Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[Angrboda]

Be very, very careful. Backpedaling that fast could get your trousers caught in the bike chain.

Boru

Well.. it's not anybody's fault if you misunderstand theism. If somebody says "this universe points to a God", then there are, if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt, hidden premises and presuppositions in their assertion. People don't spit syllogisms all the time when they explain their beliefs.

What @brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

Evidence is anything that supports a conclusion, so it need not be an empirical observation of God himself. You're just playing word games to avoid the consequences of on the one hand, holding that the universe is evidence of God (premise or evidence is an immaterial difference), while at the same time trying to claim that asking for evidence is a category error. Your god intervenes in the material universe, therefore there should be empirical observations that support the conclusion that a god intervened in the universe. If there isn't, then you have a problem.

[Spongebob]

What brewer is asking for is some empirically measurable way to discern God's existence, there is clearly something syntactically incoherent about his request, since God is usually defined as a disembodied mind.

This isn't universally true.  Christians often comment on very testable, physical, temporal sort of events that include god.  Prayer is one.  God's tendency to intervene.  God protecting some while punishing others.  Lots of these type of claims are testable and many have been put to the test and failed.  Not everyone views god as completely disconnected from our existence.

[Angrboda]

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention. The basic argument then is that a personal, intentional agent behind the perceived order (regarding the arrangement of matter AND the physical laws) explains the universe's orderly nature better than a non-personal cause. This can be formulated better using bayesian-type arguments, by showing that the probability of order arising under a godless universe is vastly smaller than its counterpart (under theism), but this clearly requires some additional homework.

In order for God's existence to be a more probable explanation for the order in the universe than chance, there needs to be more order in the universe than one would expect there to be by chance. How are you measuring the amount of order in the universe? I'll need some citations to the effect that there is more order than could be expected by chance, otherwise your claims are bullshit.

---

Clowns are funny on purpose.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God's existence is vastly more probable than not given the perceived order in the universe. Upon seeing a car engine, you immediately think of how skillful its designers must be, it's asinine to suggest it was put together without the existence of some intention. In the case of the universe, the analogy is valid, and the fact that complex entities evolved through time doesn't invalidate it, because the very process of evolution could be (is?) part of a divine intention. The basic argument then is that a personal, intentional agent behind the perceived order (regarding the arrangement of matter AND the physical laws) explains the universe's orderly nature better than a non-personal cause. This can be formulated better using bayesian-type arguments, by showing that the probability of order arising under a godless universe is vastly smaller than its counterpart (under theism), but this clearly requires some additional homework.

In order for God's existence to be a more probable explanation for the order in the universe than chance, there needs to be more order in the universe than one would expect there to be by chance.  How are you measuring the amount of order in the universe?  I'll need some citations to the effect that there is more order than could be expected by chance, otherwise your claims are bullshit.

---

Clowns are funny on purpose.

That’s an outstandingly good point. If a freight train derails by chance and spills its cargo of gizmos in a particular pattern, there’s no way to differentiate that pattern from the same pattern deliberately laid out by a passerby. Universe all same - we see order, but there’s no way to tell if that order is the result undirected trial and error or the result of the Great Universal Gizmo Pattern Maker.

Boru

[Angrboda]

@Klorophyll  I think everyone here gets that your position is based solely on the Cosmological argument.  That's fine; it's a valid philosophical argument

Then we're done. BOOM. Atheism is flushed down the toilet.

 but as arguments go it is, in the end, inconclusive.  One can accept your assumptions and conclusions as true or reject them as incomplete and neither can be demonstrated to be true or false.  That's the nature of the argument.  

I am not sure what you're driving at exactly. The premise "The universe began to exist" is supported by modern cosmology, namely the BB. Although it doesn't completely preclude an eternal universe, the data we have about the observable universe suggests that there had to be a beggining and eventually some end. 

The other premise "Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence" is simply the causality principle. Feel free to reject the causality principle, if you're willing to go that far to dodge God's existence.

The cosmological argument might be persuasive as a first cause argument ([*note 1]), but it is a non-starter as an argument for the existence of any god. This is easily shown by the following facts. The cosmological argument requires that this universe be caused, but it does not require that the cause be supernatural. In order for any cause to be a god, it must be supernatural because a natural cause is not a god. But if the cause of this universe lies within another, natural universe, we have no way of knowing if that universe began to exist, nor what the laws of that universe even are. So the cosmological argument gets us one step back and then fails miserably to demonstrate the minimum needed to demonstrate a god, that the cause is supernatural. Furthermore, there can be no evidence that the immediate cause of this universe is supernatural, as the supernatural is defined as any non-natural cause, and to demonstrate a non-natural cause, you must show that no natural cause can be the source of the effect. There is no argument that can show there is non-natural cause beyond arguments from ignorance, which are invalid.

So, summing up:

1. The cosmological argument does not demonstrate a supernatural immediate cause of the universe;
   
2. No argument can demonstrate that the immediate cause of the universe is supernatural;
   
3. If the immediate cause of this universe is natural, then the premises of the cosmological argument may be violated by that prior cause;
   
4. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an immediate cause of this universe needed a cause;
   
5. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot demonstrate that an ultimate, supernatural cause of this universe is necessary;
   
6. Therefore, the cosmological argument cannot show that a god is necessary for the existence of this universe;
   
7. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to show the existence of any god, including Allah;
   
8. Corollary, no a posteriori argument can show the existence of a god given the above,
   for example, the universe may have been designed by natural intelligences in another universe;
   
9. Corollary, only ontological arguments can show the existence of a god;
   
10. Corollary, the cosmological and teleological arguments cannot demonstrate the existence of any god.

[*note 1] Even the usually understood premises of the cosmological argument are undermined by such things as the Hawking-Hartle No Boundary Proposal; theists misrepresent the science concerning what we know about temporal and existential boundaries of this universe in order to mislead people into believing the premises of the cosmological argument are sound when in fact they are not.

[HappySkeptic]

It may be that the past is eternal, or we don't even understand time (it could've been created in the Big Bang).  There may be a multiverse, and this was one Big Bang among many.

I find it unlikely that there is a "first cause", but if there was, I believe it would be the most simple thing imaginable.  The universe shows us that the complex emerges from the simple.

Well, the complex emerges from the simple only inside the universe, and guided by various physical/chemical laws. But oustide of it, I don't think you can keep applying this heuristic. We simply need a cause of the universe. If the multiverse is true, then let's label the entirety of universes one BIG universe and look for a cause of its existence, etc. You can see that we can keep going indefinitely, if there is a notion of time that is independent of the Big Bang, then there is surely a first cause, because, for our universe to exist, a infinite amount of time must have elapsed -impossible, which implies the existence of an absolute beginning of the chain of causation.

If we assume there is no notion of time, then it really gets harder. An infinite regress of actual causes AND a first cause might both be a coherent possibility. Arguing further for theism can only be on the grounds of explanatory power, that is, a personal first cause intentionally creating a universe explains it better than an infinitely long chain of causation, which looks unnecessarily complex.

Arguing for a god adds no explanatory power.  It is simply employing magic.  The Big Bang might've formed out of a quantum realm where time flows in loops.  Have fun figuring out whether your linear-time ideas of cause are even valid -- especially in a quantum world where random events can and do happen (they are causal only in the sense that past states determine probabilities when averaged over many events).  Even if it were, have fun showing that this cause is similar to what humans have called a god.

[R00tKiT]

That's not what I said.  And again, you are using a strawman.  You know as well as I do that we have plenty of evidence that the earth is not flat. 

You said that there are people who aren't convinced of the cosmological argument, I replied that this is irrelevant because flat earthers exist. Plenty of evidence that the earth isn't flat didn't prevent them from existing. Disagree?

I simply said that the cosmological argument is not convincing, so that should tell you something about the argument.  

The cosmological argument merely proves that there is a cause of the universe, if you say it's not convincing, you should point out which premise you don't agree with and why. If you say, as you did before, that it doesn't prove the theistic God, then you are simply moving the goalposts, and arbitrarily shooting down arguments to prevent us from making some progress.

 You aren't talking to a bunch of people who don't process information and mostly not people who have no experience with religion.  It takes more than just a good argument.  And anyway, there are certainly non-theists who fully accept the possibility that god does exist and caused our universe to exist.  I'm willing to accept the possibility myself.  But it is just that, a possibility.  What else am I to make of it?  What does god do in our universe that makes its presence felt?  For that you need far more than just an argument, you need evidence.

I am not sure it can be called a possibility. Arguments in favor of God don't merely attempt to prove that God is a possibility, but that it's probable (meaning that its probability being true is > 1/2) you are maybe referring to coherence. Proving that theism is coherent is not trivial, Swinburne devoted an entire book to the matter entitled The Coherence of Theism. Known challenges to coherence are evil and hiddenness, which I tried to address in this thread by applying them to any arbitrary object. I am aware that the arguments presented in the thread aren't serious, but nor are those which are actually presented as objections to theism. It's almost consensual that the problem of evil (in its logical form) isn't a valid objection to theism, Plantinga's free will defense was actually accepted as a valid rebuttal. As of hiddenness, many theologians gave reasons why God wouldn't make his existence common knowledge, as it severely undermines free will and the ability to disbelieve.

Now, a coherent claim like God's existence only hedges it against logical impossibility, it's open to the atheist of course to attempt to prove its impossibility for other reasons, but nobody managed to do that so far.

Also, if you merely call deism a possibility, then you are an agnostic, not a deist. The cosmological argument takes us one step further to deism, the remaining defeater is infinite regress.

Hawking didn't claim the universe came from nothing; that's not precisely what spontaneous means.  His view was that the laws of physics accounted for the big bang, which is precisely how we have eliminated many previous myths about god.  And you certainly have no credibility calling anything Hawking said "stupid" until you demonstrate that your intellect is superior to his.  All I've seen you do is regurgitate arguments I've heard scores of times with nothing new added.  Anyone can do that.

Hawking's intellect doesn't prove his claim. Very smart people believed in God too, after all. And, actually, he did say the universe came from nothing.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03...017609.htm
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...s?from=mdr

QUOTE : "One can regard imaginary and real-time beginning at the South Pole ... There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."

So, am I to accept such an asinine claim simply because Hawking is well-established? 

You say, " the laws of physics accounted for the big bang", which law of physics exactly? although I am no physicist, I thought both QM and GR break down at the initial expansion of the universe, that's why physicists came up with string theory.

Nope, you didn't.

The cosmological argument only accounts for the possibility of a god.  In no way does it describe such god or what it has in mind for humans.  So if one believes there is a god, it remains a study of myth and emotions to determine the nature of this god.  I'm happy for people to spend their lives in search of this ethereal concept but I've spent as much time as I care to on the subject.  Demonstrating that god exists and created the universe would be a change in human existence such that we've never seen before.  Leaving it as a possibility is the best that anyone can do.  If left as a possibility and having no way to absolutely describe the nature of god leaves us precisely where humans have been all of our existence, with differing opinions of god and the afterlife.  It is and will remain a continued source of disagreement and bloodshed and the very fact that people will resort to violence to defend the notion of their god informs my opinion of those people.

I think you are attempting a strawman here. I never said we should rely on emotions to determine God's nature. Theologians also present arguments to prove that this first cause is personal (because causing a universe involves a decision, and a decision entails a personal agent), and attempt to infer other properties from its effect (the observable universe). The transition from deism to theism only requires benevolence. It's possible to argue for benevolence on the grounds of the ability of creation to fulfill good deeds, our inner moral compass, the maternal instinct, etc. All these mundane observations can serve as premises to prove some property that a deity likely has. Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children. The evolutionary explanation of maternal instinct isn't a valid defeater here, because it is a scientifc explanation, and scientifc explanations can go hand in hand with the personal explanation of a divine agent.

To clarify this distinction between scientific explanations and personal explanations, here is a very mundane example: let's say you shot down a bird. You, as a conscious agent (A), decided to kill the bird (B) using some haunting weapon (H). 

The scientifc explanation of the bird's death: H perforated critical body parts of the bird at high speed and caused his instant death.
The personal explanation of the bird's death: A decided to shoot down B.

We can easily see here why the scientific explanation only gives the mechanical, boring part of the full explanation. The real motive behind the curtain is the agent who decided at some point to execute the sequence of events that led to the bird's death.

Similarly, with the universe, we can explain stuff scientifically all we want, there is still room for a personal explanation of why various phenomena occur, and of why, above all, this universe exists.

[Spongebob]

@Klorophyll I've addressed all of your nonsensical comments and @Angrboda made a vastly superior post that addresses all of your arguments so effectively that the question is now completely moot. End of debate; go back to your hole, Kloro.

[Angrboda]

Something can't give or cause what it doesn't have, if this rule holds (or, at worst, is probable), then a malevolent deity is unlikely to have created mothers who instinctively protect their children.

A malevolent deity may have reasons for creating good just as a benevolent deity may have reasons for allowing evil. So this "can't give what you don't have" is false. Psychopaths fake empathy to deceive their victims all the time.

[Deesse23]

Hawking's intellect doesn't prove his claim. Very smart people believed in God too, after all. And, actually, he did say the universe came from nothing.

No, he didn't, according to both your links!!!!!!

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03...017609.htm
QUOTE : "One can regard imaginary and real-time beginning at the South Pole ... There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."

So, am I to accept such an asinine claim simply because Hawking is well-established? 

You bastard have quote mined Hawking. Do you have no decent and honest bone in your body?
The very next paragraph says:

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said, hinting that a lot of what we believe is derived from a human-centric perspective, which might limit the scope of human knowledge of the world.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new...s?from=mdr

Read the actual article instead of citing the (somewhat misleading) title/link description.
The sloppiness of your thinking is remarkable!

The Big Bang is the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature which according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

The theory holds that the universe in retrospective can shrink to the size of an extremely small "subatomic ball" known as the singularity.

Hawking said that the laws of physics and time cease to function inside that tiny particle of heat and energy.

In other words, the ordinary real time as we know now shrinks infinitely as the universe becomes ever smaller but never reaches a definable starting point

More sloppy thinking

Theologians also present arguments to prove that this first cause is personal (because causing a universe involves a decision, and a decision entails a personal agent)

Why does causing universes must involve a decision?
Bull
shit