Why are atheist...atheist?

[Alastor]

I choose to believe God exist because I think the laws of physics just randomly or coincidently happenening the way they did out of the infinite other possible options is rediculously unlikely.

...and...

But to just assert that God doesn't exist without any real supporting evidence is just as ignorant as religious people saying he does exist and describing what he's like. ...Why not simply admit one does not know instead taking a stance of certainty? That, to me, is inherently ignorant.

makes you a hypocrite..according to your own words, you are a hypocrite and inherently ignorant.

Yes, as indicated by the fact that "choosing" to believe God exist based on "my" view of probability is the same as asserting God exist and/or admitting I know he exist, right?

Seriously, why are atheist so arrogant. As I as have said so many times now. Actually READ....before you comment. Withhold your anxiousness to make someone look bad just because you disagree with them or do not like them and you, possibly and hopefully, may actually understand their argument. Surely, atheist are no different from theist in choosing to see what they want in an argument, been going on this whole thread, I just can't keep with it all.

Despite the attempt of many atheist to distinguish themselves so greatly from theist, that fact still remains, you guys have alot in common. Like it or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just quote the scripture that convinced you, please.

[Faith No More]

Seriously, why are atheist so arrogant. As I as have said so many times now. Actually READ....before you comment. Withhold your anxiousness to make someone look bad just because you disagree with them or do not like them and you, possibly and hopefully, may actually understand their argument. Surely, atheist are no different from theist in choosing to see what they want in an argument, been going on this whole thread, I just can't keep with it all.

You seem to be assuming that anyone who responds to what you've said didn't actually read it, and anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as arrogant. What is your basis for these accusations?

Why is it that you expect civil responses when you call people ignorant?

[thebigfudge]

This is another case of someone arguing for proof of assertion by argument ad nauseum. His definition of God is so vast it encompassed everything.

Yet look under the many many words he uses, he repeats the same argument over and over. " we dont know therefore God is possible" even though it has been covered many times that God has no basis.

[Epimethean]

Seriously, why are atheist so arrogant. As I as have said so many times now. Actually READ....before you comment. Withhold your anxiousness to make someone look bad just because you disagree with them or do not like them and you, possibly and hopefully, may actually understand their argument. Surely, atheist are no different from theist in choosing to see what they want in an argument, been going on this whole thread, I just can't keep with it all.

You seem to be assuming that anyone who responds to what you've said didn't actually read it, and anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as arrogant. What is your basis for these accusations?

Why is it that you expect civil responses when you call people ignorant?

Because he's a sheep in wolf's clothing. Bet there's a cross over his desk, too.

[Napoléon]

As I as have said so many times now. Actually READ....before you comment. Withhold your anxiousness to make someone look bad just because you disagree with them or do not like them and you, possibly and hopefully, may actually understand their argument.

I don't understand your 'argument' because it makes no sense. Not because I didn't read it. In fact a lot of your writing is convoluted and nonsensical.

[Alastor]

There are a number of problems with that sentence, some stated and some implied;

1. You are comparing God as an explanation to a strawman of the alternative position(s), by stating that you are comparing God as an explanation to an infinite number of other possible options means that God is necessarily more likely, the chances of any one of an infinite set of equally likely things happening is by definition infinitely small, meaning we cannot say anything meaningful about the chances of it happening - Comparing God to something that we cannot say anything meaningful about is a bias towards your chosen position.

If I understand this correctly you are saying that my conjecture makes the claim that "the chance of God existing" is a member of the set of "things that explain the universe" and that this member has a non-infiniestimal chance of being found true because every other member of the the set has an equal probablity of being found true and, therefore, is infinitesimal because the set has an infinite number of members. If so, then this is not the case. The premise of belief is that God is not being compared to a set of equally likely things. I reason God may be more likely based on design. This implies "the more complex the universe, the less likely some mechanical bias that allowed it must have always existed." Therefore, the probabilities become meaningful within this premise, though I'm not saying the premise, itself, must be true.

2. You are implying that there are only two options, God and Chance, thus your probabilities are going to be false.

More accurately , I am only implying that I have reasonble cause to believe in two possible options, I do not assert this to be the case.

There are also the possibilities of Inflation, Brane Theory, Cosmic Evolution, Context-dependent physical laws and computer simulations - Each one of these offers a possible explanation for why the laws of the universe are as we observe them, in order to make an intellectually honest claim about the probability of god causing the universe you MUST take into account every other possible option - You must also acknowledge that there could many more explanations that we have not yet conceived of.[/quote]

My method attempts to use dedective reasoning, which attempts to reason what truths are inherited from some basic principal, basically that which cannot be denied regardless of the circumstance. This means, I try to set up a premise in which I do not require every explanation. For my reasoning to breakdown, one must find reasonable cause to believe that a mechanical bias does not need to exist for a complexly fabricated universe to be possible, regardless of its probability. In other words, how the universe was allowed to form if the universe did not follow some form of rules. Which, I think, would be like a rock, with no brain or consciousness, somehow having dreams; a complex result (dreams) forming from no set of meaningful rules at all(no messages from a brain, just a rock being a rock). Otherwise, if a mechanical bias does exist, I then, state, it is reasonable to believe that the more extreme the mechanical bias ( the more complex the universe) the less likely is just happened without a designer. Again, not that it is necessarily true, just that it is reasonable.


Further, I may be getting a bit overzealous here, but I before I even look at those theories I will simply ask you, if you feel there is no way I, or anyone else, may be able to find a reasonable cause to believe that the universe did not have some mechanical bias or specific "always was" mechanics when anyone of those theories are asserted as true, and yet still be able to account why this universe is possible. If not, then I don't need to read them, though I probably still will.

3. You are (unknowingly I suspect) giving your own values cosmic mandate. To demonstrate this ask yourself the following; If the Universe was simply 'particle soup' would you still be saying that 'This must have been designed, the chance of such a complex particle soup made up of the hundreds of participants of the 'particle zoo' happening by chance is extremely low so a god must have designed it'? I suspect you wouldn't, that means you are deciding that a universe with Life is more valuable and this is nothing but a reflection of your own values - Unfortunately for you, your own subjective values are completely irrelevant, it is naught but a bias.

Wrong, If the universe was simply a blob of "something" for all time, I would say God is probably less likely to exist, but even still I would not assert he does not exist. Life is irrelavent, I agree. My reasonable cause for saying God is more likely to exist is to due to the complexity of nature not life. This is because I reason a blob of something that doesn't do anything for all eternity and has nothing we may even call form, as we generally know it, is simply less complex than the universe and existence we know. Of course, I am only human, so cannot know enough even to say that, which is why I say reasonable cause to believe.

4. If you believe that the existence of these specific laws by chance is extremely unlikely then the existence of a being who knew about these laws, how to implement them and what they would achieve ahead of time is MUCH MUCH more unlikely.

This is bias. You are saying it is unlikely because you are human. Naturally, it is difficult to conceive of such intellect. Where, as I am saying someone probably, not must have but probably, have designed the universe because of it's complex nature, deductive reasoning; going backwards. Our perspective of intellect is way too bias to make any claim on what supernatural intellect could be like. Of course, there is some bias in a universe with a Creator always existing and a universe without a Creator always existing. What I am basing my belief on is the fact that, in one scenario a complex design seems, to me, more probable than the other.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm pretty sure Al could have a lengthy discussion on this issue even if there were no one in the room.

[Alastor]

You seem to be assuming that anyone who responds to what you've said didn't actually read it, and anyone who disagrees with you is labeled as arrogant. What is your basis for these accusations?

No, it is fine if someone disagrees with me, if they've misunderstood my words that is also fine. I call people arrogant whom I feel read my post and jumped to all kinds of conclusions not indicated by my post for malevolent reasons. These negative assumptions about me always end up in me unnecessarily elaborting on my original posts without adding anything new.

Why is it that you expect civil responses when you call people ignorant?

It should be clear by now that no negativity was intended as I, cleary, am trying to withhold my own negativity. I was only attempting to state what I felt is reasonably true of someone who would assert that God does not exist.

This is another case of someone arguing for proof of assertion by argument ad nauseum. His definition of God is so vast it encompassed everything.

Yet look under the many many words he uses, he repeats the same argument over and over. " we dont know therefore God is possible" even though it has been covered many times that God has no basis.

See what I mean? I'm going to repeat myself and say "I have never argued for proof of anything, these are simply my beliefs which have stated in my original post simply because I thought it would be fair for everyone to know where i was coming from and actually has nothing to do with this thread other than that.

Next I'm going to repeat my quote "God is anyone that, at least, has the property that he created the universe"

and then I'm going to, reasonably respond " we don't know therefore God is possible" is true, as any rational person would agree to and also why atheist do not assert that God does not exist.

Which is absolutely nothing new compared to what I've been saying.

moving right along

I don't understand your 'argument' because it makes no sense. Not because I didn't read it. In fact a lot of your writing is convoluted and nonsensical

Next, I will make the suggestion I've made many times, now " if you don't understand the argument, ask to elaborated before asserting negative claims based on them"

[The Grand Nudger]

You should refine your argument to leave out the creator god part. It would be a stronger argument without that added baggage.

Even so, if your entire argument was "the unknowable is unknowable" you would have to have some reason to believe that there are things which are unknowable. Not currently unknown, but unknowable, a not-so-subtle difference.

If your argument were "We cannot know what is currently unknown" you would have to have some reason to believe that the thing you are describing is unknown. Not unknown to you, but unknown to anyone.

The crux of this whole thing, is that when you say "god"..you appear to mean "that which is unknown to me", which is not what an atheist, strong or weak, is rejecting, refuting, denying the existence of.....etc.
This alone makes your conclusion a non sequitur.

I personally feel that this re-defining of the concept of god is intentional. Again, this is only my opinion, but you appear to have redefined god so that you could use your definition to support a conclusion which you had already reached.