The Magic of Atheism?

[Minimalist]

Appeals to the best and worst of us, I believe I've heard it said.

God certainly seems to embody all that which we seem to find repugnant in humanity.

And his fucking followers are just assholes.

[Eyem4Christ]

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.

[Zen Badger]

---

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.

---

[Eyem4Christ]

Let us entertain for the moment that there is a god, afterall it is impossible to either prove or disprove an intelligent first cause to the universe.

It is however very easy to disprove the existence of the christian god.

Define "the Christian God."

[Phil]

Let us entertain for the moment that there is a god, afterall it is impossible to either prove or disprove an intelligent first cause to the universe.

It is however very easy to disprove the existence of the christian god.

Define "the Christian God."

Atheists don't believe in him so why should we define him? Read how he is defined in your stupid bible yourself.

---

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.

[KichigaiNeko]

Bottom line is...
"the Magic" of Atheism is the fact that one knows so much more than your average plebeian and is allowed to express that knowledge and learn more.

That Magic is only perceived as such to those of lesser intellect who are having a hard time getting around their own heads let alone getting "out of their own heads" to contemplate the actual size and scope of the universe ...and we haven't even touched on Quantum Physics yet.

The "Magic" is something that YOU have thought of as you are so incapable of perceiving the basic precepts of science and in fact was probaly that testosterone pimple faced dweeb at the back of the science class in Junior High school too fucking busy trying to get himself noticed by the available females to actually absorb any information that did not relate to a fucking "touch down" (whatever THAT is)

All statements to the fact that you are ill prepared to discuss let alone demand anything from the good people of this forum and I would suggest that you go and red some science journals other than the usual pap that is fed to you via "AIG" and any other charleton cretinist web site that you have obviously been hanging out on.

[NoMoreFaith]

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

It relies on metaphysical intuition as its basis. If you are willing to believe in a metaphysical God, you don't see this as a problem, even if logic dictates otherwise.

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.

You clearly did not read the earlier arguments. This is a false dichotomy of choice. Those are not the only two options. You also have the universe, in some form always existing as a third. There is conceptually more options than this again.

Therefore, impossible, magical cosmological theories are put forth by highly credentialed atheist scientists, and that appeal to authority is then what passes for truth.

Just because you say "impossible" and "magical" doesn't make it true. Perhaps in your world where a book about magic means its real, does not allow you to infer the possible and impossible.

But the evidence leads an open-minded individual to postulate the existence of a Divine intelligence.

I do not think evidence means, what you think it means.

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.

Assuming the universe is not eternal in some form or another, nor descended from different rules. Bear in mind particles zip in and out of existence ALL the time. In fact its a normal state of the universe.
We have only just started touching upon the quantum vacuum where contingency does apparently apply. Even so, nobody proposes this as a definite start to the universe, merely theres a lot out there we don't understand, and "GodDidIt" is an unsatisfactory answer as it most definitely asserts "Magic".

Defining God as eternal is not helpful either, because its simply an unproven assertion, not evidence, nor logical argument. Simple assertion. In this instance, you are simply demanding proof of a negative, ignoring all the other negatives that cannot be disproven. The onus of proof is on you for that assertion, and we both know that this will not be forthcoming.

BTW, we are arguing for the existence of Zeus or Thor aren't we? We really should define which God you are talking about and how you link an argument which you believe proves a God, to your VERY SPECIFIC god with VERY SPECIFIC attributes. Please provide your link and working. (Clue: The Bible proves nothing).

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.

Precisely my point, what you have is 1) A Priori Assertion of First Cause being Eternal God 2) Assumption the assertion means YOUR God rather than an unknown. As an argument, you must see how weak that is.

Look at your wording "HAS TO BE". This isn't a definite at all. If God can be given the attribute of "uncaused" then you have broken the chain of "everything has a cause" which means your initial premise is disproven by your original argument. Saying there is a cause OUTSIDE of the universe where rules don't apply, does not lead to intelligence, because that is an incredibly complex being, whereas you would be more logical in assuming "outside" universe that simply has different laws. Occams Razor applies in full force.

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.

You have your mind made up that we are proposing "magic". What you seem to be incapable of considering is that we are proposing "We don't know but we have some ideas based on observable facts". You wish to make that a negative label, but every thing we have ever studied has turned out to be "not magic".
Your A Priori assumption is working on this basis that if we do not know something, therefore God. Again, you must see what a weak premise that is, which whenever it has been invoked has always been shown to be "Not God" eventually. The beginning of the universe has merely become your theoretical Gods last hiding place.

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.

Thats right. Humans can not explain much whilst inventing fire etc, so they quite reasonably put a "invisible" cause as a bookmark. There isn't many bookmarks left except at the start of existence itself.
This proves the human capacity to anthropomorphise the unknown, and this has a demonstrably useful effect, but it proves nothing but the human mind.

[Zen Badger]

Let us entertain for the moment that there is a god, afterall it is impossible to either prove or disprove an intelligent first cause to the universe.

It is however very easy to disprove the existence of the christian god.

Define "the Christian God."

I'm talking about the god in the bible.

You know the one, the misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, petulant,petty little tyrant whose words supposedly speak of love yet whose every action declares otherwise.

I'm sure you've heard of him.

[KichigaiNeko]

And what of "The Goddess" ? Before he came she was.. in some texts. So what of this??

This proves the human capacity to anthropomorphise the unknown, and this has a demonstrably useful effect, but it proves nothing but the human mind.

It's called imagination We ARE "The Story Telling Ape" nothing more. So your "debate" is pointless.

[Phil]

I'm talking about the god in the bible.

You know the one, the misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal, petulant,petty little tyrant whose words supposedly speak of love yet whose every action declares otherwise.

I'm sure you've heard of him.

Here is a little help from a fellow UKian (UKite) Richard Dawkins...

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully