Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Drew_2013]

Such a discovery wouldn't tell us much about the nature of the Creator. It would mean theists worldview is correct while atheists worldview is incorrect. It would be a huge blow to atheists but I agree the debates would continue.

The atheist worldview, if there can be said to be such a thing, would be along the lines of "don't believe in god claims until there is evidence to do so". The discovery of the existence of a god would be the ultimate evidence. As such, far from being a huge blow it would actually confirm that position. I would just find the situation depressing, from a personal perspective, especially if the god proven was the hair-trigger psychopath of Abrahamic tradition. It would have a lot to answer for, whichever it turned out to be.

Hello Stimbo

The atheist worldview, whether individual atheists own up to it or not, is that our existence and that of the universe was the result of mindless mechanistic forces that never intended either the universe or us to exist. That worldview has significant impact philosophically speaking.

[Esquilax]

Hello Stimbo

The atheist worldview, whether individual atheists own up to it or not, is that our existence and that of the universe was the result of mindless mechanistic forces that never intended either the universe or us to exist. That worldview has significant impact philosophically speaking.

Don't try to tell us what we believe, Drew. That doesn't work out well for any of us. We'll let you know what we believe. Atheism makes exactly one claim: there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god yet.

Do most atheists subscribe to the current scientific model of the Big Bang? Yes, but only because that's where the evidence leads. And note that I had to qualify that as "most," because not all atheists agree on that. There's no standard atheist perspective beyond that there isn't enough proof to justify a god, and so blanket statements are more than useless.

[Cyberman]

There is no atheist worldview. Esquilax correctly gave the definition of the atheist position, such as it is, though I would disagree that it is a claim. Until the burden of proof for all theistic claims has been met, the only rational and consistent approach is not to believe them. This is exactly the same approach that we take every day with everything else - this is why we don't, or shouldn't, accept claims for Elvis sightings until there is sufficient evidence for them. God claims and similar are no different. It's interesting, not to mention revealing, that so far not only has the theistic burden not been met, I've yet to see it even addressed.

I also echo Esquilax's remark about telling atheists what atheists believe. Whether you intended it this way or not, it's arrogantly presumptuous and very annoying. Remember, I am an atheist; I'm confident I have at least a basic grasp of how an atheist thinks.

[Drew_2013]

Hello Stimbo

The atheist worldview, whether individual atheists own up to it or not, is that our existence and that of the universe was the result of mindless mechanistic forces that never intended either the universe or us to exist. That worldview has significant impact philosophically speaking.

Don't try to tell us what we believe, Drew. That doesn't work out well for any of us. We'll let you know what we believe. Atheism makes exactly one claim: there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god yet.

Do most atheists subscribe to the current scientific model of the Big Bang? Yes, but only because that's where the evidence leads. And note that I had to qualify that as "most," because not all atheists agree on that. There's no standard atheist perspective beyond that there isn't enough proof to justify a god, and so blanket statements are more than useless.

Its not a matter of telling you what you believe its a matter of logical consequences. If you don't beileve, or lack belief a Creator caused and designed the universe then consequently you do believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intentionally create a universe or humans. Let me prove it, do you believe the universe and subsequently humans were caused and created by mindless forces that didn't intend out existence? This is your chance to tell me what you think rather than me tell you what you think.

[Zone]

Its not a matter of telling you what you believe its a matter of logical consequences. If you don't beileve, or lack belief a Creator caused and designed the universe then consequently you do believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intentionally create a universe or humans. Let me prove it, do you believe the universe and subsequently humans were caused and created by mindless forces that didn't intend out existence? This is your chance to tell me what you think rather than me tell you what you think.

If our current model of evolution is true (where you have random mutation occurring and then non-random natural selection and you get something as complex as a human from that) then I think that would very strongly suggest mindless natural forces that didn't intend for us. But I'm open to idea that we don't necessarily know everything there is to know about the process and perhaps the universe is somehow intentionally set up for intelligent life. It won't necessarily have anything to do with the supernatural or the Bible or the Quran or the Hindu Vedas, all that could still be entirely manmade and imaginary. It seems that way to me, if there's a true religion God didn't make it easy to distinguish. And you have to wonder what was meant to be going on in the 96,000 years before he revealed the true religion that we really do have to believe in under pain of eternal unpleasantness. And the universe is a vastly huge place yet we have all this stuff somehow focussed on us, God would be there thinking "Aliens and shit? No fuck them it's humans I'm after specifically on that speck of dust over there" and alll the angels and Satan and everyone else will pile right in as well. Though the people who wrote these holy books wouldn't have has that kind of perspective, the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it on glassy spheres.

[orogenicman]

Don't try to tell us what we believe, Drew. That doesn't work out well for any of us. We'll let you know what we believe. Atheism makes exactly one claim: there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god yet.

Do most atheists subscribe to the current scientific model of the Big Bang? Yes, but only because that's where the evidence leads. And note that I had to qualify that as "most," because not all atheists agree on that. There's no standard atheist perspective beyond that there isn't enough proof to justify a god, and so blanket statements are more than useless.

Its not a matter of telling you what you believe its a matter of logical consequences. If you don't beileve, or lack belief a Creator caused and designed the universe then consequently you do believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intentionally create a universe or humans. Let me prove it, do you believe the universe and subsequently humans were caused and created by mindless forces that didn't intend out existence? This is your chance to tell me what you think rather than me tell you what you think.

Let me answer it by arguing against the fine tuned universe argument. The argument states that the fact that the universe is finely tuned for life proves the existence of a creator. The flaw in that argument is that the universe is not, in fact, finely tuned for life. In fact, the vast bulk of the universe is completely hostile to all forms of life. A universe that is finely tuned for life would, by definition, NOT be utterly hostile to said life. The fact that life does exist (at least in one instance that we know of - here on Earth) is a consequence of the laws of physics and chemistry working together randomly and with purpose through evolution. But it could well have gone the other way; in other words, the earth could just as easily never formed at all. The fact that it did is not a testament to a finely tuned universe. It is a testament to the same forces that brought us a nearby asteroid passing the Earth at 17,000 miles from the surface on the same day that another asteroid, coming from a completely different direction entered the Earth's atmosphere and cause widespread injury and damage in Russia yesterday - a completely random, though probabilistic phenomenon.

[Drew_2013]

Its not a matter of telling you what you believe its a matter of logical consequences. If you don't beileve, or lack belief a Creator caused and designed the universe then consequently you do believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intentionally create a universe or humans. Let me prove it, do you believe the universe and subsequently humans were caused and created by mindless forces that didn't intend out existence? This is your chance to tell me what you think rather than me tell you what you think.

If our current model of evolution is true (where you have random mutation occurring and then non-random natural selection and you get something as complex as a human from that) then I think that would very strongly suggest mindless natural forces that didn't intend for us.

Exactly, thats what most atheists believe, that we owe the existence of the universe and our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend us or the universe to exist. That belief has significant philosophical consequences.

[Cyberman]

Such as?

[orogenicman]

If our current model of evolution is true (where you have random mutation occurring and then non-random natural selection and you get something as complex as a human from that) then I think that would very strongly suggest mindless natural forces that didn't intend for us.

Exactly, thats what most atheists believe, that we owe the existence of the universe and our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend us or the universe to exist. That belief has significant philosophical consequences.

Not exactly. The notion that there are "mindless forces that didn't intend us or the universe to exist" is an erroneous assumption since it assumes that there was some other intent, some other morality to nature other than what science perceives through emperic reasoning and observation.

"In the last analysis of the morality of Nature, we see no evidence of mercy in the cosmos; its indifference extends to the lowest forms of life to that of man. The cries of humanity, whether the suffering is imposed by man upon himself or upon other men, or by natural laws operating independantly of man, echo down the corridors of time and space and evoke no response from indifferent Nature.

These anguished cries and pitiful prayers for help are merely cosmic background "noise" to which Nature must (not out of evil intent, spite, revenge, or punishment, but by necessity) turn a "deaf ear"; for were it not so, Nature itself would be destroyed by these same laws which Nature had ordained "in the beginning" (if there was one) and must continue to operate in perpetuity (if time and the universe are truly eternal), or there would be and ending to the cosmic laws: a true "twilight of the gods", and of cosmic harmony, Chaos never returning to Cosmos."

- James E. Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

[genkaus]

The atheist worldview, whether individual atheists own up to it or not, is that our existence and that of the universe was the result of mindless mechanistic forces that never intended either the universe or us to exist. That worldview has significant impact philosophically speaking.

First of all, there is no such thing as an atheist worldview. For example, I may happen to believe that some time in future, scientists would invent a time machine and figure out which points in the past they need to send it to in order to have the universe and humanity exist in its current state. With this belief, I'd still be an atheist while believing that the existence of humanity and the universe was very much intentional.

Further, atheism is usually just a consequence of one's worldview - not the basis for it. I know it is hard for a theist to understand, since you typically base you entire worldview upon the presumption of your god, but give it a try nonetheless. Whatever ramifications it may have philosophically would normally be rendered moot by other consequences of that particular worldview.

That being said, I believe that our current state is the result of mechanistic forces. I don't use the words "mindless" and "without intent" because I don't start with the presumption of consciousness. Therefore, "mindful and intentional" would be the non-default position for me that would require explicit explanation.

So, what is this "significant philosophical impact" that you are talking about?