVoss]

In the fact the conditions for our existence obtained and the degree of precision required for those conditions to obtain. If the universe was sheer chaos (no laws of physics) it would be life prohibiting and no one would claim that universe was intentionally caused.

Sorry, but no. The universe is chaos. That is all the available evidence tells us. We do have laws of physics. There is no rational reason to conclude the universe was intentionally created.

Its disingenuous because I have listed facts that make my claim more probable.

You haven’t been able to connect those dots. Just saying it is more probable does, not make it so. You see what you want to see, but there isn’t any real evidence to support your opinion.

The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused. Barring some better theory why not?

That’s a leap of logic. A better theory is that the universe is chaos and we are happy accident. Nothing supernatural is needed. That requires much less magical stuff than your position.

 

[watsup]

The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused.

You have said that hundreds of times, but you have yet to explain WHY. Repetition. per se, does not provide substance to the claim.

 

[watsup]

You don't know if our universe was unintentionally caused.

Yes, that is exactly the point. We don’t know what happened prior to the Big Bang. But that does not mean that, like you, we automatically insert an imaginary entity into the picture and claim that it was the cause. That is really the ultimate “God of the gaps” situation. Where is your evidence?

 

[watsup]

Question: why would mindless natural forces that didn't give a rats ass if humans existed cause all the conditions for the universe and life to occur?

This is a disingenuous “question” in that it is actually a statement on your part that such a claim is false. It’s also downright dishonest on your part because it overlooks the scientific theories of abiogenesis, which you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and discuss. Again, repetition proves nothing except your unwillingness to delve deeper into the subject.
Plus it anthropomorphizes “mindless natural forces” by intimating that they should potentially “give a rat’s ass”. The question is an absolute mess, just like most of your ramblings.

 

[watsup]

Scientists realize it happening with only one chance is zero.

Another outright lie. Scientists “realize” no such thing. Please quit being so dishonest.

 

[watsup]

The only thing naturalism requires is nature exists. It doesn't require sentient beings exist, stars, planets, galaxies, laws of physics, gravity, dark matter or a host of other conditions for humans to exist.

You do know that everything you listed is part of nature, right, to include all of the elements that were present since the Big Bang and which are now contained in “life”, right?

 

[DrewPaul]

“Came into existence” implies we know they didn’t exist at some time. What is your evidence for this?

Because the consensus among scientists say the laws of physics and time itself break down at the time of the big bang.

 

[DrewPaul]

Sorry, but no. The universe is chaos. That is all the available evidence tells us. We do have laws of physics. There is no rational reason to conclude the universe was intentionally created.

I see. So you submit a fact (much of the universe is chaos) because you believe it makes your claim more probable than minus the fact. Sound familiar?

You haven’t been able to connect those dots. Just saying it is more probable does, not make it so. You see what you want to see, but there isn’t any real evidence to support your opinion.

I'll let the triers of fact (the peanut gallery) decide if its makes makes my claim more probable. Just to be sure I take it you believe the observed chaos of the universe is 'real' evidence the universe was caused by natural mindless forces? See the duplicity here? How you assert a fact that you believe makes your claim more probable as evidence? So you see you do know what evidence. And you use the same exact way.

The existence of the universe, of life and intelligent life and the fact the universe is fine tuned to cause and support that life are the facts that lead people to conclude our existence was intentionally caused. Barring some better theory why not?

That’s a leap of logic. A better theory is that the universe is chaos and we are happy accident. Nothing supernatural is needed. That requires much less magical stuff than your position.

Most people have decided its not a better theory. Scientists who do subscribe to it believe this is one an infinitude of universes so that a life permitting one would 'obtain' by chance.