The Magic of Atheism?

[Phil]

Sorry guys, this one isn't even worth my time. I'd prefer to discuss particle physics with a donkey.

Baalam's ass? That is the only talking donkey I have ever heard of.

[mediamogul]

Well, out of thirty replies, this is the only one that isn't either grossly insulting, or diversionary.

In terms of the philosophy behind these arguments they are basically the First Cause argument and the teleological argument or argument from design.

Yes. I would say that is true

Simple logic disproves the first one.

Simple logic disproves the cosmological argument? Why is it still around then?

You state the universe must have a cause because it cannot come from nothing (which is not what modern physics neccessarily states but I'll play along)

I know. I just finished reading a book of cosmological speculation called, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. It is, and there's no other way to put this, silly. Atheists must have the universe come from nothing or they must have the material universe always existing; both positions being impossible. Therefore, impossible, magical cosmological theories are put forth by highly credentialed atheist scientists, and that appeal to authority is then what passes for truth. But the evidence leads an open-minded individual to postulate the existence of a Divine intelligence.

and therefore there must exist an uncaused cause which created the universe. You then call this thing that caused the universe "god". Surely God would be more complex than the universe and demands a cause himself. What caused god to come into existence? Then what caused god's cause? So on and so forth. We end up with an infinite regress.

But that's just it, we don't end up with a regress. The term God implies an eternal being. So why couldn't the universe be eternal? Because everything in it is contingent. There has to be a cause of the universe outside of the universe. It may be a stretch to call it a Christian version of God, but this first cause, must be intelligent and willful and capable of design. We therefore assume it to be conscious. That's why we assume it to be God.

The "laws" of physics are more just descriptions of the way that matter behaves. Quantum physics demonstrates how those once deemed immutable laws don't apply on a sub-atomic level. We simply refer to them as "laws" because it makes more sense to our human brains. The "laws" of physics most likely came into existence with the universe and there could foreseeably exist other universes in which the "laws" of physics do not behave in the way that we understand them to. None of it implies intelligence.

In other words, your atheist response is this: "Things just are." But you do realize that is more a crucifixion of the intellect than faith is. That's just ignoring the hard questions.

And the idea of God is not just something someone just made up. There seems to be no time in human history when God wasn't assumed to exist. I admit, there are many questions about the nature of God. Why does God exist at all? How does he create things? Can he create a truly freewill creature, etc. But all of these types of questions can only be answered after we assume the existence of God.

Couple of things. These arguments will stick around as long as people continue to be decieved by their circular and unfounded logic. Also, just because people believe them doesn't make them true. It's the old belief from popular opinion fallacy and I'm going to assume we are at least able to agree that arguing as such is not sound. The history of the human race is practically point for point (up until people discovered science) people "getting shit dead wrong." as Bill Maher says.

If one believes that an uncaused thing can exist (i.e. god) then why can't the universe exist as an uncaused thing? If all things that exist require a cause then God must have been caused to come into existence by some other force and then we get the infinite regress. Also if believing that something always existed is silly, then I would take a hard look at the nature of your own Christian beliefs because it appears that is EXACTLY what Christians believe about god. Plus it's only silly when it contradicts what people want to believe about the universe.

Next, lets not forget something. WE are appealing to science. You are appealing to the supernatural for the cause and structure of the universe. This is classic christian spin of the issue.

Lastly, I heard you criticize someone for talking quantum physics. Look, man, we are talking about the universe and you asked questions that quantum physics has some very plausible answers to. Particularly the fact that at high energy levels matter can come into existence apparently ex nihilo. This is the problem though many Christians I know only read the pseudo-science that apologists construct to refute the claims of valid, mainstream science. The same science that makes a cell phone work gave use evidence for the Big Bang.

This is the last I will say because reading back through the arguments, I realize that I may be wasting my time...

[Eyem4Christ]

Couple of things. These arguments will stick around as long as people continue to be decieved by their circular and unfounded logic. Also, just because people believe them doesn't make them true. It's the old belief from popular opinion fallacy and I'm going to assume we are at least able to agree that arguing as such is not sound. The history of the human race is practically point for point (up until people discovered science) people "getting shit dead wrong." as Bill Maher says.

In The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ it says this:

Then Jesus began to teach about those who claim to be religious saying, “A tree is known by the fruit that it bears; if the tree is bad, the fruit will be bad; if good, then the fruit will be good. (VGJC 21:27)

So, what good has atheism ever brought? Most if not all of the founding fathers of science were religious men. What benefit is there to atheism? We have more technology today than we know what to do with, and the engineering technology of the future will have absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s religious beliefs. You can make a smaller computer, a cloned organ, whatever, regardless of what you believe religiously, so what value is atheism? I would say there is no good fruit on that tree. Atheism is just another religious belief.

If one believes that an uncaused thing can exist (i.e. god) then why can't the universe exist as an uncaused thing?

Because everything we see in the physical universe is contingent. And this whole the-universe-can-be-uncaused-too BS is new to atheism. I’ve only been hearing it in the last decade or so. It’s not a logical position. It’s magical thinking. The theory of the big bang refutes it; for hundreds of years before that philosophers disputed it logically; there simply is no way the physical universe could exist eternally. And if one takes the time to read the current atheist cosmology books, the speculations born of the utter desperation to escape the God-cause, are so fantastical that they just smack of sad defeat.

If all things that exist require a cause then God must have been caused to come into existence by some other force and then we get the infinite regress.

That’s the whole point of God. That God is eternal. That’s the whole argument. Something has to be eternal; it can’t be the physical universe, and that something has to have intelligence. That’s the whole argument.

Also if believing that something always existed is silly, then I would take a hard look at the nature of your own Christian beliefs because it appears that is EXACTLY what Christians believe about god. Plus it's only silly when it contradicts what people want to believe about the universe.

I’m not a Christian. I am a Veridican. My whole religion can be summed up in one sentence: A Veridican follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s it. I will not defend Christianity or the Christian Church, and if your atheism is based on a rebellion against Christianity, then my friend, you look like an idiot who takes pleasure in winning a chess game against a retard. (I say that for effect. I can tell you’re no idiot.).

Next, lets not forget something. WE are appealing to science. You are appealing to the supernatural for the cause and structure of the universe. This is classic christian spin of the issue.

What if science is not the proper method for determining things outside of the physical universe? Then we have to think in a different way, right? Love is not something that can be studied appropriately with science, nor is Justice or beauty, right? So why don’t you admit that science has its limitations? Great for inventing nuclear power; bad for answering how the universe began.

Lastly, I heard you criticize someone for talking quantum physics. Look, man, we are talking about the universe and you asked questions that quantum physics has some very plausible answers to. Particularly the fact that at high energy levels matter can come into existence apparently ex nihilo. This is the problem though many Christians I know only read the pseudo-science that apologists construct to refute the claims of valid, mainstream science. The same science that makes a cell phone work gave use evidence for the Big Bang.

There are lots of observations made of sub-atomic particles that we just can’t seem to figure out. We make up theories to do so. But those theories start becoming even more bizarre than the observations. Dark matter, dark energy, string theory, multiverses. And we don’t have to go to quantum mechanics for that; we still have no idea how one body of mass attracts another body of mass across the vacuum of space. So, we just accept gravity for what it is. We cannot understand how a person can have a dream and then see the elements of that dream upon waking (precognition). It happens all the time; it’s been happening forever, but all we can do from a scientific perspective is pretend it doesn’t happen.

Quantum theories beyond the standard model, are a lot like the Bible: You can find anything you are looking for in them. But logic is not defeated. It may appear something pops in and out of existence for no reason, but we know intuitively that’s not really possible.

This is the last I will say because reading back through the arguments, I realize that I may be wasting my time...

And I may be wasting my time, but it’s a labor of love. Don’t try to end your argument with academic bullying. Believe me, I’m immune to that.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Why can't the universe be eternal? It's as likely to be the case as god being eternal - there is no evidence to support either.

We don't and can't know what happened before the big bang - did it come from something that was there previously, did it come from nothing?

If people are saying the universe needs a cause, and therefore it can only be caused by an uncaused eternal being - that is classic "god of the gaps" - where is the evidence for that? Why can't the universe itself be eternal or uncaused?

[Minimalist]

Eyem4Christ

URFuckingNuts

[Tobie]

[quote='Loading Please Wait' pid='256086' dateline='1332019381']

What if science is not the proper method for determining things outside of the physical universe? Then we have to think in a different way, right? Love is not something that can be studied appropriately with science, nor is Justice or beauty, right? So why don’t you admit that science has its limitations? Great for inventing nuclear power; bad for answering how the universe began.

Love can, and has been studied by science. It is caused by various chemicals in the brain. ( Interestingly, some of the same chemicals are found in chocolate). As for beauty, there is a fairly popular theory that beauty is based on the positions of your facial features relative to one another ( the golden ratio).

Science is an infinitely better way of studying the universe than just attributing it all to a magical being that contradicts itself.

There are lots of observations made of sub-atomic particles that we just can’t seem to figure out. We make up theories to do so. But those theories start becoming even more bizarre than the observations. Dark matter, dark energy, string theory, multiverses. And we don’t have to go to quantum mechanics for that; we still have no idea how one body of mass attracts another body of mass across the vacuum of space. So, we just accept gravity for what it is. We cannot understand how a person can have a dream and then see the elements of that dream upon waking (precognition). It happens all the time; it’s been happening forever, but all we can do from a scientific perspective is pretend it doesn’t happen.

Quantum theories beyond the standard model, are a lot like the Bible: You can find anything you are looking for in them. But logic is not defeated. It may appear something pops in and out of existence for no reason, but we know intuitively that’s not really possible.

All of these theories, however weird they may seem to you, are come to by the scientific method. Science has given us a lot more of worth than religion has. The very screen you are reading this on is a by product of experiments trying to find out about electrons.

Also, there are many theories as to why gravity exists, the most popular saying that it is caused by the exchange of sub-atomic particles called gravitons.

[Mister Agenda]

I suppose I should start some kind of thread to see how things will go. Here's something that bothers me.

There is the dimension of space, it’s three dimensional, and then there is the dimension of time. But then there are the forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak and strong interaction forces.

There are things to quibble about there, but okay.

There’s only two ways to look at this.

Does anyone ever say this who is NOT setting up a false dichotomy?

One is atheistic and suggests that for no reason at all the entire universe popped into existence out of nothing with these particular properties in place for no reason.

I know you guys like to THINK that's what we think, but it isn't. We don't know the reason and we don't know it was nothing. And anyone who says they DO know is lying.

The only problem with that is that these four fundamental forces were needed before the universe existed. They were needed for the universe to have ever come into existence to begin with. They had to exist prior to it.

Evidence?

Atheists would have us return to ignorance. They would say that this is simply unknowable, and it’s unknowable because God can’t possibly exist, even though the universe and its fundamental forces are inconceivable apart from an intelligent designer bringing it into existence.

It's unknown because there is no way to know it at this time, whether God exists or not. And news flash: it's very easy to prove that it's not inconceivable. I think that word doesn't mean what you think it does.

If God is not there, then the universe is magic.

If you re-define 'magic' to mean 'natural processes' I suppose.

It came into existence without the fundamental forces in place, either separately or as a grand unified force.

How do you know this?

The forces would have had to come after—even though they were needed before.

Needed for what before? Why couldn't space, time, and the fundamental forces have begun simultaneously? Why couldn't the fundamental forces have resulted from space time expansion?

That's magical thinking.

Another term that doesn't mean what you think it does.

Theists who understand even a little about cosmology are forced to believe in God, because that is the only non-magical explanation.

That makes exactly as much sense as 'atheists who understand even a little about cosmology are forced to dismiss God as having explanatory power, because God is a magical explanation.

A Divine Designer who existed prior to the universe is simply more plausible than the alternative.

More plausible to YOU. Mere assertion, and dismissed as such.

That's my take on things--unless you know a better way.

A better way: ask us what we think instead of telling us what we think.

[Minimalist]

They are terrified of what we think.

[NoMoreFaith]

In The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ it says this:

Irrelevant. Whether the bible or the more recent "Rewritten for TV" version of the Verdiicanism(?!). A Quote is not proof of anything.
If you have something to say, say it yourself, but your book has zero authority. Only argument.

So, what good has atheism ever brought?

Who said it has? We are talking about fundamental truth, whether its an appealing one or not is irrelevant to the question. You seem to equate atheism with science, in which case you need a dictionary.

Most if not all of the founding fathers of science were religious men.

Sign o' the Times. I bet they wouldn't be in this day and age, when in their time, their funding would get pulled, or they might even be possibly murdered if they said otherwise.
Pointless point is pointless.

Atheism is just another religious belief.

I was hoping you'd be one of the intelligent ones.

Is Afaeism a religious belief? Lack of belief in faeries? Can you explain what good Afaeism has done?
This is all strawman. Learn to make an argument or GTFO.

Because everything we see in the physical universe is contingent.

Maybe, maybe not, we see a LOT of things that don't appear to be contingent. Its been referred to several times now.

And this whole the-universe-can-be-uncaused-too BS is new to atheism.

Its called receiving new information and amending your position based upon the evidence proposed. Try it some time.

Its entirely a philosophical expression, and the scientific answer is "I Don't Know", which is an appropriate response to a lack of data. The point is, when you declare "All things are contingent" and say "except God", you breach the fundamental assumption of the argument, being, everything is contingent.
You've amended this to everything in this universe, therefore you have burden of proof to show a universe beyond this one where the rules do not apply. Otherwise, you have literally entered into the realm of "Making shit up as you go".

Asking about the first cause is like asking "Whats North of the North Pole", the question is most likely irrelevant to the reality of the situation. But like I said, the only reasonable position is "I Don't Know", not "It must have been Zeus".

I’ve only been hearing it in the last decade or so. It’s not a logical position. It’s magical thinking.

You are delusional if you think a proposition of a metaphysical universe where God lives, and is eternal, and can affect the physical universe is not magical thinking.

Your argument depends on the basis of "everything in the universe is contingent", however you use special pleading to absolve a deity of choice of this argument by positing a metaphysical universe where God resides.

However, you have a BIG problem now.

God is not allowed to touch the universe. If God affects a change in the reality of the universe through his noodley appendage (or digit of choice) it must be by your definition of first cause PLUS metaphysical to be "observably uncaused in this universe".
You have created a paradox. A universe is ALWAYS contingent, except when it isn't. In which case, your argument becomes "The Universe is almost always contingent" therefore it means your original argument for God just went tits up therefore God is unlikely to exist through Occams razor of alternative first cause (which again, is shown to POSSIBLY be a faulty assumption).

You've created a paradox and murdered God, you Bastard!

That’s the whole point of God. That God is eternal. That’s the whole argument. Something has to be eternal; it can’t be the physical universe, and that something has to have intelligence. That’s the whole argument.

But it remains an unproven assertion. That is all it is. Nothing is proved. We can assert Faeries did it, and the argument would be identical if you call Faeries eternal and living in a separate dimension.

A Veridican follows the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in The Veridican Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You can't record something that is a rewrite of stuff that wasn't recorded in the first place. The correct word is "reinterprete".

I did particularly like that on their website it said "The Veridican Gospel corrects this with the inclusion of Mary as one of the twelve apostles, and she has several speaking parts"
That made me laugh out loud to be honest. It even sounds like a tv drama rewrite.

[Whateverist]

Is he putting us on perhaps? Reminds me a bit of the mad hatter from Alice in Wonderland. To rescue our cosmological understanding of the origins of the universe from base magical thinking we must look to God. Stuff can't just pop into being outta nuthin so God must have always existed and have used His naturally supernatural powers to make everything just as we see it today. The scientific thing to do would be to set aside our human arrogance and thank God Almighty for giving us his word so that we might have the understanding of the universe that is best for us to have given our diminutive, mortal brains. A proper understanding of the universe starts with an admission that only God can truly understand it. Fellow atheists, let us fall on our knees and thank this emissary of the living God for coming onto our forums and allowing the light of God to show us The Way.