How to Argue for Atheism Effectively

[DrewPaul]

Saying that energy has always existed isn't the same thing as saying that it existed prior to existing. Saying that there has never been a time when energy could be created or destroyed is not the same thing as saying that it could not be created or destroyed prior to it not being possible to create or destroy energy.

I'll leave it at that, it seems self-refuting or wishful thinking. But that's just me.

I never asserted that "prior to the big bang" was a thing. If time itself began with the big bang, that would be fine.

Space-time is where the laws of physics and the nature we are familiar with exists. Our reality is a created reality that began to exist. I suspect base reality isn't beyond our comprehension, but it is beyond our frame of reference.

It would mean that the big bang wasn't the result of any prior cause though, since the very concept of there being anything prior to the big bang asserts that time already existed.

Only from our frame of reference. If we knew base reality we might think of space-time plus three dimensions and laws of physics as a constraints.

You experience an infinite number of infinitesimal units of time with every second that passes.

I believe scientists when they state actual infinities don't exist (in this universe). You can think what you want.

Just because you don't understand quantum mechanics doesn't mean it is some kind of free-for-all where the rules of logic do not apply.

I didn't say anything about a free for all. Like with Einstein theories it widened our view of reality. Its a leap up from classical physics and Einstein fought some of its implications. I would say there are new laws of logic when applied to QM because its indeterminate. I didn't mention anything as exotic as the many worlds interpretation. Yet some take that seriously.

Look at where we're at. Scientists are still attempting to explain the most fundamental questions. Why is there a universe? Why did it create and support our existence. If we assume it was unintentional what are the chances a single universe will cause the conditions for life to exist? Turns out to be very slim..nevertheless we if continue to assume it was unintentional what happens to our chances if there are many or an infinitude of chances? They go up significantly. So multiverse theory is constructed.

Or are you now acknowledging that your actual argument is for the existence of an infinite chain of deities creating other deities?

I've never claimed to know how God came into existence. I've only made claims about how the universe and sentient beings came into existence. That's what theism is. Theology is about the nature of God and so forth. However if we do owe our existence to an infinite chain of deities theism is still correct. So your complaint is just a red herring.

 

[watsup]

Our reality is a created reality that began to exist. I suspect base reality isn't beyond our comprehension, but it is beyond our frame of reference.

Only from our frame of reference. If we knew base reality we might think of space-time plus three dimensions and laws of physics as a constraints.

Gobbledygook.

Look at where we're at. Scientists are still attempting to explain the most fundamental questions. Why is there a universe? Why did it create and support our existence. If we assume it was unintentional what are the chances a single universe will cause the conditions for life to exist? Turns out to be very slim..nevertheless we if continue to assume it was unintentional what happens to our chances if there are many or an infinitude of chances? They go up significantly. So multiverse theory is constructed.

This is basically a lie. Not a single scientist who theorizes a multiverse has linked it to some sort of “Creator”, so why do you keep tryIng to do so?

 

[devildavid]

If it can't be created, then energy has always existed, which means it was never preceded by the nonexistence of energy.
It exists as an initial condition, uncaused by anything.

Yes you did say such a thing. Now you're back peddling.


There is no direct evidence of anything prior to the big bang yet from your statements one would think you were there when it happened.


It means what I quoted it means. The question is whether it applies to this eternal Energy you speak of.


Making up things and ad hoc applications of laws of physics prior to the existence of space time is at best wagging.


Did you write a thesis on this? Things might be as you fancy them but that doesn't mean they are as you fancy them.


Infinities are a mental concept not a physical reality in our version of reality. When scientific formula's produce infinities they know its wrong.

This means that the quantity is greater than any finite number that can be counted or measured. Actual infinity is generally considered to be impossible because it goes against the laws of nature and our everyday experience. The set of natural numbers is infinite, a set that continues without termination.


Sure, and there could be a Creator who caused the laws of physics and the universe to exist. Why not? Its less surprising and miraculous if our existence was the result of intent and design.


I notice you allow for dichotomies when it suits you. Again you're invoking the laws of physics prior to space-time existing when it's convenient. There's no direct evidence of any of your claims. Wagging isn't evidence. Reality doesn't have to bend to your sense of logic. Quantum mechanics doesn't seem to.



The supernatural is what can't happen unless it does happen in which case its natural. What we think is supernatural is just the very unusual.

Despite all your fanciful thinking we're still left with the counter belief that natural forces with no plan or intent caused the universe to exist with the laws of physics and properties to cause intelligent life.

Supernatural is not the very unusual. Words have meanings.

 

[DrewPaul]

Supernatural is not the very unusual. Words have meanings.

The word supernatural doesn't really have any meaning. Its something believed impossible to occur unless it does occur in which case its natural.

 

[watsup]

The word supernatural doesn't really have any meaning. Its something believed impossible to occur unless it does occur in which case it’s natural.

You are definitely not the only one who has made this claim. We’ve seen it many times from many “believers” I’m this forum, but it is nothing more than a lame excuse to try to show your imaginary entity to be something that it’s not.

 

[devildavid]

The word supernatural doesn't really have any meaning. Its something believed impossible to occur unless it does occur in which case its natural.

Yes, the word supernatural has a meaning. Your made up meaning is not the meaning. Sorry.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes, the word supernatural has a meaning. Your made up meaning is not the meaning. Sorry.

Is a supernatural event possible? If it occurs is it still supernatural? What event would you declare a supernatural event?

 

[devildavid]

Is a supernatural event possible? If it occurs is it still supernatural? What event would you declare a supernatural event?

Supernatural is a made up human concept that can only be believed in, just like gods. There are no supernatural events, just events that believers in such things attribute to the supernatural.

 

[brianpatrick]

Supernatural is a made up human concept that can only be believed in, just like gods. There are no supernatural events, just events that believers in such things attribute to the supernatural.

Technology and science that isn’t understood appears to be magic. Since humans all experience a fairly narrow band of experiences a physical “outlier” can appear as something supernatural to some of us too. Like the ultra marathoner that can run hundreds of miles and instead of his body temperature consistently rising it actually goes down at times. I forget his name, but it has to do with the way his body transfers heat. He could easily be seen to have some “gift from god” when really he just got a bonus through random natural selection. Probably some mutation.

 

[devildavid]

Technology and science that isn’t understood appears to be magic. Since humans all experience a fairly narrow band of experiences a physical “outlier” can appear as something supernatural to some of us too. Like the ultra marathoner that can run hundreds of miles and instead of his body temperature consistently rising it actually goes down at times. I forget his name, but it has to do with the way his body transfers heat. He could easily be seen to have some “gift from god” when really he just got a bonus through random natural selection. Probably some mutation.

Which is more reason to think we really aren’t connected in any profound way.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The word supernatural doesn't really have any meaning. Its something believed impossible to occur unless it does occur in which case its natural.

Super means above, over, beyond. How do you perceive a thing outside of nature with only natural senses?

 

[brianpatrick]

Which is more reason to think we really aren’t connected in any profound way.

Yeah, not sure what you mean by “profound.” Seems to imply mystical or spiritual which there is an impetus for, but doesn’t really need to exist to explain reality. Still, things can feel that way and if someone likes that way of thinking about the world it can work for them too.

 

[devildavid]

Yeah, not sure what you mean by “profound.” Seems to imply mystical or spiritual which there is an impetus for, but doesn’t really need to exist to explain reality. Still, things can feel that way and if someone likes that way of thinking about the world it can work for them too.

In any meaningful way. It is just something to shrug about, and move on.

 

[brianpatrick]

In any meaningful way. It is just something to shrug about, and move on.

Who’s to say what is “meaningful.” There are religious and spiritually minded people who accomplish great things through these lenses. Of course there are a bunch more who are also fooling themselves and cause great damage to the world with these ideas.

 

[devildavid]

Who’s to say what is “meaningful.” There are religious and spiritually minded people who accomplish great things through these lenses. Of course there are a bunch more who are also fooling themselves and cause great damage to the world with these ideas.

It has no real meaning, it is just like religion that way. It is a meaning we overlay on basic reality as if it is some meaningful insight. We are just injecting meaning where there isn’t any.

 

[DrewPaul]

Super means above, over, beyond. How do you perceive a thing outside of nature with only natural senses?

If no one can perceive it, then it doesn't exist. What could occur that isn't natural? What is natural is anything we observe. If people saw ghosts everyday it might be inexplicable, but it would still be natural.

 

[DrewPaul]

Supernatural is a made up human concept that can only be believed in, just like gods. There are no supernatural events, just events that believers in such things attribute to the supernatural.

There you have it. Its made up. But if it did occur it would be considered natural.

 

[devildavid]

There you have it. Its made up. But if it did occur it would be considered natural.

No, if something was natural it would appear natural. Of course it is made up. Just like a creator god is made up, or any gods for that matter.

 

[watsup]

If no one can perceive it, then it doesn't exist. What could occur that isn't natural? What is natural is anything we observe. If people saw ghosts everyday it might be inexplicable, but it would still be natural.

Perhaps the most lame excuse among the many that you have used to try to explain your Creator figment of imagination .

 

[watsup]

But if it did occur it would be considered natural.

“But if.......”. That pretty much says it all about your Creator figment of imagination.

 

[Manc Skipper]

If no one can perceive it, then it doesn't exist. What could occur that isn't natural? What is natural is anything we observe. If people saw ghosts everyday it might be inexplicable, but it would still be natural.

That's the point. We exist in nature. We have no way to access anything outside or "above" nature, other than in our imaginations. At it's best, God is a placename for stuff we don't understand yet.

 

[DrewPaul]

That's the point. We exist in nature. We have no way to access anything outside or "above" nature, other than in our imaginations. At it's best, God is a placename for stuff we don't understand yet.

There is nothing above what's observed to occur and many things considered to be supernatural are now considered natural. Like time dilation for instance. A black hole would have been considered a supernatural phenomenon...but since it happened its not. The results of the double split experiment would have been considered a supernatural event...but since it occurs it must be natural even if we have no good explanation. Same with entangled particles.

Again a realistic definition of a supernatural event is what's considered an impossibility unless it occurs..then its natural. How is it possible for us mere mortals who didn't create the reality we live in to determine what's possible and what isn't?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Even if it did, we still owe our existence to a Creator by de facto. Or the energy that always existed is in the person of God.

Even if we accepted that idea, that we "owe our existence to a Creator," what would that actually mean? Therefore what? What would that mean we should think or do?

I can tell I must not be following the strict cognitive/philosophical guidelines set forth by resident philosophical theists when my genuinely curious questions go ignored.

Since philosophical theists generally will not commit to any teachings of any particular religion, or to any specific or concrete definition or description of a Creator, they can't seem to go any farther with their conclusions than the mere presumption of some sort of creator, or the related presumption that any atheistic argument is therefore flawed/wrong.

But if there isn't a follow-up interpretation, call to action, et cetera, then doesn't the entire exercise become pointless?

If the farthest we can go down this path is the presumption that a Creator exists, but we can't commit to any clear definition, purpose, description, religion, etc., because such could not be known or defended, then what possible difference does it make whether anyone presumes a Creator vs. presuming no Creator?

Either way, it leads to indifference and irrelevance as it concerns our present existence. Having some clear guiding direction or conclusion resulting from the presumption of a Creator requires committing to a specific elaboration or set of assumptions about the Creator, any of which venture too far for philosophical theism.

 

[DrewPaul]

I can tell I must not be following the strict cognitive/philosophical guidelines set forth by resident philosophical theists when my genuinely curious questions go ignored.

I get many responses I can't get to all of them...I do have other things to do.

Even if we accepted that idea, that we "owe our existence to a Creator," what would that actually mean? Therefore what? What would that mean we should think or do?

What would it mean if we are the result of mindless forces that never intended our existence? It would mean there is no basis to think humans are any more special than anything else inadvertently created. In the USA in the declaration of independence, we infer that humans have unalienable rights because we owe our existence to a Creator. Its kind of like if we discover another civilization in the universe. That would mean different things to different people.

Since philosophical theists generally will not commit to any teachings of any particular religion, or to any specific or concrete definition or description of a Creator, they can't seem to go any farther with their conclusions than the mere presumption of some sort of creator, or the related presumption that any atheistic argument is therefore flawed/wrong.

Theism or atheism have philosophical ramifications even though we don't know for sure which is true. If its true our existence was inadvertently caused by mindless natural forces then there is no basis for unalienable rights, we can only be granted privileges by the ruling class. Have you ever noticed the difference in basic human rights between countries that are predominantly atheist and theistic? In China even have children is regulated because the state or ruling class is the highest authority.

But if there isn't a follow-up interpretation, call to action, et cetera, then doesn't the entire exercise become pointless?

If you come to believe we owe our existence to a Creator and want follow up interpretations you can speak to theologians of all persuasions and decide what if any interpretation sounds right or if they're all full of baloney.

If the farthest we can go down this path is the presumption that a Creator exists, but we can't commit to any clear definition, purpose, description, religion, etc., because such could not be known or defended, then what possible difference does it make whether anyone presumes a Creator vs. presuming no Creator?

If your reaction is totally non-nonchalant it won't mean anything. Just as if we discover intelligent life else where some might shrug their shoulders and say big deal.

Either way, it leads to indifference and irrelevance as it concerns our present existence. Having some clear guiding direction or conclusion resulting from the presumption of a Creator requires committing to a specific elaboration or set of assumptions about the Creator, any of which venture too far for philosophical theism.

It makes a huge difference in countries that are philosophically tied to theism. The belief all people are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights was the basis for abolishing slavery and the rights we have as citizens. Beyond that aren't you curious if our existence was unintentionally caused or intentionally caused? At this point all we can do is debate about it. But if it was insignificant neither side would spend much time arguing the point.

 

[DrewPaul]

No, if something was natural it would appear natural. Of course it is made up. Just like a creator god is made up, or any gods for that matter.

What can be observed that isn't natural? Do black holes appear natural? Yes for one reason, because they exist. If we owe our existence to a Creator its natural.