How I Feel About Atheists

[NoRightOrWrong]

There is no paradox. Existence simply cannot have a cause.

You have two cases: either there is an infinite sequences of causes going backwards, in which case existence of that sequence is not caused.

OR you have something that exists and is uncaused. In that case, the existence of that thing isn't caused.

So, existence itself cannot be caused. The notion is self-contradictory.


Always the theist way out: well, we just don't know, maybe the rules are different.


Existence just is. No cause for it. However, each individual thing inside the universe can have a cause (if there is an infinite sequence of causes leading up to it, for example).



I am a mathematician and I work with infinite sets all the time. I have no problem comprehending them, nor do the other mathematicians around me. Are there unanswered questions? You bet. Many. i can give you a list of the easier ones to state if you'd like one.



What does it mean to have different 'capacities' of existence? Isn't it a yes/no question?



Of course I can be wrong. I have been. Many times. Maybe even daily.

Now, all you have presented for thinking I may be wrong is your 'feeling' that i am wrong. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. Give some actual evidence that I am wrong, not some vague feelings. Show where the logic I used to get my conclusion is faulty. maybe we are using different definitions. In that case, maybe the resolution of the differences is to decide on two definitions for the two concepts and proceed.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

You say existence simply cannot have a cause. I don't think this is simple in the least bit. Everything has a cause. I know you are referring to the Cosmological Argument about a First Cause. I can see both views of the argument but none give us a definitive answer. It is an ongoing debate that has no known answer.You believe there can't be a cause to existence. I don't believe that is necessarily true. How can we exist without a cause ? If you say we just exist, I find that a cop out also. What do yo mean we just are ? That sounds as improbable and unreasonable as saying a first cause needs no cause itself. So I still think the debate ends in a paradoxical conclusion. But I definitely lean towards there being a cause to our existence. We are here, we exist. I've never known of anything to exist without a cause. Again, our inability to know or understand how we came into existence can't include or exclude any definitive answers. So I completely disagree that existence SIMPLY can't have a cause. If your logic and reason lead you to this conclusion , I ask again, then how do we exist at all ? If you say we just exist, I find that as unreasonable as anything. So if we can just exist from no cause. then an ID can just exist without a cause. But you claimed there can be no possibility of an ID. Sounds like a paradox to me.

 

[Polymath257]

You say existence simply cannot have a cause. I don't think this is simple in the least bit. Everything has a cause.

And that is demonstrably false. Most quantum events are not caused.

I know you are referring to the Cosmological Argument about a First Cause. I can see both views of the argument but none give us a definitive answer. It is an ongoing debate that has no known answer.You believe there can't be a cause to existence. I don't believe that is necessarily true. How can we exist without a cause ?

Well, the first step to understanding that is to ask what it means to be a cause. What does it mean to be caused? Even that is not such a simple thing.

If you say we just exist, I find that a cop out also. What do yo mean we just are ? That sounds as improbable and unreasonable as saying a first cause needs no cause itself. So I still think the debate ends in a paradoxical conclusion. But I definitely lean towards there being a cause to our existence. We are here, we exist. I've never known of anything to exist without a cause.

Well, be very clear what it means to be a cause, then. Because virtual particles, for example, exist without a cause.

Again, our inability to know or understand how we came into existence can't include or exclude any definitive answers. So I completely disagree that existence SIMPLY can't have a cause.

OK, where precisely did my logic fail?

If your logic and reason lead you to this conclusion , I ask again, then how do we exist at all ?

The question begs the answer. 'How' questions are answered with causes. If there is no cause, then there is no answer. There is no 'how' to existence itself.

If you say we just exist, I find that as unreasonable as anything. So if we can just exist from no cause. then an ID can just exist without a cause. But you claimed there can be no possibility of an ID. Sounds like a paradox to me.

I never said there was no *possibility* of an ID. What I said is that there isn't sufficient evidence to consider the possibility seriously. But it is simpler to have a 'simply existing' universe than it is to have a 'simply existing' ID that then creates the universe.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't believe I was having a discussion with you.

Have you never been in a public forum before?

I know what the Cosmological Argument is and see as many sound arguments for it as I do against it. So evidently neither side has an " upper hand."

There are no sound arguments for it, as I just demonstrated.
Refute the negation of a necessary cause, or you've nothing left to argue on this point.

And you yourself are biased , too, just in the other direction.

We're all biased. That's the point of saying "bias is a Hell of a drug." It also reiterates why appeals to authority mean nothing at all. All that's left is a the argument before us...

Now, can you refute the logical argument that the Universe does not require a cause, as presented by @Polymath257 ?

You may be one of these smart people who believe a stupid thing yourself.

Of course I am.

There are logical arguments both ways.

Make one for your side.

In the future , if I want your biased opinion , I'll post you.

You gonna take your ball and go home?

You could do that. Or you could just have a conversation, answer questions, and defend your position...

 

[jonathan180iq]

@PureX , you just gonna leave post #548 hanging?

My bet is that you're only making an argument against Strong Atheism, which would be a big swing-and-a-miss on your part. But you have a chance to clear that up, if that's not the case.

Establish what Atheism is, in your own words. That way no one can be confused.

29 pages now... Let's avoid any further ambiguity.

 

[PureX]

Jumping the gun, filling in the gaps, it's not intellectually noble. I have seen it too many times, and it is disturbing, because we should be smarter than simply advocating god for anything unknown or not yet assigned a realistic understanding.

Bad religion is not all religion, and religion is not all theism. Bad religion comprises only a fraction of all religion, and an even smaller fraction of theism. Yet you presume that theism is comprised of nothing but bad religion, and then accuse theists of not being intellectually noble based on your own ignoramce.

Can you see why one might hold your atheism in disregard?

 

[PureX]

Tell me what it is, then.
How do you define it?

Atheism is the rejection of the possibility that any gods exist.

Theism accepts the possibility that some expression of a 'divine realm or being' exists, and atheism then rejects that possibility. What individuals choose to believe or not believe is irrelevant to the definition of these positions as we humans can hold to several different positions and beliefs, simultaneously, and even when they contradict each other. So what humans believe can't logically define anything. And dictionaries do not define reality. They only define the words we use to convey our various mixed up and contradictory ideas about reality. "Theism" and "atheism" are philosophical terms, defining the acceptance and the rejection of ideological truth-paradigms based the idea of a transcendent metaphysical spirit "being", or realm of existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course there is. Scientists have just discovered forms of energy and matter that have been completely unknown to us until now. And we have no idea how these new forms of matter and energy relate to the rest of the physical universe. Our senses did not detect these. Even our machinery didn't detect them. In fact, we aren't really certain that they exist , except that mathematically, we deduced that they must exist.

It seems you have misunderstood something. If they were *discovered*, then they were *detected* and we *are* certain they exist. That is what it *means* to be discovered, after all.

Now, there are many things *proposed* mathematically, but those are proposals and do NOT qualify as *discoveries*. In fact, one of the jobs of theoretical physicists is to imagine a range of possibilities so they can then be *tested*. If the tests show the existence of the particles proposed, *then* and only then is there a 'discovery'. Until that point, we have a *hypothesis*.

This gets back to the same issue: we use imagination to make hypotheses and proposals. But this is *far* from being enough to establish the truth of the hypothesis. The way the truth is discovered is through testing and observation.

 

[Polymath257]

Bad religion is not all religion, and religion is not all theism. Bad religion comprises only a fraction of all religion, and an even smaller fraction of theism. Yet you presume that theism is comprised of nothing but bad religion, and then accuse theists of not being intellectually noble based on your own ignoramce.

Can you see why one might hold your atheism in disregard?

Religion is, ultimately, just a belief in a supernatural. Theism is, by definition, the belief in a deity and deities are, again by definition, supernatural. So theism is a subset of religion.

 

[PureX]

It seems you have misunderstood something. If they were *discovered*, then they were *detected* and we *are* certain they exist. That is what it *means* to be discovered, after all.

No, they were surmised, mathematically, and then "discovered" through a compliant extrapolation of observed data. But of course you've already lost the point of my mentioning it. So never mind.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they were surmised, mathematically, and then "discovered" through a compliant extrapolation of observed data. But of course you've already lost the point of my mentioning it. So never mind.

And you miss my point. What you describe is NOT a discovery. It is a hypothesis. Now, you may not fully comprehend what it means to *measure* something, but if it is discovered, it was measured and tested.

For example, dark matter has been measured. Extensively. The measurements are through the gravitational interactions it has with ordinary matter. But *all* detections are ultimately from interactions with ordinary matter, even detections of ordinary matter.

 

[PureX]

Theism is, by definition, the belief in a deity and deities are, again by definition, supernatural. So theism is a subset of religion.

A belief in deities is called "deism". And theism is not "a belief in the supernatural", it's an acceptance of a metaphysical reality. Religions are collections of rituals, traditions, dogmas, and rules intended to ensure active compliance to a specific theological proposition.

 

[Koldo]

Atheism is the rejection of the possibility that any gods exist.

Theism accepts the possibility that some expression of a 'divine realm or being' exists, and atheism then rejects that possibility. What individuals choose to believe or not believe is irrelevant to the definition of these positions as we humans can hold to several different positions and beliefs, simultaneously, and even when they contradict each other. So what humans believe can't logically define anything. And dictionaries do not define reality. They only define the words we use to convey our various mixed up and contradictory ideas about reality. "Theism" and "atheism" are philosophical terms, defining the acceptance and the rejection of ideological truth-paradigms based the idea of a transcendent metaphysical spirit "being", or realm of existence.

Your definition for 'Atheism' only covers a quite small group of people, and curiously, your definition for 'Theism' covers nearly everyone else, including most people who consider themselves to be atheists. I dare say your criticism against 'Atheism' is thus inconsequential.

 

[Polymath257]

A belief in deities is called "deism". And theism is not "a belief in the supernatural", it's an acceptance of a metaphysical reality. Religions are collections of rituals, traditions, dogmas, and rules intended to ensure active compliance to a specific theological proposition.

OK, so we finally arrive at where our definitions differ. Deism is a very specific type of theism (one that was popular in the latter 18th century). Theism is a belief in deities, not just in metaphysical possibilities. And religions are, ultimately, systems of beliefs including deities. Rituals are often part of religions, but are not necessary. Belief in a supernatural is.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

And that is demonstrably false. Most quantum events are not caused.


Well, the first step to understanding that is to ask what it means to be a cause. What does it mean to be caused? Even that is not such a simple thing.


Well, be very clear what it means to be a cause, then. Because virtual particles, for example, exist without a cause.


OK, where precisely did my logic fail?


The question begs the answer. How questions are answered with causes. If there is no cause, then there is no answer. There is no 'how' to existence itself.



I never said there was no *possibility* of an ID. What I said is that there isn't sufficient evidence to consider the possibility seriously. But it is simpler to have a 'simply existing' universe than it is to have a 'simply existing' ID that then creates the universe.

[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with that. I think it is simpler to have an ID creating the universe than to say it just simply exists. People can debate this forever. There are obviously 2 separate prevailing thoughts on this matter that cannot be answered. Neither one is any more reasonable than the other. It is subject to am individual's opinion and chosen view point. I come back to what I have been trying to convey to you all this time. You speak as though your view is the most logical one or the one with the most sufficient evidence. There is no evidence for either and neither view can be more logical than the other. You may think that, but that is just your thought on the matter. And how do yo know virtual particles exist without a cause ? We use to not know that virtual particles even existed. So how do we know there may not be a cause to them ? And what if an ID created virtual particles to behave as they do. There most certainly can be a cause to virtual particles. Again, science doesn't have all the answers that you require. It provides as many questions as answers, too.

Maybe someone else's explanation would be more sufficient for you :

"The obvious difference between the experiment showing the Casimir effect and the universe at the time of the Big Bang is that those metal plates are in an existing space-time framework. In what sort of a space-time framework did the Big Bang take place, and how did that come to exist?"

I guess this question presupposes that you support the Big Bang hypothesis. I'm not certain if you do.

Here's another person's view that makes complete sense :

"I think physicians should be more careful in their explanations. This whole idea that something can come from nothing doesn’t just defy god, but it defies science. Something coming from nothing should be an observation we’re still trying to untangle and explain. It’s a fact that it seems as though something comes from nothing, but if you have any appreciation for logic and reason, you should open your mind to a possible explanation. I don’t see why hidden(from us) dimensions can’t account for the possible interaction that leads to the “spontaneous” creation of antimatter/matter particles. Doesn’t dark matter alone open you up to a possible explanation for the effect in question? I know it seems far fetched, but isn’t it more far fetched to say something comes from nothing? I hate when people try to draw attention to science with counterintuitive facts about reality, because those aren’t realities…they’re the next deep questions we need to answer. It’s great when the idea that something comes from nothing is presented as a question to be answered…which implies it isn’t really nothing. Something comes from something. Open your mind up to an explanation, otherwise you chose faith over wonder. "

You seem to want to argue that your logic leads to a definitive answer . I don't agree that it does or doesn't. I don't believe we know all the facts and conclusions to all of this. I don't think it all can be explained with what we know and with all of the theories we have formulated and even tested. But still it seems you do. Virtual particles, the Casimir Efffect, QED, etc...may seemingly answer many questions in the short term, But overall, I do not think they answer the question of how we came into existence at all. And maybe it can't. This is all I am saying , that the question of how anything came into existence, including virtual particles, is unanswerable. Yet you claim your logic and reasoning does answer it. It may satisfy your intellectual quest in trying to understand all of this, but it still does not provide an absolute, universal ,proven knowledge of it. To say they just are is not sufficient. It is a hypothesis formulated on the fact that we don't know the answer. To say there need not be an answer is also not sufficient. If that were so , why do you study math and a science in the first place ? To try and get answers.

This will just go around and around in circles. I have read thousands of articles and conversations with professionals and laymen and it just goes around and around. I think this is because we are chasing a tail. There is no answer we can know, at least right now, maybe never. So in the absence of not knowing there will always be logical arguments and questions on both sides.

I can already predict you are going to reply with more scientific and mathematical claims to preset your argument that there is no cause to existence. I know what your arguments and logic will be already. But they will not be sufficient to me. More questions still arise because they arll don't provide definitive explanations. And I agree with you on a lot of the science, but I do not agree it provides an absolute answer to causality or how we exist at all to even be having this discussion. My mind can't just say that , " it just does " , like you do. I don't accept that.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't agree with that. I think it is simpler to have an ID creating the universe than to say it just simply exists. People can debate this forever. There are obviously 2 separate prevailing thoughts on this matter that cannot be answered. Neither one is any more reasonable than the other. It is subject to am individual's opinion and chosen view point. I come back to what I have been trying to convey to you all this time. You speak as though your view is the most logical one or the one with the most sufficient evidence. There is no evidence for either and neither view can be more logical than the other. You may think that, but that is just your thought on the matter. And how do yo know virtual particles exist without a cause ? We use to not know that virtual particles even existed. So how do we know there may not be a cause to them ? And what if an ID created virtual particles to behave as they do. There most certainly can be a cause to virtual particles. Again, science doesn't have all the answers that you require. It provides as many questions as answers, too.

Maybe someone else's explanation would be more sufficient for you :

"The obvious difference between the experiment showing the Casimir effect and the universe at the time of the Big Bang is that those metal plates are in an existing space-time framework. In what sort of a space-time framework did the Big Bang take place, and how did that come to exist?"

And if you actually look at what the BB description says, you find that the universe *is* the spacetime framework. Time is part of the universe, as is space. So there *is* no 'spacetime framework' outside of the universe. And that is my point.

I guess this question presupposes that you support the Big Bang hypothesis. I'm not certain if you do.

There are many variants of the basic hypothesis. The current best description is called the Lambda-CDM model. And it works very, very well.

 

[PureX]

Your definition for 'Atheism' only covers a quite small group of people, and curiously, your definition for 'Theism' covers nearly everyone else, including most people who consider themselves to be atheists. I dare say your criticism against 'Atheism' is thus inconsequential.

Or, you have no idea what atheism, is.

Also, theism is the acceptance of a broad range of possibility, while atheism is the rejection of that whole category of possibility. Thus, there are many possible philosophical expressions of theism (God, gods, divine spirits, metaphysical realms and influences, etc.), while there is only one possible philosophical expression of atheism (negation).

 

[ArtieE]

A belief in deities is called "deism". And theism is not "a belief in the supernatural", it's an acceptance of a metaphysical reality. Religions are collections of rituals, traditions, dogmas, and rules intended to ensure active compliance to a specific theological proposition.

Theism = belief in the existence of a least one god.
Deism = belief in the existence of a god that doesn't interact with the world.
Atheism = absence of these beliefs.

 

[ArtieE]

Or, you have no idea what atheism, is.

Also, theism is the acceptance of a broad range of possibility, while atheism is the rejection of that whole category of possibility. Thus, there are many possible philosophical expressions of theism (God, gods, divine spirits, metaphysical realms and influences, etc.), while there is only one possible philosophical expression of atheism (negation).

Actually, theism is belief in the existence of at least one god. Nothing more. What makes a person a theist is that he believes in the existence of at least one god. Nothing more, nothing less. Atheism is just absence of theism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's a fact that many mathematician's , physicists , biologists, astronomers, chemists, genomicists, geneticists and scientists in all fields of study do believe in not only the possibility but the probability of a God, or a Supreme Being, or an Intelligent Designer. And not just a few , there are millions who believe this, many famous ,past and present.

That's not a reason to believe that an intelligent designer exists.

They believe that there is a cause for existence.

I haven't heard any ideas that don't involve a uncaused first cause. Can you suggest one?

Many of them believe this based on their research and findings in every single one of these fields.

I've also never seen any research from any scientific field that supports a belief in an intelligent designer.

These are brilliant minds.

Brilliant in a scientific area doesn't mean brilliant about gods.

Are you to tell me, that all of these scientists are absolutely wrong in their conclusions about this ?

If their conclusion is that an intelligent designer exists, it is unjustified. It is faith based.

Because you claim with absolute certainty and absolute knowledge that there is absolutely no cause for existence.

Polymath already explained why any first cause must itself exist uncaused whether you imagine something having existed infinitely back in time or coming into existence uncaused. It seems that one of those must be correct, and neither allows for reality to have a cause. Those might be difficult ideas to grasp. Even those that propose the existence of a god as the cause of our universe consider that god to exist uncaused.

Why wouldn't these scientists all believe that there is no cause to existence ?

I don't know that they do, but it doesn't matter what they believe. It only matters what they know and can demonstrate. It only matters how they would rebut the argument made. If the rebuttal were compelling, then they've demonstrated that what they believe is worth taking seriously,

This is the essence of skepticism and where it departs from faith. The skeptic doesn't take the opinions of even top scientists on faith. Some scientists and the body of science collectively have given us evidence that they are correct. They are believed because of the evidence that their words were useful, not because of the words alone.

So why would I care what any number of scientists think about gods, even if they agreed with me?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact that you completely ignore all of the times that you've been told, by atheists themselves, what their atheism means to them and how it's enacted is demonstrable proof that you're chasing a strong confirmation bias and nothing else.

I ignore alcoholics all the time when they tell me how and why they are not alcoholic. A lot of people are full of baloney, and some are just idiots. They don't mean to be, but that's just how it is.

Then you must understand why others would disregard you when you tell them that they are not atheists. You describe an alcoholic in denial, I see a theist firmly fitted with a faith based confirmation bias. Your argument is no more persuasive than the alcoholic's.