Why are atheist...atheist?

[Alastor]

LoL, I just capitalized the words but that is not a tatrum.

Good, because only a calm and cool head can debate properly. Think we both can agree with that one.

Yes very much.

Explanatory power comes from the ability to explain the unknown. God cannot explain how the universe formed, god cannot explain how anything works. Of course it requires evidence which must be based on measure, repeatability and testing. Something that can be verified/falsified. If not, then it has no explanatory power.
God is not falsifiable, that's the problem. There is no value in the claim and so no explanatory power.

What I've stated was simply to explain why a unicorn is dissimilar from God in using observation to denounce its existence and how God dissimilar from any other imaginary character. I have not tried to used God to explain anything other than the design of the universe which never expected to be proof of anything. However, if that is your definition of explanatory power than, yes, God has no explanatory power.
8

If there is no evidence of such a thing, it is rational and logical to dismiss it. Why assume it exists if there is no evidence to suggest it's existence?
Also, ever heard of absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Like there is an absence of evidence of change in my pocket. So based on lack of evidence of there being any, there is evidence of lack of change in my pocket.

I never stated one should assume belief in God but to assert that he doesn't exist is ignorance. In its most basic form, my belief is that God probably exist.

Take your example. Lets say you didn't check for change in your pocket and have no memory of whether there might be or not. Does it make sense to assert that there is no change in your pocket based on what you know?

The universe exists, how do you know it was a god that did it?

I don't. I say he probably exist because the contrary is not sufficiently acceptable to my beliefs.

The beings you invent are just concepts. If you think there is a god, you can look for it if you wish, however, rejection of such ideas remains a rational conclusion.

Only rejection of beliefs about such a concept are rational.

No, because that's not explanatory power. Your god beliefs have no value, there for, no explanatory power.

Again in this circumstance, explanatory power, for me, was demonstrating how a unicorn differs from God in making beliefs about the object based on observations. By my original definition there is clear explanatory power.

The simplest explanation which is most likely correct is that the universe exists, and we don't know how. Saying god did it doesn't do anything. The more assumptions one makes, the more wrong you probably are.

[/quote]

Again the only conjecture I make is that God probably exist and I leave it at that. I don't make any more assumptions and don't expect that saying "God did it" is somehow proof. Thats my personal belief and choice based on reasoning.

My reason for this thread was to learn why atheist, now known only to be strong atheist, irrationally assert that God doesn't exist without any evidence. I still have figured that this answer though.

---

Okay, how's this..Definitions of god exists, descriptions of god exists, those we atheists refute emphatically. On to your creator premise. Nowhere in the known universe do things puff into existence. Nothing is operated by nor created by an act of magic. So why with our finite knowledge should we base possible yet unlikely creation scenarios as anything more than superstitious and fallacious nonanswers. The universe does not require magic, and it did not.come.from nothing. You will find zero evidence of creation.

We have to work with what we know. We have to separate the merely possible from the probable. A god, and a creator, alike are no more probable than unicorns or leprechauns.

Well I'm basing this belief on the big bang theory. This theory states that before the big bang, the universe was the size of a dot as small as a molecule. Where did that molecule come from and how was it formed? The fact is the universe essentially "began" at some point according to this theory. The dynamic time based nature of the universe makes it unlikely that it was always just here. Furthermore I can always ask how anything got there until I get to nothingness, it would never end.

[The Grand Nudger]

The theory of the "big bang" does not address what may have happened before the "big bang". In fact, many proponents have stated in no uncertain terms, that there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics would have been similar prior to this event, that we are currently at a loss as to explaining the events prior to the big bang, if such a thing did occur, due to the nature of the thing itself. Emphasis being on the currently.

The idea that the big bang states that something came from nothing is a common straw man of theists, particularly christian theists. Further, our lack of knowledge in this regard does not default to the position that "goddidit", a position which you continue to assume regardless.

[SleepingDemon]

Everything in the universe breaks down into protons, neutrons, and electrons, they have always existed. There was no big bang, there was no point of creation. All of the mass, energy included is eternal.

[Epimethean]

"I say [god] probably exist because the contrary is not sufficiently acceptable to my beliefs."

Now we're getting to the root of your problem.

And ours, as a result of yours.

[5thHorseman]

Alastor. To the post of mine that you quoted, it was aimed at frodo, not you. So after you said I haven't read thread. I say, you clearly haven't followed it.

[MilesTailsPrower]

Why are atheist...atheist? Because we deny the existence of god. Simple.

[Alastor]

The theory of the "big bang" does not address what may have happened before the "big bang". In fact, many proponents have stated in no uncertain terms, that there is no reason to believe that the laws of physics would have been similar prior to this event, that we are currently at a loss as to explaining the events prior to the big bang, if such a thing did occur, due to the nature of the thing itself. Emphasis being on the currently.

The idea that the big bang states that something came from nothing is a common straw man of theists, particularly christian theists. Further, our lack of knowledge in this regard does not default to the position that "goddidit", a position which you continue to assume regardless.

This point does not invalidate my conclusion. Knowing the laws of physics before the big bang is not necessary. I only need to know that the pre-big bang universe clearly had some mechanical bias toward the post-big bang universe. Either way, the universe still has an incredibly specific bias and therefore, my conclusion still stands.

Everything in the universe breaks down into protons, neutrons, and electrons, they have always existed. There was no big bang, there was no point of creation. All of the mass, energy included is eternal.

Then my conclusion still stands. Even if one is willing to throw out the big bang theory, then it still stands that the universe must have always had an incredibly specific bias toward the rules it now operates by.

"I say [god] probably exist because the contrary is not sufficiently acceptable to my beliefs."

Now we're getting to the root of your problem.

And ours, as a result of yours.

Lol, this is not the root of the problem, your arrogance is. I've stated multiple times that this thread has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about God. I merely presented them in my first post because I thought it would be fair for everyone to know where I was coming from; also, why I presented the definition of atheist I was basing the question on. Later, I only began elaborating on my beliefs because they had come into question, which is fine; I'm willing to discuss my reason for believing in a God for anyone who may be interested in it. However, I have never stated or told anyone that they should believe in a God for same reason I do. That was always irrelevant. I have always stated that I choose to believe in God based the conclusion I've stated earlier. This is not proof, nor would I tell anyone they should also choose to believe in a God for this reason. It is really to each his own as far as why they may choose to believe in a God or not. For me it is simply a statistical reason. For some people this is enough to believe that God probably does exist. For others it is not, and i can't really blame them, and I don't.

The purpose of this thread has always been to tell me how a strong atheist does not make foolish assumptions about God in the way a religious person would. If you had actually read my post, before making accusations about me, you'd have known that.

---

Alastor. To the post of mine that you quoted, it was aimed at frodo, not you. So after you said I haven't read thread. I say, you clearly haven't followed it.

My apologies, I ignored frodo's post because they were not really relevant to my original question.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a simple way to make this point to you. The atheist, strong or weak, makes fewer unproven assumptions to reach his conclusion. The atheist does not let "god" stand in for "i don't know". Even at the very foundation of the argument, when all attributes of god are removed from the discussion, the strong atheist does not refer to what is left as god. The strong atheist does not assume that a god is necessary, or that any old thing that the deist can conjure up is by definition god. The strong atheist does not rely on philosophical arguments for or against god, nor logical arguments, but evidence. A position which arises from evidence, or lack of evidence, can hardly be said to be a position of ignorance.

The strong atheist has constructed a model which fits with our observations (that gods are not present in the universe),
makes predictions (that you wont find any gods)
and can be falsified (by finding god/s).

The proposition of an unknowable god is by definition an argument from ignorance. It may be the supreme argument from ignorance, in that it's premise is the assumption that some things are simply unknowable, and that what we do not know or cannot know is then god. It's a circular argument in which the conclusion is identical to the premise. Even your god is not an unknowable god, in that it is a creator god. If a god were a creator god we would have knowledge of that god through the very obvious effects of it's creative act. Your own belief in a creator god does not equal an unknowable god.

Does this make your position ignorant?

In any case, if you want to use the unknowable god as your premise, you're going to have to give evidence to support it. That is where your conclusion is flawed, your premise is an unsupported assumption, and as such any conclusions you reach based on this premise will be lacking in worth or value compared to any conclusions based on a premise which does have evidence to support it.

In the event that the position of no gods is determined to be supported by fallacious reasoning, it would simply leave the position in a state whereby it can only be argued for by belief, by faith. This would make it equal to the position of an unknowable god, not lesser, or ignorant, but standing on exactly the same footing. We would still of course be left with the observation that gods are not present in the universe, that magic is not a cause for any observed effect.

Clear that up for you?

Again, for the record, I am a "strong atheist", so your questions ARE directed at me, I've repeated myself here so that you cannot simply hand wave me away by stating that I'm no "true strong atheist". One does not have to be a "true stong atheist" to raise objections to your premise, but since you have repeatedly asserted that only a "true strong atheist" may reply to your argument.........I throw my name into the hat.

Here is a link for you, this might help you to understand the many objections that have been raised to your op, and subsequent posts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

The argument you have made as to gods existence is a form of the cosmological argument. That god can be argued to exist based on some property of the cosmos that demands his existence. A proof by logic.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
Specifically it is the fine-tuning argument.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...g_argument
It also touches on the argument from design.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...rom_design
As well as the first cause.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...irst_cause

Is there anything in this post that you feel needs further clarification?

[theVOID]

This point does not invalidate my conclusion. Knowing the laws of physics before the big bang is not necessary. I only need to know that the pre-big bang universe clearly had some mechanical bias toward the post-big bang universe. Either way, the universe still has an incredibly specific bias and therefore, my conclusion still stands.

You can't presuppose that, all we know is that the mechanics had a chance of creating an isolated region of space-time, a universe, and that it happened. We can't say anything about whether or not the cause has a tendency towards creating these regions, for all we know the universe producing event is one of the more rare events that this entity/object/mechanics produces - That is all the more true if you are considering this cause to be related to string theory, there are over 10^500 different possible universes, in those circumstances you're about as far from a specific universe creating 'bias' as you could get.

Then my conclusion still stands. Even if one is willing to throw out the big bang theory, then it still stands that the universe must have always had an incredibly specific bias toward the rules it now operates by.

You're saying it must have a bias towards this specific type of universe, or that it likely had a bias towards this universe? They're very different claims at an ontological level and both require a different response.

I answered the latter (likely bias) above, If the former is the case your claim essentially reduces to;

1. X (the universe) exists.
2. Y (unknown mechanism) caused X
3. Therefore, Y has a bias towards X.

It's a non sequitur, you haven't explained why, out of all the possible things that Y could cause, it has a bias towards X. An parallel argument would be as follows;

1. X (Bosons) exist.
2. Y (The LHC's Lead nuclei collision) caused X
3. Therefore, Y has a bias towards X.

This word substitution demonstrates your argument is invalid, bosons might be caused by the LHC's lead nuclei collisions but they are also one of the more rare results from Lead Nuclei collisions, Ferimons are a much more common result and thus if you were to say that the LHC as a cause was 'biased' towards one or the other you must conclude it is Ferimons the bias is towards.

[Ace Otana]

However, if that is your definition of explanatory power than, yes, God has no explanatory power.
8

By explanatory power I mean something that is falsifiable. Something that can explain and with credibility and measure.
The pink invisible unicorn can explain just as much as your god, but they both have no explanatory power as they are without any value. I could say that the pink invisible unicorn created the universe and it would have just as much credibility and likely hood as your god. Seeing as both concepts lack value and explanatory power. They both lack evidence for their existence.

I never stated one should assume belief in God but to assert that he doesn't exist is ignorance. In its most basic form, my belief is that God probably exist.

My stance is that I admit to not knowing whether a god exists or not but ultimately reject the idea due to lack of evidence, that makes me an agnostic atheist. Simple rejection.

Take your example. Lets say you didn't check for change in your pocket and have no memory of whether there might be or not. Does it make sense to assert that there is no change in your pocket based on what you know?

It doesn't make sense to claim either way. If you don't know, then that is your answer - you don't know.
Also by evidence of absence - there is a total absence of evidence for the existence of god, there for it's evidence of his absence.

I don't. I say he probably exist because the contrary is not sufficiently acceptable to my beliefs.

You find the idea that the universe formed naturally hard to accept? What makes you think a god did it? Where did god come from and how did he create the universe from nothing? Which seems even harder to swallow.

Only rejection of beliefs about such a concept are rational.

Then why don't you?

Again in this circumstance, explanatory power, for me, was demonstrating how a unicorn differs from God in making beliefs about the object based on observations. By my original definition there is clear explanatory power.

What you think is knowledge or know-ability of unicorns and god does not make it any more special. They are just concepts. You need evidence to demonstrate that god is more than just an imaginary friend.

Again the only conjecture I make is that God probably exist and I leave it at that.

Not quite, you are assuming god exists and created the universe some how. Your explanation is far more complex than my explanation. My only assumption is that you're mistaken. I'm with Occam's Razer. Only accept more complex explanations when there is evidence for them.
The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely correct.

My reason for this thread was to learn why atheist, now known only to be strong atheist, irrationally assert that God doesn't exist without any evidence.

And I'll like to learn why theists assert that there is a god. Also with no shred of evidence to back up their assertions.