How I rationalize my atheism

[blü 2]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

Hmm. What about ─

EITHER
a. the universe is the work of a sentient being
OR
b. the universe arises from purely natural causes

There is no evidence of a.
There is no evidence that such a sentient being ever existed.
It is difficult to propose a credible motive for a.

There is ample evidence supporting b.
There is no contradiction of b.

Strongly prefer b.


Maybe it needs a polish, but you get the general idea.

 

[F1fan]

As an atheist who has engaged with many theists who claim their God exists, and can perform all sorts of magical things, yet can never offer substantial or satisfactory evidence that these claims are true, I've come to wonder why theists even play this game.

As an analogy it's like theists claim they have the best football team, and it cannot be defeated. So a game is set up and the natural team shows up and is ready to play, but the God team doesn't show up. This team has only been claimed to exist and perform well beyond any other team. But no one can verify the God team even exists, yet here we are at a stadium with an excellent natural team, and no opponent shows up.

Should there even be a game when it only serves as a backdrop for believers in the God team? Believers in the God team will insist they would have won if the deniers had faith they exist and are perfect players. That's not good enough, as the game was set up to test these claims, not be a platform for faith.

 

[F1fan]

Just a question. Why do you feel the need rationalise your atheism. You just don't believe in any gods. What is there to rationalise?

I agree. To my mind we begin as agnostic. We can classify ourselves as atheists only as a category that delineates from theism. There was no atheism as a category util there were theists, and then people who disagreed with theism. We can only move towards theism once we have sufficient evidence that is compelling. But theists have not been moved by evidence e. they have been moved by social and cultural pressure to adopt certain ideas, and for various reasons they never challenged these ideas. Atheists have been exposed to most of these religious ideas but have questioned them, and the social pressure to adopt the ideas.

So I suggest the opening post is an argument why to reject theism more than why a person is an atheist. Atheist is a natural intellectual default, and as I noted there is no compelling evidence to move a thinker's mind towards belief in a God, or other supernatural characters.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You'd be a pantheist too once you realized that God doesn't need to be intelligent.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Criticisms and Opinions?

I liked it. A very detailed, sound, and careful approach to explaining your rationale.

I would only muster up a criticism because you asked: the concept of "extraverse" seems obtuse and kinda winds up having you need to explain more than you have to. Yes, there may be some reality beyond our physical universe, and, yes, logic is not applicable to JUST our physical universe. It is presumably applicable throughout reality, including in what might possibly exist beyond the bounds of our universe.

Simply saying existence, reality, or even "the world" might help you get what you are saying across in a simpler way than introducing the concept of "extraverse" does.

That being said, there's nothing inherently incorrect about your extraverse concept. It gets the job done, and allows you address the metaphysics accurately. So, you may as well keep it. And it even makes the argument more interesting to read to have such a concept introduced. So I wouldn't exclude it or anything. But maybe it makes the argument a tad more complicated than it needs to be?

 

[Brian2]

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

Occam's razor might be helpful at times but it does not necessarily point to the truth and seems to be just a mechanism that might eliminate work at times.
Whether the universe could have come into existence through any mechanism without intelligence to design and organise and a life force to make dead matter alive is not really something that you can say is known. It is a presumption of science however because science looks only for natural answers.
Science does not consider a living and intelligent God as a natural answer but God is really a natural answer but is just a natural answer that is alive and intelligent.
Certainly cutting out God (using Occam's razor) is less work for science which is not set up to answer the question of God. So science cuts out God and defines things in terms that ignore that God might be needed. (so consciousness for example is defined as an emergent property of matter and due to maybe the complexity of organic systems)
In this way naturalistic answers are presumed and assured.
But really what we have discovered about life is that it only comes from pre existing life.
When it comes to intelligence we see codes/languages in the universe and the existence of these suggest intelligence, intelligent design, but as I said, the presumption is a non living natural answer and so when these codes and languages are seen the answer is that chance probably somehow began processes that then continued on through natural laws.
So when life and consciousness and intelligence is found in nature, what we know and what it suggests is ignored for the sake of the presumption of a non living natural answer.
Really the edges of science and the limits of science should join up with theology instead of presuming theology and God away.

 

[YoursTrue]

It looks to me, at a glance, like an intellectual version of that old sidewalk game of cups. Which cup is the ball under, now? Or in this case , which label are we applying to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, today? "God" (intelligence), "force" (random happenstance), or "nothing" (unknowable).

The "extraverse" is just an expansion of existence beyond the physical universe. It's mostly a semantic clarification. That's fine, but doesn't really tell us anything.

The mystery remains a mystery.

Honest honest honest. If I did not have the Bible as a guide I would be "out there..." really bad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably the best advice for such theories is "keep it simple stupid"
KISS principle - Wikipedia

Yeah, I get knots in my stomach when I try to unravel some ideas. Then the knots get so bad I say, ahhh the heck with it. Maybe I'll go back to crocheting.

 

[PruePhillip]

Criticisms and Opinions?

Well there was no Occam's Law, no physics, not even numbers.
No vacuum for virtual particles to create new universes.
No inflating-deflating bouncing universes which would violate what we know of entropy.
N.o.t.h.i.n.g......

So...
1 - where from?
2 - why?

 

[Kharisym]

Why is any logic only bound to the so called "laws" of this universe?

In premise 2, "We can apply logic to the extraverse" I try to support the idea that logic is *not* bound by the nature of our universe, and is applicable to any system whether another universe or the 'stuff' a universe resides within.

 

[Kharisym]

Might I make a suggestion?

Perhaps consider the issue from a platform of "realms" of existence manifesting from within each other. Starting with something akin to the realm of possibility/impossibility regulating the expression of energy, and causing it to manifest as motion, space, time, matter, gravity, light, heat, and so on through the "Big Bang". The realm of "rules" that limited what would have otherwise logically been abject chaos, and allowed for order to occur within that explosion of energy. Those "rules", however they happened, determined the nature of the physical universe that we inhabit. They provide the consistency that differentiates this from that and holds it all together in a balanced 'dance' of apparently conflicting forces.

Then from within that physical realm of balanced, conflicting forces, there arose yet another realm of existence. That is the realm of living things. Of complex, organized 'objects' that developed an ability to self-replicate, and self-motivate. Creating a whole new set of existential possibilities that did not and could not otherwise or previously, happen.

Then, from within THAT realm of existence, there developed yet another realm of existence in the form of consciousness. The realm of existential self-perception. Where the organized complexity manifesting from within that original set of "rules" limiting and governing the energy of the "Big Bang" finally becomes self/other-aware. And again a whole new realm of existential possibilities is manifesting that did not and could not have happened, previously.

Existence appears to me like a kind of flower that keeps on blooming from within itself, and each time into a whole new kind of flower with a whole new set of existential possibilities that then generate the capacity for it to happen again. How many of these manifestations are there? How many existential realms of being and possibility? Will we ever be able to finally know them all?

If I understand your first claim here, "Starting with something akin to the realm of possibility/impossibility regulating the expression of energy, and causing it to manifest as motion, space, time, matter, gravity, light, heat, and so on through the "Big Bang"." is undermined by my first assertion that we cannot know what exists outside our universe because you are making a claim about what exists outside our universe.

 

[Kharisym]

That is not the only view of God's nature. Even if you prove that your definition of God does not exist, you've not proven that God does not exist.

This argument specifically deals with a creator god who brought our universe into being. By extension, this creator god must be capable of existing outside our universe. To my knowledge, the definition I give encompasses all possible creator gods. If it doesn't encompass all creator gods, can you give an example of one that doesn't fit that definiton?

 

[Kharisym]

In this specific case, isn't it an assumption to conclude that existence occured as the result of the simplest explanation?

It is. And Occam's Razor doesn't say that it has to be right - only that it is more likely and we should review the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions first.

Heyo is correct. While the logic I follow in the OP is sufficient for me to be an atheist, for people who are coming from a theistic point of view, its rather a rationalization for what the default position should be. In other words, I can use it to establish that the default position should be atheism, and therefore its the theistic position that must be proven, not the atheistic position.

 

[Kharisym]

I think you are misusing OR,

Using the example of crop circles, the explanation that they are the result of a creative hoax is a mundane explanation. We KNOW this explanation is possible. Therefore, applying Occam's Razor allows us to state that the mundane explanation is the most likely cause of crop circles and should be first in line for testing.

But you haven't created a mundane explanation when you state that a non-intelligent source is possible for creation. We don't know that an intelligent cause isn't essential. Therefore, IMO, you are misusing OR as a device to enforce your bias favoring the non-intelligent cause.

Much of the setup if the argument is to establish that within the confines of our knowledge about the extraverse (IE, we know nothing except that logic can apply to it), anything an intelligent creator can do, a non-intelligent force can do. Given this, intelligence becomes the one assumption that differentiates the two and is unnecessary for the act of creation. You would need to undermine my first proposition, "The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence" to show that intelligence is necessary.

 

[Kharisym]

Hmm. What about ─

EITHER
a. the universe is the work of a sentient being
OR
b. the universe arises from purely natural causes

There is no evidence of a.
There is no evidence that such a sentient being ever existed.
It is difficult to propose a credible motive for a.

There is ample evidence supporting b.
There is no contradiction of b.

Strongly prefer b.


Maybe it needs a polish, but you get the general idea.

That's an existing argument that atheists make constantly in theistic debates. I do actually agree with you, but the argument you give serves a separate purpose contending with experiences within our universe and fails to establish a logical underpinning for the default position. In this way, it can fall short when confronted with a hands off creator who snapped the universe into being and then buggered off to invent himself a cosmic hooker to play with instead.

 

[Kharisym]

As an atheist who has engaged with many theists who claim their God exists, and can perform all sorts of magical things, yet can never offer substantial or satisfactory evidence that these claims are true, I've come to wonder why theists even play this game.

As an analogy it's like theists claim they have the best football team, and it cannot be defeated. So a game is set up and the natural team shows up and is ready to play, but the God team doesn't show up. This team has only been claimed to exist and perform well beyond any other team. But no one can verify the God team even exists, yet here we are at a stadium with an excellent natural team, and no opponent shows up.

Should there even be a game when it only serves as a backdrop for believers in the God team? Believers in the God team will insist they would have won if the deniers had faith they exist and are perfect players. That's not good enough, as the game was set up to test these claims, not be a platform for faith.

Ultimately, while I do use aspects of my formulation in these debates. Its not really an attempt by me to convert people to atheism. Its a formulation I developed for myself first, and for hammering theists second.

 

[Kharisym]

You'd be a pantheist too once you realized that God doesn't need to be intelligent.

Hmm. I'd have to believe in a drunken god. We all act stupid with enough booze. Could you imagine God waking up with a killer hangover and going 'what the **** did I just create' as he stops cuddling the universe.

 

[Kharisym]

Occam's razor might be helpful at times but it does not necessarily point to the truth and seems to be just a mechanism that might eliminate work at times.
Whether the universe could have come into existence through any mechanism without intelligence to design and organise and a life force to make dead matter alive is not really something that you can say is known. It is a presumption of science however because science looks only for natural answers.
Science does not consider a living and intelligent God as a natural answer but God is really a natural answer but is just a natural answer that is alive and intelligent.
Certainly cutting out God (using Occam's razor) is less work for science which is not set up to answer the question of God. So science cuts out God and defines things in terms that ignore that God might be needed. (so consciousness for example is defined as an emergent property of matter and due to maybe the complexity of organic systems)
In this way naturalistic answers are presumed and assured.
But really what we have discovered about life is that it only comes from pre existing life.
When it comes to intelligence we see codes/languages in the universe and the existence of these suggest intelligence, intelligent design, but as I said, the presumption is a non living natural answer and so when these codes and languages are seen the answer is that chance probably somehow began processes that then continued on through natural laws.
So when life and consciousness and intelligence is found in nature, what we know and what it suggests is ignored for the sake of the presumption of a non living natural answer.
Really the edges of science and the limits of science should join up with theology instead of presuming theology and God away.

The tl;dr of my argument is to show that 1) We currently cannot know anything about what's outside our universe, which 2) renders anything we can say about what's outside our universe an exercise in pure logic, therefore 3) Occams razor is applicable as a tool for defining what the most likely state would be barring all other things equal (and all things are equal in a system of complete unknowns, as established by 1).

 

[Kharisym]

Yeah, I get knots in my stomach when I try to unravel some ideas. Then the knots get so bad I say, ahhh the heck with it. Maybe I'll go back to crocheting.

I tried my hand at crochet a while back and will probably try again, but my dyslexia really messed me up trying to count my loops and get the end knots right. If you know how to crochet, my hat is off to you.

 

[firedragon]

You'd be a pantheist too once you realized that God doesn't need to be intelligent.

Not necessarily