Atheism: Beyond Belief and Non-Belief

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Except Mine

Most religious people believe gods are mythical fantasies - except their own.

Advice from the atheist historian, Yuval Noah Harari:  The next time you encounter a religious story, remember: it's a shared fiction, a tapestry woven with hopes, fears, and aspirations. It's not about factual accuracy, but rather about the powerful impact it has on individuals and communities. Approach it with curiosity, respect, and a critical eye, and you may just discover the profound ways in which these stories continue to shape our world.

Bogan

You are right there, Jules.    Take Islam for example, and what does it teach it's adherents?      KEEEL THE EEENFIDELS!         KEEEL THE EEENFIDELS!    KEEEL THE EEENFIDELS!

And some of them do just that, while the rest of them never criticise the terrorists for doing what Allah and His Prophet commanded.

Dee

One guy I do remember having this talk with is Nomenculture a while back and was a time he was being rather civil. However, he wasn't having any of it despite the fact he was still wrong.

What was Nomenecultures exact position?  Was it  that he said there was no reason to believe in god because  there was insufficient proof to sustain the belief?

Nom if I remember correctly was hardline Atheist as in there is no god and he believed he was perfectly entitled to say this just as the theist said there is a god , the problem is that leaves the burden of proof equally on both sides.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

Most religious people believe gods are mythical fantasies - except their own.

Advice from the atheist historian, Yuval Noah Harari:  The next time you encounter a religious story, remember: it's a shared fiction, a tapestry woven with hopes, fears, and aspirations. It's not about factual accuracy, but rather about the powerful impact it has on individuals and communities. Approach it with curiosity, respect, and a critical eye, and you may just discover the profound ways in which these stories continue to shape our world.

You are correct that I as a religious person would discount other than my own.  However, that neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.  I think you would have to look at the evidence.  I do think there is good evidence to believe that God exists.  I think the atheist is the one actually making a faith claim.

1) The existence of the universe.  The question to ask is 'why is there something rather than nothing'.  We know our universe had a beginning.  This suggests that there is a cause for it.  And that cause would need to be eternal - because it must be outside of space-time itself and not have had a cause of its own, it must be powerful enough to create universes, the cause would need to be spaceless and timeless because if it were those things it would have created itself and that's illogical.  

Further the fine tuning of the universe strongly suggests a creator.  The odds of a low entropy universe like our own where a universe can form without either immediately collapsing in on itself from its own gravity or being to 'lite' that atoms and particles can't form is a very small window.  Nobel prize winner Roger Penrose calculated the odds of just the low entropy at 1 change in 10^123. To put that into perspective there are only about 1 in 10^60 particles in the universe, not atoms, the very smallest things that make up other stuff.  The number Penrose is massively larger than that.  And this is just but one 'miracle' that must happen.
If you look at each of the fundamental forces you discover that they must be very finely tuned for a life permitting universe to exist.  And I do not mean just one like our own, I mean one where the universe doesn't immediately cease to exist.  All of these forces, if altered even slightly result in no universe.

If everyone played the lottery every day and you won the lottery one morning, you could say, someone had to win it, so it isn't an amazing thing.  If you again won the lottery the next day, you could say that it was a coincidence and that given enough time someone had to win 2 days in a row.  But if you continued to win everyday for a trillion years, at some point you would begin to think, 'you know, the lottery might be rigged and someone is making this happen'.  Just know that a trillion years of playing the lottery and winning, is still statistically an infinitely smaller coincidence than the fine tuning needed for our universe.  

2) The complexity of life.  After almost 100 years of trying to create life by millions of scientists with billions of dollars of technology, they still haven't been able to create natural life.  Even the complexity of the simplest lifeform seems way to complex to happen randomly by natural chance.  This observation lead the co-discoverer of DNA, Crick to suggest panspermia as an essential need to explain life.  Those familiar with what needs to happen to construct even the simplest DNA and RNA  that at least 10 'miracles' would have had to happen to allow for even the simplest life form.  The odds for such a thing are astronomical.  Just know that if evolution is real - it is evidence of God.  

3) A quick third point I'll make is that there is a lot of historical evidence that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.  You have multiple witness accounts from those who knew him.  Even enemies conceded he performed miracles.  It seems very hard to explain the behavior of his disciples, who were martyred for their faith, if this were not true.  While someone will give his life for something he believes is true, no one will allow themselves and their families to be tortured to death for something they know is a lie.  And some of Jesus' early followers watched their families die and all that had to be done to stop it was to say Jesus resurrection was a lie.  

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Not Quite

@just_sayin
My response below was augmented by a chatbot:

1. Your Argument from Cosmology:

• The "why is there something rather than nothing" question is a classic philosophical puzzle, but it doesn't necessarily point to a god. It's tempting to assume something must have caused the universe, but we don't know that's true. Our current understanding of physics suggests the universe could have spontaneously emerged from a state of nothingness, a concept known as quantum fluctuation.
• Assuming a cause, the attributes you ascribe to it (eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless) are based on our limited understanding of the universe. We can't assume these characteristics apply to a potential cause beyond our current comprehension.
• Your fine-tuning argument is often overstated. While some constants seem crucial for life, others have a wider range of values that could potentially support life. Additionally, the argument assumes our type of life is the only possibility, which is a bias based on our own existence.
• The lottery analogy doesn't quite hold up. In a lottery, there's a pre-determined set of possible outcomes. The universe, if it arose spontaneously, has no such limitations. Comparing the odds of winning the lottery for a billion years to the probability of the universe existing is comparing apples to oranges.

2. Your Argument from Complexity:

• The complexity of life is undeniable, but that doesn't automatically imply a creator. Evolution, a well-established scientific theory, explains how complex life can arise from simpler forms through natural selection and adaptation.
• Crick's suggestion of panspermia is a speculative hypothesis, not evidence of a god. Even if life originated elsewhere, that doesn't explain its origin or require a divine intervention.
• The "10 miracles" for simple life forms are not "miracles" in the traditional sense. They are hypothetical steps in a potential evolutionary process, not supernatural events.
• If evolution is real, it doesn't automatically prove God. Evolution can be seen as a natural phenomenon that can explain the diversity and complexity of life without requiring a divine designer.

3. Your Argument from Religious Texts and Historical Events:

• Historical accounts of miracles and Jesus' resurrection are subjective and lack independent, verifiable evidence. They were written long after the events they describe and are prone to bias and embellishment.
• The martyrdom of Jesus' disciples can be explained by factors other than the truth of his claims. Religious fervor, political motivations, and a desire for identity and community can all lead people to die for what they believe, even if those beliefs are ultimately false.
• The claim that Jesus' enemies conceded he performed miracles is not universally accepted. Many historical accounts dispute or downplay Jesus' miracles, and magic or trickery was common in the ancient world.

Overall:

• Your arguments lack strong evidence and rely on logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim of God's existence, and these arguments fail to meet that burden.
• Science offers plausible explanations for the universe and life without resorting to the supernatural. While some questions remain unanswered, that doesn't justify resorting to faith-based explanations.
• It's important to critically evaluate all claims, especially those with extraordinary implications like the existence of God. We should rely on evidence and reason, not blind faith, to guide our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

just_sayin

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
My response below was augmented by a chatbot:

1. Your Argument from Cosmology:

• The "why is there something rather than nothing" question is a classic philosophical puzzle, but it doesn't necessarily point to a god. It's tempting to assume something must have caused the universe, but we don't know that's true. Our current understanding of physics suggests the universe could have spontaneously emerged from a state of nothingness, a concept known as quantum fluctuation.
• Assuming a cause, the attributes you ascribe to it (eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless) are based on our limited understanding of the universe. We can't assume these characteristics apply to a potential cause beyond our current comprehension.
• Your fine-tuning argument is often overstated. While some constants seem crucial for life, others have a wider range of values that could potentially support life. Additionally, the argument assumes our type of life is the only possibility, which is a bias based on our own existence.
• The lottery analogy doesn't quite hold up. In a lottery, there's a pre-determined set of possible outcomes. The universe, if it arose spontaneously, has no such limitations. Comparing the odds of winning the lottery for a billion years to the probability of the universe existing is comparing apples to oranges.

This is going to get long really quick, so in this post I'll just address these points briefly.

First a quantum fluctuation is a wavefunction.  So it is not nothing. And technically it isn't a real particle either.  There is a huge problem with the quantum fluctuation theory, which is why it is been discredited since at least the 80s.  The reason is that a quantum fluctuation has a very short time it can exist as a particle - far less than a millisecond.  A fluctuation that could cause a whole universe to come into being can only exist for less time than even that.  In fact the time is so short it does not allow for the fundamental forces to form, like gravity which would be needed for inflation.  So, even if you could get a fluctuation that could produce a universe it would cease to 'exist' (again they don't technically 'exist' to start with), it would cease to exist before inflation would occur.  Krauss does mention this problem in his book.  He down plays it but admits there is no known solution or work around, but cosmologists have dismissed the notion for this and other reasons.  

• Assuming a cause, the attributes you ascribe to it (eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless) are based on our limited understanding of the universe. We can't assume these characteristics apply to a potential cause beyond our current comprehension.

A common appeal by an atheist is to a multiverse.  The idea of a multiverse runs contrary to the evidence.  If there is some 'machine' that makes universe after universe and has done so since eternity, then we should be observing a universe interacting with these particles, in fact it should seem as our universe is not expanding at all but going in all directions. There should be a tell-tell radiation signature from an eternity of multiverses.  That's a death knell for the view. But let's assume this appeal to magic, because it isn't science, had validity.  This doesn't make the problem of fine tuning go away - in fact it magnifies it.  A universe making 'machine' would have to be vastly more fine tuned than our own universe to make universe for eternity.  The BGV theorem has already shown that any inflationary multiverse theory won't work, and the evidence we do have shows no sign of a multiverse or multiverse making mechanism.

• Your fine-tuning argument is often overstated. While some constants seem crucial for life, others have a wider range of values that could potentially support life. Additionally, the argument assumes our type of life is the only possibility, which is a bias based on our own existence.

I don't think you understand the argument.  It is not that the universe is fine tuned for life like us, but doesn't need to be so fined tuned for other kinds of life forms.  Penrose is observing that you don't even get a universe at all if there is slight variance in the low entropy of the universe.  The fine tuning is not overstated, and this applies to each of the fundamental forces.  Just the low entropy one is 1 chance in 10^123 power.  When you stop to consider all the factors needed to produce a universe, and we aren't even talking about a universe that produce human life yet, the odds are ridiculously infinitesimal.  Now if you add in the factors needed to create life like us - well, the fine tuning gets even more astronomical improbable.  Your argument a) doesn't understand what was being said, and b) really adds to the fine tuning argument

• The lottery analogy doesn't quite hold up. In a lottery, there's a pre-determined set of possible outcomes. The universe, if it arose spontaneously, has no such limitations. Comparing the odds of winning the lottery for a billion years to the probability of the universe existing is comparing apples to oranges.

There is nothing we know of in science that compels the fundamental forces to be arranged with the values that they have.  So, it is possible that the universe could form with each fundamental force having a different value.  So it would be wrong to say that this an apples and oranges comparison. You can choose to believe we are really lucky, but the odds are so huge, it suggests intelligence behind them, especially if you add in the complexity of even the simplest DNA strand and the odds that it could 'assemble' accidentally with all the know 'parts' in place for that to happen.

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

You know you could just also debate directly with the AI that Jules is using right which is btw chatgpt? 

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@just_sayin

You know you could just also debate directly with the AI that Jules is using right which is btw chatgpt? 

LOL.  I guess so.  I wonder if I can get my responses from chatgpt too.  Let the bots debate it out.

ZeusAres42

@Dee

He said it was a double negative which equals a positive and therefore it is actually saying I believe god exists which is not what that statement says at all.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

He said it was a double negative which equals a positive and therefore it is actually saying I believe god exists which is not what that statement says at all.

Interesting,  he debated me on the topic on debate org  and his tack was more or less what I stated earlier.

ZeusAres42

Argument Topic: Not Quite

JulesKorngold said:

@just_sayin
My response below was augmented by a chatbot:

1. Your Argument from Cosmology:

• The "why is there something rather than nothing" question is a classic philosophical puzzle, but it doesn't necessarily point to a god. It's tempting to assume something must have caused the universe, but we don't know that's true. Our current understanding of physics suggests the universe could have spontaneously emerged from a state of nothingness, a concept known as quantum fluctuation.
• Assuming a cause, the attributes you ascribe to it (eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless) are based on our limited understanding of the universe. We can't assume these characteristics apply to a potential cause beyond our current comprehension.
• Your fine-tuning argument is often overstated. While some constants seem crucial for life, others have a wider range of values that could potentially support life. Additionally, the argument assumes our type of life is the only possibility, which is a bias based on our own existence.
• The lottery analogy doesn't quite hold up. In a lottery, there's a pre-determined set of possible outcomes. The universe, if it arose spontaneously, has no such limitations. Comparing the odds of winning the lottery for a billion years to the probability of the universe existing is comparing apples to oranges.

2. Your Argument from Complexity:

• The complexity of life is undeniable, but that doesn't automatically imply a creator. Evolution, a well-established scientific theory, explains how complex life can arise from simpler forms through natural selection and adaptation.
• Crick's suggestion of panspermia is a speculative hypothesis, not evidence of a god. Even if life originated elsewhere, that doesn't explain its origin or require a divine intervention.
• The "10 miracles" for simple life forms are not "miracles" in the traditional sense. They are hypothetical steps in a potential evolutionary process, not supernatural events.
• If evolution is real, it doesn't automatically prove God. Evolution can be seen as a natural phenomenon that can explain the diversity and complexity of life without requiring a divine designer.

3. Your Argument from Religious Texts and Historical Events:

• Historical accounts of miracles and Jesus' resurrection are subjective and lack independent, verifiable evidence. They were written long after the events they describe and are prone to bias and embellishment.
• The martyrdom of Jesus' disciples can be explained by factors other than the truth of his claims. Religious fervor, political motivations, and a desire for identity and community can all lead people to die for what they believe, even if those beliefs are ultimately false.
• The claim that Jesus' enemies conceded he performed miracles is not universally accepted. Many historical accounts dispute or downplay Jesus' miracles, and magic or trickery was common in the ancient world.

Overall:

• Your arguments lack strong evidence and rely on logical fallacies and unsubstantiated claims. The burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim of God's existence, and these arguments fail to meet that burden.
• Science offers plausible explanations for the universe and life without resorting to the supernatural. While some questions remain unanswered, that doesn't justify resorting to faith-based explanations.
• It's important to critically evaluate all claims, especially those with extraordinary implications like the existence of God. We should rely on evidence and reason, not blind faith, to guide our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

Beginning with the Argument from Cosmology, the assertion that the universe's emergence from a state of quantum fluctuation negates the need for a divine creator rests on speculative grounds. Quantum fluctuations presuppose the existence of a quantum field, which is not 'nothing' in the philosophical sense. Therefore, the argument that the universe could have emerged from true nothingness remains unproven. Additionally, the characteristics ascribed to a potential cause of the universe (eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless) are not merely products of our limited understanding. They are logical deductions based on the universe’s known properties: it began to exist, it is complex, and it follows certain laws. To dismiss these attributes is to ignore the implications of what a cause of the universe would necessitate.

Regarding the fine-tuning argument, it is not overstated but grounded in the remarkable precision observed in the universe's constants. The argument does not necessarily claim that our type of life is the only possibility; rather, it underscores the improbability of any form of life existing in a universe without these specific conditions. The comparison to a lottery, while not a perfect analogy, serves to illustrate the improbability of such fine-tuning occurring by chance. It is not about the predetermined outcomes but about the overwhelming odds against such fine-tuning happening randomly.

Moving to the Argument from Complexity, the claim that evolution alone explains the complexity of life overlooks significant gaps in our understanding. While evolution is a robust theory for explaining the diversity and adaptation of life, it does not satisfactorily explain the origin of life or the initial complexity necessary for evolution to begin. The reference to Crick's panspermia hypothesis highlights the challenge in explaining life's origins—it shifts the question elsewhere without addressing the fundamental issue of life's complexity. The so-called "10 miracles" for life forms are not mere steps in an evolutionary process but represent significant thresholds of complexity that have yet to be fully explained by naturalistic processes.

Regarding the Argument from Religious Texts and Historical Events, the skepticism towards historical accounts of miracles and Jesus’ resurrection tends to dismiss the nature of historical evidence. While these accounts may lack the kind of empirical evidence typical of scientific inquiries, they align with the standards of historical investigation. The martyrdom of Jesus’ disciples and the rapid spread of Christianity in an environment hostile to its claims suggest that these early Christians genuinely believed in the truth of the events they proclaimed. This does not necessarily prove the supernatural elements of their beliefs but indicates a level of conviction worth considering.

In conclusion, the arguments against the existence of God presented by JulesKorngold, while rooted in scientific understanding and critical inquiry, do not conclusively negate the possibility of a divine creator. They rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe, life, and historical evidence, which, when scrutinized, reveal gaps and alternative interpretations. The debate on God's existence encompasses more than just empirical evidence; it delves into philosophical reasoning and interpretations of historical events. Dismissing the possibility of a divine creator based solely on current scientific understanding may overlook deeper existential and metaphysical questions that science alone is not equipped to answer.

JulesKorngold

PS: Let the Robot wars begin. 

ZeusAres42

@JulesKorngold

btw, if you are interested the Premium version of Chatgpt has a load of other great AI tools from Data analyses, math mentoring, art creation, and much more!

ZeusAres42

@Dee

Anyway, I recently came across someone on another site stating that if I do not believe God exist that therefore means I believe God is false (not sure if that guy was religious or not as a short encounter) which again is not what that statment is saying at all. 

Dee

@ZeusAres42

Dear oh dear ....... sounds very similar to me being told my lack of belief in a god is actually a belief , the one making this point tragically thought he had just nailed me with a brilliant GOTCHA.

ZeusAres42

@Dee

It's exactly like saying if you don't believe in the existence of unicorns then you must believe in their non-existence. 

ZeusAres42

Okay, the philosophical aspect here arises from the fact that we're dealing with beliefs, religion, and so forth. However, it remains logical. And yes, the first premise is a double negative that does equal a positive, which, by the way, is the second premise: 'I do not believe God exists.' Hence, the first premise is arguably redundant.

As for concluding that because one doesn't believe God exists, they must then believe God doesn't exist, this is a false dichotomy, not to mention nonsensical. We either believe in the existence of things, or we don't; we don't believe in their non-existence.

Regarding the false dichotomy: just because we do not believe something exists does not automatically mean we believe it does not exist. For example, just because I do not believe it will rain tomorrow does not mean that I believe it won't rain. I may simply lack enough information to make a judgment or be indifferent, among other possible variables.