| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Informavore
Visitor
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 12
Local time: 6:31 AM
Location: DE
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: An Argument for Strong Atheism |
  |
|
Hi! I'm new here. Anyway, I've been an atheist for awhile. This is a post I made somewhere else where I attempted to posit my argument for strong atheism (surety that there is no god). Unfortunately, that forum doesn't have much traffic so I figured I'd post it here.
| Quote: | No, a higher power doesn't exist.
The religious argument for god is generally that he is required as progenitor of the universe, because the universe is incapable of generating itself (or stated otherwise: something cannot come from nothing). Obviously, this is contradictory and fallacious reasoning due to infinite regression. If the universe can't be infinite, then why can god? (You can also arrive at this conclusion using Occam's Razor. It slices away unnecessary assumptions: it is simply more probable that the universe is infinite because each creator deity added is less and less likely.)
That position is part of the greater philosophical framework of metaphysical naturalism. As David Hume noted, the prime assumption we all make is that the future will continue like the past. Thus we assume that the laws of nature and physics remain constant and that they are guided by measurable interrelations. The alternative is non-deterministic (contrary to our experience) and therefore unknowable and untestable.
As to the existence of a more subtle supernaturalism, I will use an analogy. How can a ghost walk through walls AND catch a falling book? That's a violation of cause and effect. If something can influence a physical thing, we must conclude that it must itself be a physical thing.
Supernaturalism is the same thing as magic. |
This argument is very brief, so if anyone is unclear on anything, I will clarify. As you can see, it relies on a few key assumptions.
If there's anything wrong with this, please tear it apart. I'm always eager to learn more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Bardolph86
Forum Plebian
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Posts: 196
Local time: 6:31 AM
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"If the universe can't be infinite, then why can god?"
I think the theist typically answers this by saying god is not constrained to the rules of the universe. You might want to address that point in your argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Informavore
Visitor
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 12
Local time: 6:31 AM
Location: DE
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bardolph86 wrote: | "If the universe can't be infinite, then why can god?"
I think the theist typically answers this by saying god is not constrained to the rules of the universe. You might want to address that point in your argument. |
Part of my argument was against a general form of supernaturalism, i.e., the existence of non-physical things (aka dualism, pluralism). If something can influence a physical thing, it must itself be a physical thing. This doesn't directly address the creation of the universe by a presumed god (from a deist perspective), but it does render god impotent to influence us. If god can interfere with our universe in any way, then he must be a physical part of our universe. Otherwise, the assumptions which we all hold dear, such as cause & effect and determinism, are moot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Informavore
Visitor
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 12
Local time: 6:31 AM
Location: DE
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now to address the deist argument... Could "god" simply be the spark which led to the origin of our universe? If that's true, then are the deists making the argument that a deterministic universe emerged from a deterministic god or are they saying a deterministic universe emerged from a non-deterministic god? If the former, then I fail to see how god and our universe could be exclusive. If the latter, then I see the argument for god completely unnecessary.
Basically, it's futile metaphysics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamesatracy
Visitor
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Local time: 6:31 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: RE: Bardolph86 |
|
|
| Bardolph86 wrote: | | I think the theist typically answers this by saying god is not constrained to the rules of the universe. You might want to address that point in your argument. |
If "god" is not constrained by any rules then this effectively pulls the carpet out from underneath our ability to reason anything at all about this alleged being. We cannot meaningfully say that god exists while at the same time say that the nature of that existence is such that we cannot, in principle, understand it.
_________________
Are YOU an atheist? agnostic? Share your story with us!
http://www.anatheist.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2550
Local time: 4:31 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: An Argument for Strong Atheism |
|
|
| Informavore wrote: | As to the existence of a more subtle supernaturalism, I will use an analogy. How can a ghost walk through walls AND catch a falling book? That's a violation of cause and effect. If something can influence a physical thing, we must conclude that it must itself be a physical thing.
Supernaturalism is the same thing as magic. |
[/quote]
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unbeliever
Forum Master
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 2550
Local time: 4:31 AM
Location: The exact center of my observable universe
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Informavore wrote: | | Quote: | As to the existence of a more subtle supernaturalism, I will use an analogy. How can a ghost walk through walls AND catch a falling book? That's a violation of cause and effect. If something can influence a physical thing, we must conclude that it must itself be a physical thing.
Supernaturalism is the same thing as magic. |
|
If ghosts are entirely supernatural, then they could never be seen, since to be seen they'd have to reflect photons into eyes, and they'd have to be physical to do that.
If the supernatual doesn't exist, which it doesn't IMHO, then no ghosts, goblins or gods can exist either.
_________________
"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance."
Akhenaton?( c. B.P. 1575)
Science is a lighthouse,
Faith is the rocks below.
God Not Found - resources for atheist/agnostics
"the universe is under no obligation to be easy for us to comprehend."
moloth
Last edited by Unbeliever on Thu Apr 24, 2008 12:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2445
Local time: 6:31 AM
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every concept of god has been used to explain the unknown or human nature (i.e. morality). The Abrahamic religions believe in a personal god. This personal god is nothing but a personal self projection.
The whole concept of god is based on inanity. Hence, I am a strong atheist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exChristian
Visitor
Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Local time: 6:31 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the thing is this, even in parts of science (See Cosmic inflation), we are open to possibility where something is not bound by time space or rules of this universe.
I like the point of view about supernaturalism but... does it have to be supernatural?
if you define "natural" as something bound by laws of our universe, yeah definitely supernatural'
else supernatural as something affecting us which cannot be detected, you lost me
something we cannot see, detect... let's see... oh yeah "dark matter". We can only see the effect of dark matter (though is only small evidence of it), but we can't detect it (i.e. detect: see and other senses, or use some device to actually detect it). Sounds like the supernatural or not?
believing in a god is more of theological or philosophical thing, you should not compare science with.
btw I reckon Supernatural can be magic yes, but could be just misunderstood science or a very good trick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moog
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 243
Local time: 11:31 AM
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| exChristian wrote: |
something we cannot see, detect... let's see... oh yeah "dark matter". We can only see the effect of dark matter (though is only small evidence of it), but we can't detect it (i.e. detect: see and other senses, or use some device to actually detect it). Sounds like the supernatural or not?
|
Not really, as you say it has effects which can be measured. In such it can be detected.
There has also been a claim by a group of scientists recently that they have detected it directly.
After more evidence is accumulated we may even have an idea of what might be causing the effects.
Rather unlike the claims of psychics for example, who provide no evidence and stay well away from any tests.
Or ghosts for which most of the evidence is fraudulent and the rest easily explained by natural phenomena. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
exChristian
Visitor
Joined: 25 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Local time: 6:31 AM
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moog wrote: |
Not really, as you say it has effects which can be measured. In such it can be detected.
There has also been a claim by a group of scientists recently that they have detected it directly.
After more evidence is accumulated we may even have an idea of what might be causing the effects.
|
You obviously never heard of sarcasm, I was merely pointing out something does not have to be physical to exist. =_= I will use emocons next time (partly my fault).
BTW...
Effects of dark matter (i assure you, it might not even be dark matter we are measuring) can be measured in some instances (that's the small evidence, not a constant measurement (so not everywhere, where it was believed 70% of the universe is dark matter, so in a sense, could be anything). The observation made by NASA ("group of scientist" is well phrased too, though you did not define: recent). They were measuring gravity distortion from background light, there was a distortion but we could not find anything there (theory of relativity says there much be some energy/matter there). That does not have to be dark matter btw (yes I am a skeptic, it said 70% of our universe T_T, not after looking at 100 and 100s of hrs through telescope).
Supernatural: "they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world"
I am saying supernatural is just unexplained science (I like to call it "misunderstood science").
Here is the thing. For this experiment to be measuring dark matter not anything else, parts of quantum physics must be wrong. In Quantum Physics, "Dark Matter exists outside the classic space/time/physical structure of the universe as space and time and matter are all products of Dark Matter itself acting upon energy and matter, and thereby creating those forces, in the physical universe."
So yeah, I hate when two ideas conflict but that's how the world works.
So dark matter is science still to be explained. But the going back to the point, it does not have to have physical be detectable to be really there.
"cause and effect" also is something opposes Quantum physics too ("also" could be the wrong word since "cause and effect" is part of relativity, anyway). The cause not necessarily have the same effect. There is very very very very small chance that all the matter within that book shifts velocity at the same time to a specific direction, going through any object (at a microscopic level, particles vibrate, meaning changes speed constantly). To add little more, if "cause and effect" is true, what's the first cause? (I'll be honest I am tiny bit biased to an extend, I like Quantum physics more than relativity)
And for Mr Hume's comment, I'll explain it with math, 1 + 1 = 2. BUT 1 + 1 can be 1 or 2, you know (As a smart young boy have told his 4th grade teacher). Hume have define life as no probability (unless do something you usually don't) and predictable. World is not as predictable as it seems. As I said earlier, that particle 'can' go any other the 3 dimensions with any speed (at a smallest level). He's scope of things were 'universe to his view of the world'. Within that scope he is right.
Scope is very important. Boundary is needed when saying the question or statement. 1 + 1 = 2 in usual math question, that is considered correct. But lets ponder about this... Why did the 4th grade boy say it can be 1?
One can plus one cat will be two cats, one plus one book results in two books but a drop of water plus another can be One. She never defined the scope. Within her scope he was wrong and she was right. So... "measurable interrelations", that is debatable, isn't it?
P.S. read more about relativity and quantum physics, best topics ever! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moog
Forum Plebian
Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 243
Local time: 11:31 AM
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| exChristian wrote: | | moog wrote: |
Not really, as you say it has effects which can be measured. In such it can be detected.
There has also been a claim by a group of scientists recently that they have detected it directly.
After more evidence is accumulated we may even have an idea of what might be causing the effects.
|
You obviously never heard of sarcasm, I was merely pointing out something does not have to be physical to exist. =_= I will use emocons next time (partly my fault). |
Sorry, I'm immune to sarcasm 
I rarely pick up on it.
| Quote: | BTW...
Effects of dark matter (i assure you, it might not even be dark matter we are measuring) can be measured in some instances (that's the small evidence, not a constant measurement (so not everywhere, where it was believed 70% of the universe is dark matter, so in a sense, could be anything). The observation made by NASA ("group of scientist" is well phrased too, though you did not define: recent). They were measuring gravity distortion from background light, there was a distortion but we could not find anything there (theory of relativity says there much be some energy/matter there). That does not have to be dark matter btw (yes I am a skeptic, it said 70% of our universe T_T, not after looking at 100 and 100s of hrs through telescope).
|
I was refering to the DAMA detector in Italy.
Which is producing interesting results...
| Quote: | Supernatural: "they cannot be explained by the laws of the natural world"
I am saying supernatural is just unexplained science (I like to call it "misunderstood science"). |
The snag is 'Supernatural' is also a tag given to shit people just made up.
| Quote: | Here is the thing. For this experiment to be measuring dark matter not anything else, parts of quantum physics must be wrong. In Quantum Physics, "Dark Matter exists outside the classic space/time/physical structure of the universe as space and time and matter are all products of Dark Matter itself acting upon energy and matter, and thereby creating those forces, in the physical universe."
So yeah, I hate when two ideas conflict but that's how the world works. |
Dark matter is part of the space/time universe and has mass, which is why it can be detected. It is not 'apart' from the universe.
| Quote: | | So dark matter is science still to be explained. But the going back to the point, it does not have to have physical be detectable to be really there. |
Yes dark matter still needs to be explained and examined. But no things do have to be physical and to have effects in order to be detectable and be 'really there'.
| Quote: | | "cause and effect" also is something opposes Quantum physics too ("also" could be the wrong word since "cause and effect" is part of relativity, anyway). The cause not necessarily have the same effect. There is very very very very small chance that all the matter within that book shifts velocity at the same time to a specific direction, going through any object (at a microscopic level, particles vibrate, meaning changes speed constantly). To add little more, if "cause and effect" is true, what's the first cause? (I'll be honest I am tiny bit biased to an extend, I like Quantum physics more than relativity) |
Um, this is gibberish.
| Quote: | And for Mr Hume's comment, I'll explain it with math, 1 + 1 = 2. BUT 1 + 1 can be 1 or 2, you know (As a smart young boy have told his 4th grade teacher). Hume have define life as no probability (unless do something you usually don't) and predictable. World is not as predictable as it seems. As I said earlier, that particle 'can' go any other the 3 dimensions with any speed (at a smallest level). He's scope of things were 'universe to his view of the world'. Within that scope he is right.
Scope is very important. Boundary is needed when saying the question or statement. 1 + 1 = 2 in usual math question, that is considered correct. But lets ponder about this... Why did the 4th grade boy say it can be 1?
One can plus one cat will be two cats, one plus one book results in two books but a drop of water plus another can be One. She never defined the scope. Within her scope he was wrong and she was right. So... "measurable interrelations", that is debatable, isn't it?
P.S. read more about relativity and quantum physics, best topics ever! |
Question: is english not your first language by any chance?
I've read that several times and have not the first clue what you are talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
