(April 21, 2016 at 1:26 pm)SteveII Wrote:Sorry, I have tried to reply to this post 3 times and it keeps eating my response.(April 21, 2016 at 12:59 am)wiploc Wrote: This atheist does not believe that the universe the universe always existed for infinity with no explanation. Lots of atheists don't believe that. In fact, I assume that almost all of us lack the belief you are trying to attribute to all of us.
There are a lot of us, and we don't agree on much, so I'm happy to stipulate that some of us have that belief.
Sorry, I don't have it on me.
There's a huge difference between believing that things have causes and knowing what those causes are.
I've heard that claim, so, yes, some of us believe that.
I've read one or two arguments for that position. I didn't find them compelling. But they were at least as good as the Christian arguments that gods exist necessarily.
You know you're way off base here, right? You claimed that if "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true." That's not a defensible claim, and you aren't approaching a defense of it. Asking why some of us believe something is not the same as proving that none of us should believe it.
My point is that Carroll believes that the universe (or its quantum vacuum predecessor) does not exist necessarily (could have failed to exist) and that it has existed from infinity with no explanation--a "brute fact" as he also put it. He does not believe in God so that is not an explanatory option for him. Other atheists might have a slightly different idea about universe generators, endless expansion/contraction, etc. but that does not escape the problem of eventually you have to say something always existed (brute fact) even in the face of the absurdity of a past infinite. A) If atheism is true, the universe (or its predecessors) has no explanation of its existence.
If you believe A) to be true then you also believe B) If the universe (or its predecessor) has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true because it is the logical equivalent. You cannot affirm A) and deny B) --they rise and fall together.