Atheists Favorite Argument

[Noodlegawd]

Favorite arguments are very difficult to drop. Its like losing a dear friend.

They're especially hard to drop when no one is capable of giving you a coherent reason to drop them.

 

[Deuce]

That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't.

It happened, therefore it was intended?
It snowed yesterday. Did the universe intend that?
I coughed. Did the universe intend that?

It could have turned out different.

Could it have? Can physics work differently than it does?

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't.

Why would a creator of such conditions exist without some intent for it to exist?

 

[The Mark]

That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't. It could have turned out different. If scientists told us any wide range of characteristics slopped together would result in stars, galaxies, planets, solar system and ultimately life it would be game over. I'd believe them. We'd have a very reasonable natural explanation. I don't believe scientists were hoping to find a universe on the razors edge between condensing into black holes or thin matter and nothing more. In multiverse theory they believe the overwhelming majority of universes are void and lifeless.

Who are you to claim that intent is a necessary component.

 

[devildavid]

That's the problem though. Why would the myriad of conditions necessary for our existence obtain by forces with no intent to do so? The answer is they wouldn't. It could have turned out different. If scientists told us any wide range of characteristics slopped together would result in stars, galaxies, planets, solar system and ultimately life it would be game over. I'd believe them. We'd have a very reasonable natural explanation. I don't believe scientists were hoping to find a universe on the razors edge between condensing into black holes or thin matter and nothing more. In multiverse theory they believe the overwhelming majority of universes are void and lifeless.

The problem is claiming there is intention in things that are not sentient and so are incapable of intention.

 

[Individual]

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.

Not at all...

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

Experts in probability have spotted a logical flaw in theorists’ reasoning

www.scientificamerican.com

However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

By the way he's an atheist and believe this is one of an infinitude of universes. The low probability of this universe convinces them there are an infinitude of universes. He's not the only one one Martin Rees (atheist, prestigious scientist) wrote a book 'Just Six Numbers'. Again his calculations are similar and his conclusion the same. We live in a multiverse. There are some scientists who have written papers theorizing our existence and reality is a simulation on a computer.

When confronted with the odds they recognize the idea mother nature just fortuitously got it right is non-starter.

The "universe" in which we live is obviously NOT "fine-tuned for life". What are the odds of a supernatural being capable of creating a universe and all the life forms that exist within it, having existed eternally?

 

[Quag]

No my belief didn't conjure facts f1-f4 to exist.

Last line of the OP

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

Now if by the bolded you meant the 4 "facts" then it is poorly worded as it appears to imply that the belief of theism is evidence.

As to f1-f4
1 Universe exists- yup
2. Intelligent life exists- yup (though debatable at times)
3. Universe is finely tuned for life- nope thats claim, the correct fact is that the universe is capable of supporting life, there is no evidence it is tuned let alone finely
4. Universe has laws of nature- yup

Not sure what any of that has to do with God except for #3 which is not actually a fact but a claim that implies a creator

 

[reinaert]

Is the claim there is no evidence, facts, data or any reason at all to believe the existence of the universe and intelligent life was intentionally caused to occur. This claim is essential to atheism because by ruling theism out as a possibility, there is no need to defend the counter claim the universe and intelligent life occurred by happenstance.

Evidence comes in two flavors, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. A video of a suspect with a knife about to stab someone is direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence an inference from the facts must be drawn. Normally a spaghetti stain on a shirt of a suspect wouldn't be evidence of anything unless they found spaghetti in the victims stomach. In that case the stain makes it more probable the suspect is guilty.

Evidence are facts that support or make a contention more or less probable than minus said fact. Evidence alone is not proof. There are three general levels of proof. Scientific proof. Very rigorous usually meaning a conclusive experiment can be performed by other scientists with the same results. Criminal proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt with direct or circumstantial evidence. Finally there is in civil cases a mere preponderance of evidence in favor of a claim is all that's needed.

No one really knows why (or how) the universe came into existence or why it resulted in intelligent humans existing. It is a low a information question. There is no direct evidence of how or why it came to exist. We could look at it like detectives do at a crime scene and figuratively put yellow tape up around the entire universe. Anything in the universe is potential evidence.

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.

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

Meh. My only position - one which has little to do with favor, or preference - is that I wouldn't worship your cosmic monster even if it showed up in person and tried to bribe me with chocolate and immortality.

 

[Dragonfly]

That's not true.

You're gonna need some detailed facts to back this claim up.

Simply saying "it's not true" is childish.

Also, plenty of atheists are fine and dandy with "I don't know."

As in, I don't know how/when/or what started everything that we humans experience today.

All an atheist says is that there's no reason to believe a "god" or "gods" did it.
That's all. An atheist has no need to then specify what or how anything happened.
Just that there's zero proof it was "god".

"How did this all start?"

Theist: "God did it."
Atheist: "I don't know."

Just as simple as that.

The atheists does not need to then "prove" that it was something else that's very specifically defined.
"I don't know."

 

[Dragonfly]

F3. The universe is fine-tuned for life.

False. On every level.

The Universe is fine-tuned for death, and/or the absence of life.
There's absolute volumes and volumes of evidence for this.

 

[watsup]

DrewPaul is very good at repetition.

 

[soylentgreen]

Right. Atheists lack the belief theists have that the the universe was intentionally caused to exist. However they usually say the reason they lack belief is because they allege their is no evidence our existence was intentionally caused. That's not true. They can say its not convincing evidence, its crappy evidence. They can say it doesn't persuade them or they can claim to have better evidence it was naturalistic forces all the way down.

Part in bold. That is what you actually have, not proof.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I didn't want to overwhelm you with more than you can handle.

You didn't. You have regurgitated fringe philosophy, based on poor definitions and circular illogic, that has been stomped out repeatedly before you ever started this thread.

I have explained why, in this thread and in others. You have had no response to those arguments, other than to repeat your assertions.

 

[soylentgreen]

There isn't any direct evidence. You have to infer it from facts F1-F4. And you don't have to believe it or be persuaded...it is circumstantial evidence which is all we have. Its all we have for dark matter and dark energy.

You have been through another thread in which your claim for f3 was never established as a fact, more just another religious fantasy. Bit dishonest to start another thread now claiming it to be a fact.

 

[Galactic Spin]

"How do I know the universe is fine tuned for life? It kinda sorta feels that way."

Much shorter and to the point.

 

[DrewPaul]

They're especially hard to drop when no one is capable of giving you a coherent reason to drop them.

This is what I expect...denial. You have nothing left.

 

[DrewPaul]

Opinion isn't evidence. None of these facts are actually evidence for a creator. Like, I can say "Dr. Pepper exists," but that's not evidence that Odin is real. It's a fact, but it's not relevant to this question.

It's weird to talk about "intent" for life to exist. Physics has no intent.

Are you saying the existence of the universe, stars, planets and life have no bearing on this question of whether it was intentionally caused?

 

[Galactic Spin]

Are you saying the existence of the universe, stars, planets and life have no bearing on this question of whether it was intentionally caused?

Oh boy. Not this terrible illogic again. How many times does it have to be obliterated for you to stop using it?

 

[soylentgreen]

This is what I expect...denial. You have nothing left.

It is not what they have left. It is what they started with. Denial that you have any evidence worth looking at.

 

[DrewPaul]

Why would they believe something without factual evidence? Your OP list is just a bunch of convenient suppositions, not actual evidence.

They're facts not suppositions.

 

[ecofarm]

My favorite argument, as an atheist, is that atheist means "no deity" and it does not mean "no God". To see a theist contemplate a non-deity God is hilarious. They've never considered such a thing.

 

[DrewPaul]

Could it have? Can physics work differently than it does?

It happened, therefore it was intended?

No you have to take the four facts as a whole. I freely stated the existence of the universe is evidence of either claim.
Variable universes are critical to multiverse theory.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Let's review the terrible illogic once more:

The OP rests his entire argument on a very specious nugget of crap. To wit:

"If one hypothesis must be true for a second hypothesis to be true, then the truth of the first hypothesis is evidence of the truth of the second hypothesis. "

This is obvious garbage to anyone educated in basic logic. But for everyone else:


By this specious garbage, the moon existing is therefore "evidence" the moon is made of cheese. Oh, and it's also "evidence" the moon is not made of cheese.

Need more? It's useless nonsense.

 

[DrewPaul]

Oh boy. Not this terrible illogic again. How many times does it have to be obliterated for you to stop using it?

No obliteration occurred from your responses. Ranting and raving just make you look silly.

 

[Galactic Spin]

To further elucidate:

This specious nonsense can just be turned around.

"Our universe exists."

"Our universe did not have a desgner."

"As our universe must exist for one to truthfully claim it has no designer, the existence of the universe is therefore evidence that our universe had no designer."

Wheeeeee, now all of our brians need showers.