Cosmological argument for atheism

[Captain Scarlet]

1 If god exists he was responsible for the big bang singularity
2 The big bang singularity is the whole universe prior to the inflationary event (the bang) of space and time, matter and energy
3 If god exists he configured an orderly big bang singularity to be consistent with the evolution of animate life
4 The predictability of cosmic evolution is restricted due to the breakdown in physical theory occurring at the Big Bang singularity*
5 From 4 God cannot predict nor control the initial conditions and therefore cannot be certain of the outcome
6 From 3 and 5 God does not exist

*This is evidenced from the so called principle of invincible ignorance, from Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem.

[Minimalist]

I prefer this variant.


The universe exists.....this proves nothing about any fucking god.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

(22nd August 2010 00:55)Captain Scarlet Wrote:  1 If god exists he was responsible for the big bang singularity
2 The big bang singularity is the whole universe prior to the inflationary event (the bang) of space and time, matter and energy
3 If god exists he configured an orderly big bang singularity to be consistent with the evolution of animate life
4 The predictability of cosmic evolution is restricted due to the breakdown in physical theory occurring at the Big Bang singularity*
5 From 4 God cannot predict nor control the initial conditions and therefore cannot be certain of the outcome
6 From 3 and 5 God does not exist

*This is evidenced from the so called principle of invincible ignorance, from Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem.

Interesting method of using their own logic to disprove the theory, though there are many sorts of cosmological arguements.
The one I'm most familiar with tends to involve there needing to be a 'first cause' to which god itself is excempt from, which has its own logical fallacies.

Were I a theist, I would likely point out that since god is omnipotent and omnicient and exists beyond reality, that the laws of nature that had broken down that early in the singularity's existance would be irrelevant or some other such nonsense. Still, every cosmological arguement explicitly requires a non-evidence based arguement that attempts to rationally prove, at the very least, the possibility or likelihood of god's existance.
However, every such arguement tends to have the following problems:
Use of Ad Hoc arguement - from the attempts at explaining how and why goddunit
Argumentum Ex Culo - comes from all arguements based on religion or faith
Arguement from Ignorance - we don't know because goddunit
Arguement from Incredulity - a universe without god leads to ridiculous things and therefore cannot happen
Arguement from Authority - the bible/quaran/etc says...
Begging the Question - The universe that so easily allows for life to exist seems so perfectly balanced that it begs the question that...
False Dilemma - The beginning of the universe can only happen in two ways: one that makes sense where god makes it or the one that is ridiculous
Negative Proof - You don't have proof of anything when when I can rationally explain that goddunit
Post Hoc - Because the universe exists, god must have caused it

(Yes, I've downloaded a list of logical fallacies that I keep on my computer from Rationalwiki.)

I'm sure there are more, but every cosmological arguement for god's existance from the standpoint of the creation of the universe seems to contain all of these fallacies simultaneously and I'm probably even missing a few that should be up there, but this sort of thing always varies with the arguement and the arguer.

Beyond that, I will say that it's still a better standpoint than any and all creationist arguements, even if it is just a modified 'god of the gaps' since the overwhelming evidence refutes all religious accounts for the genesis of the universe, earth, life, and just about everything else.

[fr0d0]

The predictability of cosmic evolution is restricted - to us & not God

[Captain Scarlet]

(22nd August 2010 02:39)fr0d0 Wrote:  The predictability of cosmic evolution is restricted - to us & not God

So this introduces 2 problems:

Divine intervention: God incompetently set up the singularity so the cosmic evolution was restricted and therefore needed intervention. His incompentence is evidence of a lack of perfection

Divine foreknowledge: God created initial conditions that restricted cosmic evolution. But becuase of omniscience he is incapable of creating conditions that he did not fully understand. The principle of ignorance states that this must be the case and therefore God is either imperfect or does not exist, or the principle of ignorance is wrong.

---

(22nd August 2010 01:30)Minimalist Wrote:  I prefer this variant.
The universe exists.....this proves nothing about any fucking god.

Straight to the point as ever

[fr0d0]

I didn't say that cosmic evolution was restricted I said that our prediction is restricted, taken directly from your own words. That is the restrictions you put in place are human and not Godly.

[Captain Scarlet]

(22nd August 2010 11:34)fr0d0 Wrote:  I didn't say that cosmic evolution was restricted I said that our prediction is restricted, taken directly from your own words. That is the restrictions you put in place are human and not Godly.

OK so what about the 2 points I raised, they are still valid.

[Tiberius]

No they aren't. They don't address anything fr0d0 said. As it stands now, asking him to comment on them as if he needs to rebut them is simply creating a strawman.

[fr0d0]

I agree with Tiberius. Both points seems to address a false premise.

[Captain Scarlet]

(22nd August 2010 11:59)fr0d0 Wrote:  I agree with Tiberius. Both points seems to address a false premise.

@Frodo/Tiberius. Please expand, I am happy to concede that I shhould have added predictability in. But I dont see what difference it makes to the overall argument?

Your refutation, if I understand it, is that god is unrestricted and we are, and from our standpoint the principle of ignorance is a showstopper, but not to god.

My rejoinder to that is that either the principle of ignorance is wrong or that god does not exist because he is either incompetent and/or not omiscient.

Trying to render otherwise leaves us in the realms of mysticism, pushes the concept of god to another different shape or is special pleading or some combination therein.