Q about arguments for God's existence.

[robvalue]

Oh, and no, I'm not saying supernatural isn't it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's absolutely no reason to think you are right.

Gotcha.

That makes more sense. I thought yall were 100% certain there was no God. I can understand now. Thanks.

You're welcome

Of course, I only speak for myself. Any other atheist may tell you something entirely different about what they think. But I would wager most atheists would agree with what I said.

You are right, in the mathematical situation I gave, I do have an idea what the answer is, in that I am aware of sensible boundaries. In this case, the boundaries are non-negotiable so it's not the same as with God. That one was meant to be a warm-up which I should have made clearer!

I have absolutely no idea at all how many metaphysical snooker balls are floating around my head at any given time. I have no information about them, no way to detect them, and no way to tell them apart from nothing at all. But I can still say that the suggestion that I do have such snooker balls going round me is absurd, because there is no reason to believe it is true. It goes against everything I've ever experienced, and the person telling me this information clearly has no way to know either. It's more reasonable to assign a high probability (not certainty) to there not being such snooker balls.

Otherwise, if we say it's just 50:50 we have opened the door to everything. We now have to consider it even money that there are also metaphysical dragons, metaphysical drain inspectors, metaphysical manifestation of Beethoven ideas and metaphysical angry Giants also orbiting me all at once. To me, it's not reasonable or indeed useful to consider all those possibilities as 50:50.

Let's take it further. I have absolutely no idea if there's a metaphysical trap that has just appeared on the other side of the door which is going to kill me in some horrific way when I open it. No way I can possibly know. Do I call it 50:50? Or do I assign a very high probability to there not being such a trap, due to no evidence?

If we have to consider everything that we can't prove isn't true, we would never be able to act. We'd be forever paralysed by absurd possibilities.

Just to be clear, this isn't me saying "You are wrong", this is me explaining why I consider some ideas and explanations to be less probable than others, without having to assume absolute certainty about anything. Waiting for absolute certainty would also lead you to never act. It's a red herring.

[The Grand Nudger]

I hope yall realize that her takeaway from all of this will be that even atheists don't actually think what they say they do, and that her god remains plausible and respectable even to those that don't believe...lol.  It makes more sense, to her, for a fucking atheist to accept the possibility of -her- god. Notice the pattern, we couldn't explain goodness, what value would life have..on and on.......

This is the bargaining phase.

[Tonus]

That makes more sense. I thought yall were 100% certain there was no God. I can understand now. Thanks.

For the record, I am certain that there is no god. I admit that I cannot prove that there is no god. But I am certain that there isn't. I am equally certain that there are no unicorns. Or leprechauns. Or dragons. Or tooth fairies. Or Santa. I cannot prove that any of those are not real. But I'm certain that they are not.

I was like most theists when I was a believer, in that I was certain that there was a god. Just like you are certain that there is a god. Certainty doesn't guarantee that we're right, it is just a frame of mind. Subconsciously we are likely to be certain of many things that are not so.

Of course, it should be easy enough to overcome my sense of certainty regarding god, by getting her to show up and settle the question. Your certainty is a bit more... uncertain. Just because god won't show up in a manner clear to all does not mean he isn't there, so you can maintain your certainty in the face of a lack of evidence, or questionable evidence, or questionable beliefs. Neither of us is right or wrong for being certain. But only one of us can be proven wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the nature of god would imply that he is not shy about doing just that. So I'll remain certain until such time as a god or gods decides that they'll settle the issue.

[Esquilax]

I did not know there were other options available that you guys considered. My apologies.

The thing is, the whole "everything came from nothing" bit is so wrong it doesn't even reflect a possible option, in my view. At least not one I could consider with any degree of seriousness, at the moment. It's an apologist tactic to make atheism look oversimplified and impossible, a way to turn opposition into a cartoon to be laughed at, not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

With regards to the options, there's a whole bunch of them, as there's a point in our universe's history where what we can understand about it breaks down, at the Planck time. Things are... different, there. Space and time occupy new states that we can't even begin to predict, at the moment of the big bang, we can't rely on anything we understand about this reality there. The short answer is that we don't know what's beyond it, but that appealing to the mechanics of causality in this universe is like appealing to mechanical engineering for knowledge of how to make a sandwich; the two aren't applicable to one another.

So it's not "everything came from nothing," because nothing does not accurately describe the state of affairs prior to this universe. In actual fact, it'd be more accurate to say that the universe came from everything, given that all that is within this universe was bound up in the matter of the big bang, in one form or another. Where did all that come from? That might not even be a question that makes sense, there. For something to come from somewhere assumes a level of causality that we can't even be sure existed prior to the big bang.

The point is, it's a big, complex topic with a bunch of qualifiers, that our best science doesn't even get yet. There's no need to simplify it any.

[IATIA]

The "Big Bang" theory, in most lines of thought now, is no longer considered an "explosion' of a singularity, but rather an 'explosion' of space-time itself.

[Catholic_Lady]

Gotcha.

That makes more sense. I thought yall were 100% certain there was no God. I can understand now. Thanks.

You're welcome

Of course, I only speak for myself. Any other atheist may tell you something entirely different about what they think. But I would wager most atheists would agree with what I said.

You are right, in the mathematical situation I gave, I do have an idea what the answer is, in that I am aware of sensible boundaries. In this case, the boundaries are non-negotiable so it's not the same as with God. That one was meant to be a warm-up which I should have made clearer!

I have absolutely no idea at all how many metaphysical snooker balls are floating around my head at any given time. I have no information about them, no way to detect them, and no way to tell them apart from nothing at all. But I can still say that the suggestion that I do have such snooker balls going round me is absurd, because there is no reason to believe it is true. It goes against everything I've ever experienced, and the person telling me this information clearly has no way to know either. It's more reasonable to assign a high probability (not certainty) to there not being such snooker balls.

Otherwise, if we say it's just 50:50 we have opened the door to everything. We now have to consider it even money that there are also metaphysical dragons, metaphysical drain inspectors, metaphysical manifestation of Beethoven ideas and metaphysical angry Giants also orbiting me all at once. To me, it's not reasonable or indeed useful to consider all those possibilities as 50:50.

Let's take it further. I have absolutely no idea if there's a metaphysical trap that has just appeared on the other side of the door which is going to kill me in some horrific way when I open it. No way I can possibly know. Do I call it 50:50? Or do I assign a very high probability to there not being such a trap, due to no evidence?

If we have to consider everything that we can't prove isn't true, we would never be able to act. We'd be forever paralysed by absurd possibilities.

Just to be clear, this isn't me saying "You are wrong", this is me explaining why I consider some ideas and explanations to be less probable than others, without having to assume absolute certainty about anything. Waiting for absolute certainty would also lead you to never act. It's a red herring.

Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me!

---

I did not know there were other options available that you guys considered. My apologies.

The thing is, the whole "everything came from nothing" bit is so wrong it doesn't even reflect a possible option, in my view. At least not one I could consider with any degree of seriousness, at the moment. It's an apologist tactic to make atheism look oversimplified and impossible, a way to turn opposition into a cartoon to be laughed at, not an accurate reflection of the state of affairs.

With regards to the options, there's a whole bunch of them, as there's a point in our universe's history where what we can understand about it breaks down, at the Planck time. Things are... different, there. Space and time occupy new states that we can't even begin to predict, at the moment of the big bang, we can't rely on anything we understand about this reality there. The short answer is that we don't know what's beyond it, but that appealing to the mechanics of causality in this universe is like appealing to mechanical engineering for knowledge of how to make a sandwich; the two aren't applicable to one another.

So it's not "everything came from nothing," because nothing does not accurately describe the state of affairs prior to this universe. In actual fact, it'd be more accurate to say that the universe came from everything, given that all that is within this universe was bound up in the matter of the big bang, in one form or another. Where did all that come from? That might not even be a question that makes sense, there. For something to come from somewhere assumes a level of causality that we can't even be sure existed prior to the big bang.

The point is, it's a big, complex topic with a bunch of qualifiers, that our best science doesn't even get yet. There's no need to simplify it any.

Thanks for clarifying!

[IATIA]

I thought yall were 100% certain there was no God.

There are a few that will make that claim (myself for one), but I would say that vast majority of atheists just accept that there is no god without claiming any certainty.

[robvalue]

No problem CL

@all

For all practical purposes, I live my live as if there are no gods. I don't need absolute certainty for this, or for anything in fact. I literally can't have absolute certainty due to my own fallibility and the problems of solipsism. This makes me a strong but not a gnostic atheist. If you define knowledge as believing something beyond reasonable doubt, then I would be gnostic. I think if anyone is "in charge" it's far more likely to be in another reality where we have been created as a simulation. They wouldn't be a god any more than we are when we run a simulation.

An atheist may however live their life as if they are not sure what to believe about it. They don't believe there is a god, but don't believe there isn't, either. Like an undecided juror. That makes them an atheist as they have rejected God claims, but not a strong or gnostic atheist because they don't claim to believe/know there is no God.

So it's far better to ask an atheist what their views are, rather than assuming their position.

[ignoramus]

I think about 99% of us can be comfortable with Rob's description.
It's our sceptism of the existence of god which itself will not allow us to discount the possibility ... otherwise we aren't being honest with ourselves.
If a god came down tomorrow and moved mountains for us, we'll be the first to acknowledge its existence, again, otherwise we'll be lying to ourselves.
But we're all confident, this god would not be the made up one as described by the bible or the quran.

[robvalue]

Indeed! And there would be no way to confirm that it was the character described in any particular book, because there's not enough information. I suppose you could give it the book and let it confirm or deny being that character, and if it is, to correct any errors.

Apparently God doesn't do stuff anymore, so it's unlikely we will see him. He just blows leaves around into interesting patterns and gives people the odd psychedelic experience which is indistinguishable from a mental breakdown.