The Case for Atheism

[Ryantology]

Most atheists avoid these questions like the plague.

We don't avoid the question at all, we merely do not assume to be true what cannot be demonstrated.

If anyone questions the ability of mindless lifeless forces to create a universe with life and mind its chalked up to personal incredulity, which actually means a lack of faith.

With no compelling reason outside of one's own desires to have faith, this is the only honest conclusion one can draw.

If someone told me a laptop was created unintentionally by mindless forces I would be incredulous of such a claim (barring solid evidence such could or did occur), if someone told me the pyramids were the result of time and chance I'd be incredulous.

And yet, it is incorrect to be incredulous about a being which created the universe? I can watch laptops being constructed. I can always trace that process back to the specific intelligent beings who are responsible for making them. Every laptop in the world can be traced back to an intelligent designer. Who has ever watched God make a universe?

[The Reality Salesman01]

How do you not get this?!!!!! Jesus Christ! The same stupid failed watch-maker arguments, over and over! You are over-looking alternatives! Your logic is fallacious!

[Drew_2013]

Ryan,

If anyone questions the ability of mindless lifeless forces to create a universe with life and mind its chalked up to personal incredulity, which actually means a lack of faith.

With no compelling reason outside of one's own desires to have faith, this is the only honest conclusion one can draw.

Didn't take you long to contradict yourself. You wrote

we merely do not assume to be true what cannot be demonstrated.

Yet you assume mindless, lifeless forces came into existence somehow and caused a universe with life and mind yet you can't demonstrate how such occurred.

And yet, it is incorrect to be incredulous about a being which created the universe?

I didn't accuse atheists of personal incredulity in regards to the existence of God because its a silly argument no matter who employs it. That aside, whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that came into existence somehow and created sentient life without plan or intent or whether it was the result of plan and design by a creator our existence is an extraordinary event and we shouldn't be surprised at an extraordinary explanation.

I can watch laptops being constructed. I can always trace that process back to the specific intelligent beings who are responsible for making them. Every laptop in the world can be traced back to an intelligent designer. Who has ever watched God make a universe?

Very good Ryan, we know through observation that intelligent beings can create objects of significant complexity such as laptops, cars and nuclear plants. We also know that intelligent beings can, thanks to technology, create artificial universes such as in World Of Warcraft and Everquest. No we haven't observed God create a universe but we have observed intelligent beings creating virtual universes.

[downbeatplumb]

Didn't take you long to contradict yourself. You wrote

we merely do not assume to be true what cannot be demonstrated.

Yet you assume mindless, lifeless forces came into existence somehow and caused a universe with life and mind yet you can't demonstrate how such occurred.

"I don't know is a valid answer" when we don't have enough evidence.

Your pretense at knowledge without evidence is a much weaker position.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of ffs, I thought you gave this up months ago, but fine.

Since you simply cannot help but cling to mindless lifeless forces - I'm going to require a primer on godly biology if we're considering it as an alternative.

Also going to need a short summary of the godly mind (and protip - I ain't asking you about any commandments).

That aside, whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that came into existence somehow and created sentient life without plan or intent or whether it was the result of plan and design by a creator our existence is an extraordinary event and we shouldn't be surprised at an extraordinary explanation.

LOL? We -have- an extraordinary explanation, and the only thing that makes it either extraordinary -or- an explanation is the extraordinary amount of evidence supporting it.

There is no "whether" Drew. Your option hasn't yet made it to the table because you've utterly failed to present it as anything more than a collection of ignorance and placeholders. It's vacuous. A non explanation. Not even extraordinary - simply non-existent.

[pocaracas]

It's an ex-parrot!

[Mister Agenda]

Mr. Agenda,

tl;dr

Starts off with something along the lines of 'atheists only find fallacies in my arguments because they're atheists!'

Irony meters are expensive and I'm not going to risk blowing them all on one post.

[bennyboy]

Yet you assume mindless, lifeless forces came into existence somehow and caused a universe with life and mind yet you can't demonstrate how such occurred.

Mind/matter duality is the biggest problem with a physical monism. Nobody can really explain why it is that mechanical interactions between particles lead to subjective awareness, rather than simple "dumb" processing of data. Some will argue that consciousness is just a natural byproduct of organized matter-- but that amounts to a physicalist "Goddidit"-- it's a non-answer that is interpreted as "Obviously, what we say is true, though there's no way to prove it."

The problem with theism comes down mainly to semantics, IMO. If you define God as an active player of any type, then you have the BOP and will fail to meet it. If you define God based on observable properties of the universe, like some types of organization, or like the existence of mind, then people will wonder why you want to use such a loaded word-- God.

[Ryantology]

Yet you assume mindless, lifeless forces came into existence somehow and caused a universe with life and mind yet you can't demonstrate how such occurred.

Mind/matter duality is the biggest problem with a physical monism. Nobody can really explain why it is that mechanical interactions between particles lead to subjective awareness, rather than simple "dumb" processing of data. Some will argue that consciousness is just a natural byproduct of organized matter-- but that amounts to a physicalist "Goddidit"-- it's a non-answer that is interpreted as "Obviously, what we say is true, though there's no way to prove it."

I make that argument based on the fact that it seems, to me, the likeliest explanation, but without the assumption that it is true, and with confidence that, one day, our ability to analyze the brain will produce this result. Of course, it may never do so, or it may produce a very different result nobody expects. Those are all possibilities. I've merely picked the one which seems most likely to end up being true.

[Whateverist]

Not believing your claim isn't the same thing as believing the opposite of it. Noting your belief isn't justified by reason and evidence doesn't mean you're not right, it just means that if you are right, it's only by coincidence

.

Only in the world of atheism does not believing a light is on does not mean they believe the light is off. Its this kind of contorted logic that exemplifies atheism. You realize that to be an atheist you have to opine my belief in theism isn't justified by reason and evidence. You could hardly say it is justified but remain an atheist.

If I have no way of knowing whether the light is on or not, then the mere fact that I have no reason to believe the light is on gives me no reason to think it is off. I'm simply in no position to know.

In the case of gods, the situation is much worse. At least with a light, I understand what that is and what it means for it to be off or on. With gods I find very little agreement as to what counts as a god. I know how to tell if the light is on (if I have access to the space in question). I have no idea how to tell whether gods exist.

If the light is on, visibility will be much greater at night or when the ambient light is insufficient for creatures such as ourselves. If gods exist .. what? Damned if I know. And what ever you may say on the subject does not constrain the next theist joker from changing the definition.

The situation with gods is what the situation concerning whether the light is on would be like for someone blind from birth. Get it?

---

About a month ago, I started a thread called The Case for Theism. In it I made a case based on 5 indisputable facts that I argued favor theism defined simply as the belief the Universe was intentionally caused by a Creator who intended for humans to exist as opposed to the atheist belief that there was no creator, the universe wasn't intentionally created or designed and subsequently human life wasn't intended to occur.

Regarding your original post, your description of the atheist position

atheist belief that there was no creator, the universe wasn't intentionally created or designed and subsequently human life wasn't intended to occur

doesn't describe my position at all.

I believe that the universe exists but do not know for sure how it began -if it did begin. From what science can tell us, much has changed over time. But none can tell us for sure what, if anything, there was before the big bang. Beyond that, all is speculation. Yours is fine. My own image is of a wider space of multiverses like a froth of bubbles, in which everything related to our big bang phenomenon is one of many chambers. My own inclination is to see it as natural transformations of what there is. If I was aware of any cases of gods creating stuff out of nothing, then I'd have to give more consideration to your theory. But in the absence of any evidence for supernatural creation, I'm just not inclined to give it much weight. But you go ahead and speculate as you please. Perhaps its just turtles all the way down.