Atheists Favorite Argument

[devildavid]

That's disbelief not lack of belief. If you merely lack belief you're not claiming the belief is false.

Not believing in gods takes any idea of gods doing anything completely out of consideration. Calling it disbelief doesn't change that fact.

Lacking belief doesn't mean you haven't decided on the the belief. You have. And the decision is that it is not something to believe.

 

[Mach]

F1. The universe exists.

Now you're just parroting what I wrote in the other thread. Nice.

F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism.

It's a self-evident truth, not a "foundational claim of theism". Theism doesn't follow axiomatic reasoning. They believe in god, and the rest follows.
Trying to mimic reason with arguments from faith is one of the dumber things I've see on this sub-forum of late. Just be honest and claim you have faith...a true believer.

F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.

HAhahah. Still claiming the multiverse hypothesis is "powerfully" supported theory. It's a debated hypothesis, and it seeks to support its position through mathematical modeling of our reality.
They do not posit deities as an explanation.

If intelligent life exists, of course it "had" to exist. The universe has already unfolded in such a way that it resulted in intelligent life.
You'd have to evidence that it "could have" gone another way. You can't, because there is no evidence of that.
Survivorship bias on display.

F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Are you going anywhere with this rambling?

Theism is a belief, an opinion. This doesn't prove we owe our existence to a Creator. It is evidence. that favors that belief.

Theism, the belief in a god or gods, is a belief based on faith. Theistic, faith-based belief isn't evidence that there is evidence of a creator, that's circular nonsense.
Reason is belief based on evidence/observation of reality.

 

[Galactic Spin]

All agnostics are atheists. They are simply "agnostic atheists".

If they accepted belief in gods, they would instead be theists.

Gnostic atheists are the special case of atheism; they assert that no gods exist.

As gnostic theists are the "special case", there is no need to identify agnostic atheists as "agnostic atheists". They can just be called "atheists", in normal discussion. Just as we don't call rectangles, "non-square rectangles". We simply identify the special cases when the rectangle is a square.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life. Mindless naturalistic forces don't have to cause any life or intelligent life.

Intelligence life exists, to the extent we define ourselves to be intelligent. This I will accept. Cartesian. I think, therefore I am.

F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.

Here I have to break company with you, because it does not appear to be so. A fine-tuned universe for life would, in my view, have much more life in it than we. We live on a speck of dust -- one of 8 or 9 big specks with hundreds or thousands of little specks, circling a rather insignificant star out of 100s of billions in our galaxy which is one of hundreds of billions in the known universe and there does not appear to be much space dedicated to life, much less fine-tuned for it. 99.9% or more of the mass of our solar system cannot support life at all and is openly hostile to it.

As far as we know, on our small speck of dust, we are perched precariously, in a fragile bubble, that will only carry life for a small fraction of its total existence.

The multiverse theory is a way to explain how life can come to exist unguided. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and one will type out the Lord's Prayer. So, if you have a near infinite number of universes, it's not surprising that one would have life in it - on a small speck of dust in an old backwater of a outer spiral arm of a rather innocuous galaxy.

F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

Sure, but there is no actual proof that a universe needs a conscious creator in order for there to be knowable laws.

Theism is a belief, an opinion. This doesn't prove we owe our existence to a Creator. It is evidence. that favors that belief.

Well, okay. To each his own. As an atheist, I would respond just with "I don't know" how the universe was created, or even if it was created. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing, and the universe always was and always will be, only changing in form.

 

[FreeStorm84]

F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life.

Is it your opinion that intelligent life must have a creator to exist?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Is it your opinion that intelligent life must have a creator to exist?

I.... see where this is going...

You are on a correct path. It will expose the gaslighting attempts of the theists, when they accuse others of using regressive nonsense. Their entire paradigm is built on this regressive turd.

 

[DrewPaul]

So? It only had to happen once. And the rest is unsourced speculation. You write they're theorizing...actual physicists and astronomists, etc have more than that to base their theories on.

Just like the trillions^10 of life forms that evolved in the billions of years since Earth was formed...how many intelligent species evolved? It only took one branch off of primates.

So you don't deny I'm offering evidence you just find it unconvincing...fine. I'm very skeptical our existence was due to mindless forces that didn't give a damn if we existed. If that were the case I don't believe we'd be talking about this.

 

[DrewPaul]

Is it your opinion that intelligent life must have a creator to exist?

Must exist no. Probably exist yes.

 

[Dragonfly]

That is agnosticism.

Wrong.

 

[Galactic Spin]

But if you can scientifically prove the universe and life was caused by sheer happenstance please do so.

Again I ask:

Tell us what you think that evidence would look like. If you can't, then how would you know someone has proven it to you?

So, tell us.

 

[Galactic Spin]

In the end, this is just a god of the gaps parade.

We used to think stars were magical. Now we know how and when they formed. So that gap is now denied to the godgappers.

We used to think disease was caused by God's smite. Now we know what causes disease. So that gap is now denied to the godgappers.

So, the godgappers are today left with a much more limited space in which to ply their trade.

Thus this thread in the year 2022.

 

[DrewPaul]

Are you going anywhere with this rambling?

I'm demonstrating there is evidence in favor of the claim our existence was intentionally caused and the claim there isn't any evidence is false. Once you agree the rambling will stop.

It's a self-evident truth, not a "foundational claim of theism". Theism doesn't follow axiomatic reasoning. They believe in god, and the rest follows.
Trying to mimic reason with arguments from faith is one of the dumber things I've see on this sub-forum of late. Just be honest and claim you have faith...a true believer.

Of course it is. Theism is the belief the universe and intelligent beings were purposely caused to exist. If either fact weren't true theism would be false. Its as simple or as difficult as that is to comprehend.

If intelligent life exists, of course it "had" to exist. The universe has already unfolded in such a way that it resulted in intelligent life.

The 'If' you use is a disqualifier. The fact you used the word if indicates it didn't have to exist. But 'if' it exists then it does exist is a tautology at best.

The universe has already unfolded in such a way that it resulted in intelligent life.
You'd have to evidence that it "could have" gone another way. You can't, because there is no evidence of that.

Is it now your claim intelligent life had to occur? Do you believe mindless forces were forced to cause the conditions for life to exist? Don't designers and engineers force things to come out a certain way? Scientists don't believe the universe had to cause life to exist.

HAhahah. Still claiming the multiverse hypothesis is "powerfully" supported theory. It's a debated hypothesis, and it seeks to support its position through mathematical modeling of our reality.
They do not posit deities as an explanation.

Its the best scientists can offer as a naturalistic explanation of how mindless forces without plan, intent or an engineering degree caused the myriad of conditions that caused intelligent life to exist. What's your take?

Mindless forces got incredibly lucky?
Or the universe had to cause intelligent life. Which one of those do you defend?

 

[DrewPaul]

In the end, this is just a god of the gaps parade.

No its Creator of the facts. My argument is gap free.

F1. The universe exists. This is a foundational fact. If the universe didn't exist neither claim would be true. This fact is evidence of either claim.
F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life. Mindless naturalistic forces don't have to cause any life or intelligent life.
F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.

No gaps here.

 

[Galactic Spin]

No its Creator of the facts. My argument is gap free

As always, you make the same rror.

No valid argument presented.

Authoritative declarations will get you nowhere.

Neither will repeating a list of premises.

One must use a valid argument from those premises to deduce the likelihood of the truth of a claim from the truth of those premises.

You haven't even launched. Your only presented argument was invalid garbage. As very clearly demonstrated. You have yet to fashion another.

So you are left with the typical appeals to emotion and non sequitur of the godgappers.

Which is expected. You are retreading old ground.

 

[DrewPaul]

Again I ask:
Tell us what you think that evidence would look like. If you can't, then how would you know someone has proven it to you?

So, tell us.

Proof other universes exist would be solid evidence. Evidence a wide range of properties and characteristics would cause planets, solar systems, stars and life to exist would be very compelling. If somehow we could observe a chaotic lifeless universe I wouldn't even make the claim it was intentionally caused for life to exist...right? I'd say it was caused by naturalistic forces no Creator necessary.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Proof other universes exist would be solid evidence.

Wait, why is that? You could just then say the creator created those, too. Or even that their creation was necessary to produce the universes where life exists. Using all of the same, alleged "evidence".

(Yet another strong clue your "evidence"... isn't evidence.)

That's the beauty of godgapping: you can always find a gap to exploit. It's also a sure sign the godgapping is useless nonsense.

All of your work still lies ahead of you.

 

[DrewPaul]

Intelligence life exists, to the extent we define ourselves to be intelligent. This I will accept. Cartesian. I think, therefore I am.

F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life. For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist. No one can claim intelligent life had to exist. No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist. This evidence is so powerful it's the basis of multiverse theory.

Here I have to break company with you, because it does not appear to be so. A fine-tuned universe for life would, in my view, have much more life in it than we. We live on a speck of dust -- one of 8 or 9 big specks with hundreds or thousands of little specks, circling a rather insignificant star out of 100s of billions in our galaxy which is one of hundreds of billions in the known universe and there does not appear to be much space dedicated to life, much less fine-tuned for it. 99.9% or more of the mass of our solar system cannot support life at all and is openly hostile to it.

Fair enough. Some scientists believe the universe is teeming with life, others think we are alone. Would you agree the universe is fine-tuned for planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies to exist? Lots of them exist. Its not just that intelligent life exists, but the conditions for that to happen obtained in the first place. In the book 'The Fortunate Universe' the two scientist authors took the book on tour so to speak to get objections...

Reaction (f): How Can the Universe Be ‘Fine-Tuned’ When It Is Mostly Inhospitable To Life? The comment: Fine-tuned? You must be kidding: 99.99999… per cent of the Universe is radiation-filled vacuum. Most of the matter is inhospitable: suffocatingly diffuse gas that is either unimaginably cold (−260 °C) or roastingly hot (1,000,000 °C), thermonuclear stars, matter-crushing black holes, to say nothing of the occasional supernovae or gamma-ray burst. The Universe is mostly inhospitable, and the parts that are hospitable are very inefficient at creating life. This Universe sure doesn’t look fine-tuned for life.

The short answer: This reaction compares conditions on Earth with the conditions elsewhere in this Universe, and thus completely misses the point. We want to know why this Universe has the fundamental properties that it has. We thus compare our Universe with other possible universes, not just different locations in this Universe. Further, the size and relative emptiness of the Universe is not irrelevant to life. Smaller, denser universes tend not to last very long.

Lewis, Geraint F.; Barnes, Luke A.. A Fortunate Universe (Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos) (p. 245). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Partial longer answer next post.

 

[Jacksprat]

F2. Intelligent life exists. This is a foundational claim of theism. Theists believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed for intelligent life. Mindless naturalistic forces don't have to cause any life or intelligent life.

There can be intelligence without God.

 

[watsup]

No one would predict or expect mindless forces minus any plan or intent cause life to exist.

Ummm—that is a totally ridiculous statement because no one was around to make any predictions or have any expectations. But now that there are humans to take a look at the past, there is no direct evidence of a “Designer” that had any plans or expectations. At this point, that is just a made-up entity.
The existence of the universe does not point automatically to a Designer and more than the exist nice of woods points to wood fairies. In both cases, there must be direct evidence if same.

 

[watsup]

Would you agree the universe is fine-tuned for planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies to exist?

Again, a big SO WHAT!?!?!?!?

 

[Jacksprat]

Ummm—that is a totally ridiculous statement because no one was around to make any predictions or have any expectations. But now that there are humans to take a look at the past, there is no direct evidence of a “Designer” that had any plans or expectations. At this point, that is just a made-up entity.
The existence of the universe does not point automatically to a Designer and more than the exist nice of woods points to wood fairies. In both cases, there must be direct evidence if same.

For example, Aristotle said there is intelligence in the universe but it is not a creator God.

 

[watsup]

For the belief the universe was intentionally caused for life to exist it must be in a configuration that allows life to exist.

For the belief that forests were intentionally caused for wood fairies to exist, it must be in a configuration that allows wood fairies to exist.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

You can't do better than the flying spaghetti monster argument? Do you think that argument persuades anyone except totally convinced atheists?

The FSM aside the universe and intelligent life exist. Can you think of any circumstance in which it was caused to exist by neither purposeful intent or by naturalistic forces? I believe it was one of the other. Do you have anything intelligent to say about that? Can you make a case that it was mindless that did it?

All of the "evidence" you present is as applicable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to Anubis, Odin, Zeus, or any other deity.

If you want to mince words regarding whether there is no evidence, or whether atheists just don't find the evidence compelling, that argument is equally applicable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Some people might say that there is no evidence for the existence of an invisible, undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the existence of the universe itself, and the fact that it is able to support the existence of the things that happen to exist in it, such as life, is evidence that it was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after a night of heavy drinking.

Of course, some people might not find that evidence compelling, but they should just say that they don't find the evidence compelling, instead of claiming that there is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster at all.

 

[DrewPaul]

Well, okay. To each his own. As an atheist, I would respond just with "I don't know" how the universe was created, or even if it was created. Maybe there is no such thing as nothing, and the universe always was and always will be, only changing in form.

Longer answer to previous question...

The long answer: ‘Life-permitting’ does not mean ‘crammed with living beings from end to end and from start to finish’.6 It does not mean that every time and place in this Universe could support life. It doesn’t mean that you can set up your deckchair wherever you like and expect a cocktail. The observation that the Universe is fine-tuned for life, then, does not solve the Fermi Paradox, which poses the question where is everybody? If Earth has evolved intelligent life forms that may soon be able to travel beyond the Solar System and colonize the galaxy, then why do we see no evidence of other alien civilizations? Are we the first? Are we alone in the Galaxy? Do intelligent civilizations self-destruct before they leave their home planet? Fine-tuning only tells us that our Universe has some of the necessary physical conditions for life. It doesn’t tell us whether life will actually form in every nook and cranny of the Universe.7

Lewis, Geraint F.; Barnes, Luke A.. A Fortunate Universe (Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos) (p. 246). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

The multiverse theory is a way to explain how life can come to exist unguided. Give enough monkeys enough typewriters and one will type out the Lord's Prayer. So, if you have a near infinite number of universes, it's not surprising that one would have life in it - on a small speck of dust in an old backwater of a outer spiral arm of a rather innocuous galaxy.

I agree its the best naturalistic explanation and if it can be proved there are other universes of varying characteristics I would be satisfied. There are serious problems and there are many scientists who dissent. It may explain how a universe with the right conditions obtained but that explanation doesn't cause other universes to exist. No one really knows why the one we live in exists never mind an infinitude. To me it appears to be the tail wagging the dog.

Sure, but there is no actual proof that a universe needs a conscious creator in order for there to be knowable laws.

Its not proof it is evidence. You used the monkeys at a typewriter analogy that given enough time and chance monkeys would unintentionally cause something other than gibberish. First you give the monkeys a huge leg up by giving them a typewriter that produces letters. What if we gave them pencil and paper? After trillions and trillions of years with as many monkeys as atoms in the universe banging away at a typewriter producing pure junk, suddenly one of the monkey's starts banging out dozens paragraphs of meaningful English. Would we be any less astonished? What connection would there be between the monkey who is banging out paragraphs and all the others pounding out gibberish? An infinitude of other monkeys typing doesn't increase the odds of one monkey typing meaningful paragraphs. Would anyone reason that the universe was caused by mindless forces that didn't design or intend anything to exist so I'm not surprised they caused a life permitting universe with laws of nature that we humans depend on. No we are surprised...at least I am. There is less surprise if it was intentionally caused by scientists in another universe.

Thanks for thoughtful discussion and reasonable responses.

 

[DrewPaul]

Of course, some people might not find that evidence compelling, but they should just say that they don't find the evidence compelling, instead of claiming that there is no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster at all.

All of the "evidence" you present is as applicable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to Anubis, Odin, Zeus, or any other deity.

I'm not identifying any deity or God in particular. I'm submitting evidence it was intentionally caused as opposed to mother nature, mindless forces, serendipity and happenstance of an infinitude of universes.

If you want to mince words regarding whether there is no evidence, or whether atheists just don't find the evidence compelling, that argument is equally applicable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The FSM is just like the belief it was caused by mindless forces without plan, intent of an engineering degree.