Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[Adjusted Sanity]

I didn't become an atheist to prove god doesn't exist. I became an atheist because god hasn't been proven to exist.

It's really fucking simple.

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

You have some shitty ass reading comprehension.

[Jireh]

It is one thing to look at the complexity of life and question how valid evolution etc is to explain it and QUITE another to look at it and simply deduce that it all means an infinite being created it all.

we don't deduce things out of no reason, but because we have good reasons to deduce God as the best explanation.
The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause. The universe is finely tuned to life, therefore a fine-tuner. Life comes only from life, therefore a living creator. Information as stored in DNA comes always from a mind, therefore a intelligent mind created DNA. Consciousness can not come from dead matter, therefore God is the best explanation. Please do not got into this now, since this topic is not about theists evidence, but about strong atheists evidence for naturalism.

If this universe is far too complex it had to be created by a very complex being. Do you believe that God is more or less complex than the universe?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News...le&id=5493

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

If he is more complex than the universe but does not require a creator then why does this universe require a creator?

God is uncaused, eternal, while the universe cannot be so.

and , as posted already :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument

the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics

Before you argue that God is simply spirit and the world is not you still had to prove there is in fact a spiritual world.

I don't have to prove it, just present good reasons is enough.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t283-ein...t=einstein

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

A) Prove there is a spiritual world
B) Prove how there can be any evidence for a being which is by definition non-testable
C) Provide arguments that actually prove something instead of stating your own awe and wonder about our universe

there are no proofs, either for naturalism, nor for theism. the right question to ask , is : what is the best explanation for our existence ?

youll find absolute proofs only in mathematics.

---

Ignoring the possibility that both you and I are equally wrong? God is not a default.

either God does exist, or he does not exist. there is no third alternative.
God is not a default, neither naturalism is.

Appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity.

Well, as atheists always say : extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Do you have any, that dead matter can transform by its own into thoughts and conscience of self ?

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.


These would be the claims of theism.

No. That are the two alternatives atheists have.

That god (and by extention all else) arose from absolutely nothing

Thats not what i said.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t77-who-created-god

A common argument from atheists and skeptics is that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God (and if God is not God, then of course there is no God). This is a slightly more sophisticated form of the basic question “Who made God?” Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a “something,” then He must have a cause, right?

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

, or that god had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. Both extraordinary claims. The position of science and naturalism is "We don't know, but we're looking into it by the only means available to us". Strawman.

well, as said, we do have good reasons to discard both alternatives.

1. From absolutely nothing, nothing derives. If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.

2. The universe cannot have existed eternally. I have presented good philosophical and scientific reasons why. You call it strawman. That up to you. But we are well justified to deduce theism, no matter you like it or not.

[Philovitist]

I can't provide positive arguments that God doesn't exist, but I can provide positive arguments why you shouldn't (pursuing intellectual integrity) believe that he does.

[Mister Agenda]

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

Nope. It's just the version of reality with the fewest made-up entities. The 'rational' in rational skepticism means that skepticism isn't taken to useless extremes, such as denying reality. If you accept reality as a brute fact, there is at least naturalism. Convincing evidence that there is more to reality than naturalism is needed for believing that more than naturalism is reasonably justified.

Its quit simple. You can think, right ?

You don't get any prizes for asking especially stupid rhetorical questions.

how could transformation, or evolution, of dead matter, happen to self conscience and thougt ?

Abiogenesis and evolution through natural selection.

Its simply not possible.

Mere assertion, dismissed as such.

There is no bridge from one thing to the other.

Self-replicating proteins, single-celled organisms, multi-celled organisms, organisms with brains, organisms with bigger brains, organisms with consciousness (including cetaceans, great apes, and elephants). Seems like a lot of bridges to get from inanimate matter to consciousness and thought.

So by the very own existence of hability of thought, you can deduce logically God exists.

Even if everything you just said had been valid, 'therefore, God' would still be a non sequitur.

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.

And we'll believe one of them (or some other hypothesis) when there is sufficient evidence to justify doing so. Currently they are merely hypothetical, possibilities that do not contradict math or known physics. And there's reason to think the 'absolute nothingness' you refer to is impossible: there likely never was 'absolutely nothing'. To summarize: those aren't claims, they're possibilities. Here's a claim: there is insufficient evidence for anyone to reasonably claim they know the origin of our cosmos with certainty.

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible.

That's a claim that requires not only evidence, but conclusive proof.

If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist.

I don't disagree that it's likely our cosmos began to exist, but until you prove that actual infinities cannot exist, this line of argumentation can't prove the cosmos must have begun to exist.

Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite.

If I agree with you, then I MUST conclude that no entity could possibly have existed eternally without a beginning. Is that really where you want to go with this?

From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology.

It equally supports the notion that prior to the cosmic inflation, the universe was in a very hot, dense state. Whether that came from quantum vacuum or always existed in some form is in the realm of hypothetical physics at this point.

The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology.

This is a delusion.

Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

We're in an eternal universe. It will suffer heat death, but it will never cease to exist. And if you're going to quote the laws of thermodynamics as applying to universes, remember the first one that says energy cannot be created or destroyed: if thermodynamics applies to universes, then energy/matter have existed eternally, since they cannot be created.

we theists have it pretty easy to have faith in Gods existence.

Faith is easy. Thinking is hard work.

The evidence is obvious.

As obvious as the sun going around the earth.

In the counterpart, its a hard struggle for the thinking atheist to deny God......and must be indeed quit frustrating.

The thinking atheist doesn't deny God. We just don't believe the people who claim God is real are justified by evidence and reason. A factor in that is those people have never been able to present an argument for God that is both valid and has reasonable premises.

I don't believe you for pretty much the same reasons I don't believe people claiming to be UFO abductees were really kidnapped by aliens: I don't deny they had some kind of experience, but I doubt it was what they think it was.

[Jireh]

Given axiomatic assumptions that reality exists and that you can make predictions based upon that reality.
If you have a problem with that, you must be very scared you're going to fall through the floor and fall apart at any given moment.

It seens you did not understand my point. Can you proof nature is all there is ?

You reject naturalism, and then claim what is possible and impossible in the natural universe..

according to wiki :

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.

i was referring to that viewpoint.

You're just building a strawman that has been pointed out no less than 10 times now.

nothing means the absence of any thing. Therefore, it has no potentialities.
Whatelse needs to be defined about what nothing means ?

Your argument presupposes the existence of time prior to the existence of this universe in order for an eternal God to "decide" to create the universe from his metaphysical realm.

No. Time did not exist beyond the universe.


Is "Timeless" Divine Action Coherent?

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/timeless.htm

God's bringing about the universe is the total and direct dependence of the contingent universe on the divine will. Such a relation of dependence does not require that God be located in time. Thus, divine timeless action is not incoherent.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...unbau.html

The Creator may be conceived to be causally, but not temporally, prior to the origin of the universe, such that the act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous with its beginning to exist.

Contemporary philosophical discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous; indeed, a good case can be made that all temporal causal relations involve the simultaneity of cause and effect.

[Phil]

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

Nope. It's just the version of reality with the fewest made-up entities. The 'rational' in rational skepticism means that skepticism isn't taken to useless extremes, such as denying reality. If you accept reality as a brute fact, there is at least naturalism. Convincing evidence that there is more to reality than naturalism is needed for believing that more than naturalism is reasonably justified.

This seems apropo here.

[NoMoreFaith]

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be.

The question is tricky because it is using the premises of the argument you proposed.
Now you don't want your argument to exist anymore.

You propose infinity was impossible from the accumulation of the finite and then attribute a finite point to the creation of the universe which de facto creates the existence of "before universe/after universe".

The answer is that the question does not even make sense.

Since the question is the same as the one proposed by the KCA, what does this say about the KCA?

[The Grand Nudger]

You missed a very easy alternative, there is a god, and it is wholly a product of our own minds, IE, mis-attribution. Conveniently (or inconveniently, depending), all evidence we do have available points to this conclusion. We have not arrived at naturalism by default (and it certainly was not the place where we began), we have arrived at naturalism through rigorous investigation and self correction. It is all that is left to us, but we're still looking, so maybe someday we'll find a "god", if it exists anywhere beyond our imaginations. If we do, it isn't exactly likely to be your own (I'm being generous here), or anything even resembling what you imagine a god to be.

Matter is not dead, some matter can be "alive" or "dead". These two terms are classifications for a very specific type of matter (in our case organic matter). Matter classified as "organic" is itself not alive either. No single fundamental component of what you are can be said to be alive. The term "alive" itself is merely a description of the complicated interactions between all of this matter, for so long as it continues to interact. Again, I need not offer an explanation for this, especially seeing as that we currently do not have anything resembling an ironclad explanation. What we do know, is that there was once no "living matter", and now there is. We know that the materials involved with "living matter" existed prior to life, and we know that they continue to exist up to this very day. We also know that we are comprised entirely of these things. At what point does any of this lend credibility to your invocations of magic (which we have never found, at any point we have ever went looking)?

Why, because you find it easier to argue against such claims than you do "We don't know."? The fact remains that your camp proposes these things, mine does not. Argue against yourself until you're blue in the face, I won't mind.

Ah, so god began or came from something? By what means? I''ll gladly give credit for the cosmos to those means if you are capable of demonstrating them. Give me a rough summary of your link, I won't be gracing it with a single hit until I'm have reason to assume that I'm not completely wasting my time with ridiculous bullshit. Oh, wait, I just caught a glimpse of your next little tirade. So this bit here was sophistry, wasn't it? "I didn't say that, now let me get around to saying exactly that"

You've just repeated those claims which you told me you did not make only a few sentences beforehand. Is this intentional dishonesty, or cognitive dissonance?

Now, I don't mind discussing why I don't believe, especially with regards to why you do. However, if this is the sort of dialogue were going to have, with you making these "arguments" that you have made thusfar, then lets drop any pretense of logic or evidence or proof. You wish for me to offer you an explanation for the entirety of the cosmos, and until you hear one which satisfies you, you are going to go with god. Be my guest. I have no explanations for the entirety of the cosmos, and neither do you.

[NoMoreFaith]

It seens you did not understand my point. Can you proof nature is all there is ?

I don't need to. That's irrelevant. What is relevant, is what is reasonable to derive truth about reality..

according to wiki :

Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.

i was referring to that viewpoint.

The viewpoint of "read the first line" and ignore the ENTIRE ARTICLE.

Nice one. Whooooooooooooooosh.

nothing means the absence of any thing. Therefore, it has no potentialities.
Whatelse needs to be defined about what nothing means ?

Because science has never proposed your nothing exists, and in fact, argue that it is unlikely to exist by definition.

Your argument presupposes the existence of time prior to the existence of this universe in order for an eternal God to "decide" to create the universe from his metaphysical realm.

No. Time did not exist beyond the universe.

In which case, God cannot choose an "instant" to create the universe. The universe is either as eternal as God(rendering KCA illegitimate), or God does not exist (rendering KCA illegitimate).

The creation of an instant, creates the concept of time, by attributing BEFORE UNIVERSE, and AFTER UNIVERSE.

You cannot create a universe without a period of "no universe". That period means there is a separate measure of time otherwise the concept of creation cannot exist.

EDIT: Let's simplify; You say that it is impossible for eternity to compose of finite points. Point 1 is before universe, Point 2 is after universe. With 2 points you can break it down to 1.5 (halfway to point 2). By definition of creation of a finite point, you refute your claim that eternity cannot compose of finite points if you assert that God is still eternal.

God's bringing about the universe is the total and direct dependence of the contingent universe on the divine will. Such a relation of dependence does not require that God be located in time. Thus, divine timeless action is not incoherent.

In which case, eternity is not impossible, which renders KCA illegitimate.
Time did not exist until the expansion of the singularity, so divine action is made irrelevant, or rather unnecessary to the creation of the universe.

I find it telling that you are resorting to merely copy pasting websites that agree with your point of view.

Out of your depth much?

[The Heff]

we don't deduce things out of no reason, but because we have good reasons to deduce God as the best explanation...

You do talk some shit.