Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm just sayin'—atheists think they have the answers, too.

you do know what the words 'i don't know' mean when put together, don't you?

just because you know what it isn't doesn't mean you claim to know what it is...

Originally posted by Soothfast
Theories about the earliest stages of the universe's existence can be tested by observing the cosmos and also using particle accelerators (among other things). In the very earliest moments of this universe's creation it is widely accepted by scientists that there was only one physical force and altogether different particles of matter than exist no ...[text shortened]... sonal transdimensional set of principles that have no "plan" for you and me.

The fact is, you can't fix the "problem" of where the physical laws came from by invoking a transdimensional intelligence that lies "outside time," because a primordial intelligence is problematic at best, and "existing outside of time" is a logical self-contradiction.

Who says God exists outside of time? What is true of God is that, if time had a beginning, He existed when time did not. But that doesn't mean God exists "outside" time.

At any rate, invoking a Creator God to explain fine-tuning and the origin of physical laws is far simpler than invoking an infinite multiverse. Where's Occam's razor when you need it?

And anyway, physical laws themselves could just as easily issue from some kind of entirely impersonal transdimensional set of principles that have no "plan" for you and me.

That wouldn't solve the problem at all. Where do these purported 'transdimensional principles' come from?

Originally posted by Soothfast
The reason why I bring up the multiverse concept is two-fold:

1) It puts to rest the idea of a "beginning" to physical reality.

2) It supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life. If there are limitless universes with different physical properties, then statistically some will possess qualities conducive to life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

1) It puts to rest the idea of a "beginning" to physical reality.

As I said, it is not a serious objection. There is no evidence of a multiverse. The idea of a "beginning" to physical reality in modern physics is alive and well.

2) It supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life.

I'm glad to hear you admit that our universe, the only one whose existence we have evidence of, appears finely tuned for life.

If there are limitless universes with different physical properties, then statistically some will possess qualities conducive to life.

And all you had to do was invoke an infinite number of universes? Impressive. There's nothing ad hoc about that proposition at all! 😉

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. Although I would agree with the statement that I believe that an explanation for the universe would be naturalistic, that is because of definitions not because of knowledge about the universe, so I wouldn't put it the way you do.
I believe everything is by definition naturalistic.
I believe the concept of the supernatural is incoherent.
If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

Then I guess we're both naturalists. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Of course Christians are responsible for global warming. The rising CO2 content in the atmosphere has nothing at all to do with the industrial revolution.

Even if a Christian is bound for heaven, he remains morally obligated to be a faithful steward of the Earth. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply misinformed.

well, gee, why don't you and all the other billions of christians in the world give to the greening of the planet instead of making new ten million dollar churches or paying hundreds of thousands to send missionaries to convert the poor deluded fools who happen to have other or no religion? Why isn't stewardship of the Earth that high on your list?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]If God exists and created the universe then I would still call that a naturalistic explanation.

Then I guess we're both naturalists. 🙂[/b]

That's only if you arrive at your claims to knowledge by naturalistic methods.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The fact is, you can't fix the "problem" of where the physical laws came from by invoking a transdimensional intelligence that lies "outside time," because a primordial intelligence is problematic at best, and "existing outside of time" is a logical self-contradiction.

Who says God exists outside of time? What is true of God is that, if time h blem at all. Where do these purported 'transdimensional principles' come from?[/b]

Who says God exists outside of time? What is true of God is that, if time had a beginning, He existed when time did not. But that doesn't mean God exists "outside" time.

You theists are a diverse bunch. I've heard the "outside time" proposal at least a dozen times from others. I tip my hat to you if you don't put much store by it.

At any rate, invoking a Creator God to explain fine-tuning and the origin of physical laws is far simpler than invoking an infinite multiverse. Where's Occam's razor when you need it?

First of all, the "fine-tuning" argument is debatable. Certainly the universe is "fine-tuned" to support human life, but there's nothing to say there can't be a broad spectrum of different "settings" for physical laws and physical constants that would be conducive to intelligence life of a different (i.e. non-human) variety. You're right there on shaky ground.

Now to Occam's Razor. Here we have Exhibit A: A universe, all around us. Wow. So the idea of a universe can't be so whacked, seeing as one is provably in existence. Now, a universe is a vessel of dimensionality which contains energy and provides a stage for the occurrence of events. There's space, there's time...what a wonderful place. By definition other universes would occupy entirely different dimensions and so cannot be directly observable, but here's the thing: if there is one universe, it stands to reason there are others. In fact certain quantum mechanical theories that may be at least partially verifiable by experimentation actually predict the existence of limitless numbers of universes. Time will tell, but for now the point is this: one universe exists, which makes the existence of other universes entirely plausible. As for God? Hey -- where is that ol' God, anyway? We're still stuck with the reality that there have been precisely zero "god sightings" in the empirically verifiable record books, so the whole concept could easily be a bust. (Even if a booming voice issuing from the sky declared itself to be God and subsequently worked a series of impressive magic tricks, we'd be hard-pressed to be able to determine whether we were dealing with a genuine god, or just really advanced aliens performing an experiment. The same goes for the Bible, by the way. I don't believe in ancient astronauts, mind you, but it would still be a simpler explanation than a god.)

The multiverse, if it is real, would be a collection of universes, a vast number of universes. Each universe would likely differ from all others by at least a slight amount rather like snowflakes. Now, even if we grant the "fine-tuning" argument the benefit of the doubt (i.e. the argument that only an extremely specific set of physical laws can give rise to intelligent life capable of arguing about gods and pork futures) -- say, a probability of 10^-500 that a Goldilocks Universe will arise that is "just right", the thing is the multiverse by its nature would likely be limitless. But even if we went conservative and said it was limited to 10^1000 universes (still a finite number), and that's ridiculously and unnecessarily conservative I think, then that means the statistical "expected number" of universes conducive to human life (specifically human life -- again ridiculously constraining) would be 10^500. That is a number trillions and trillions and trillions of times greater than the total number of atoms in this entire universe of ours! Here's my advice: don't play the odds in this argument, because if the multiverse model is correct it would likely blow away every conception you have of what is "probable" or "improbable". (And even this one universe of ours is vast both in space and time, with trillions and trillions of worlds, so that the evolution of intelligent life becomes a near certainty.)

Going back to Occam's Razor, I believe the multiverse model is the simpler explanation for the seemingly life-friendly nature of our universe. It's known already that one universe exists, and it would truly be odd, I think, if there weren't others. As an analogy, a few decades back it was still possible to say there was a chance that our solar system was the only one in the galaxy. Now? Now we know of dozens, using delicate observational techniques that were not thought feasible two generations ago. A century ago it was thought that our galaxy was the entire universe, and the Andromeda galaxy was just a nearby nebula. Then lo: it is discovered that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe, all the way to the "horizon" and seemingly beyond.

And anyway, physical laws themselves could just as easily issue from some kind of entirely impersonal transdimensional set of principles that have no "plan" for you and me.[/b]

That wouldn't solve the problem at all. Where do these purported 'transdimensional principles' come from?

That's the question, isn't it? Whence the wellspring of all reality? My contention is that "God" does not fix the problem. And I'm not going to pretend that I actually know precisely what will fix the problem. I don't know. I and many people quite a bit cleverer than I have some ideas, but only time will tell....perhaps. The thing is, a God goes against the grain of natural processes in which simplicity gradually gives way to complexity. God would be the Ultimate Complex System, giving rise to relatively simple things like universes, stars, toilet germs, and (stooping still lower) Glenn Beck.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]1) It puts to rest the idea of a "beginning" to physical reality.

As I said, it is not a serious objection. There is no evidence of a multiverse. The idea of a "beginning" to physical reality in modern physics is alive and well.

2) It supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life.

I'm ...[text shortened]... f universes? Impressive. There's nothing ad hoc about that proposition at all! 😉[/b]

As I said, it is not a serious objection. There is no evidence of a multiverse. The idea of a "beginning" to physical reality in modern physics is alive and well.

The Big Bang is alive and well as the beginning of time for this universe, but if there are other universes there is no way to "compare" their timelines, because different timelines are by definition dimensionally isolated and so unable to be pegged to some kind of "absolute time frame". And there's a buzzing hive of theoretical word being done by physicists -- has been for over half a century -- concerning quantum uncertainty, the idea that all possible events play out in parallel universes, and the idea of a multiverse. There are some ideas for testing some of these theories, and since these theories are generally logical extensions of known physics, they're plausible alternatives to, shall we say, less "scientific" notions about the nature of reality.

And all you had to do was invoke an infinite number of universes? Impressive. There's nothing ad hoc about that proposition at all!

Doesn't have to be an infinite number by a long shot, as I say in my post above. And again, the "fine-tuning" argument could be nothing more than a symptom of our anthropocentrism (i.e. our inability to conceive of other forms of intelligent life that could exist in seemingly unlivable universes).

Originally posted by trev33
i think you'll find that it's the religious folk who claim to have all the answers... 'god did it'. atheists and scientific minds alike have a certain phrase that keeps popping up... it's, 'i/we don't know'.

In saying 'I don't know,' the atheist is as close to approaching truth as is possible on this plane. The scientist (regardless of affiliation) is bound by his creed to explain how things work, but he is not committed--- nor is he qualified--- to tell us why things work... or even why there is anything at all.

The scientist can have a million 'Eureka!' moments of discovery in his life, and never come closer to the underlying fabric of existence than when he first started. The atheist has zero 'Eureka!' moments in his life, instead relegated to unlearning what instinctual yearnings he began with. The theist--- like the atheist--- has zero 'Eureka!' moments in his life, insisting instead that Truth discovered him. This revelation is the only means of discerning the truth.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
What is true of God is that, if time had a beginning, He existed when time did not.

It always amazes me how sure theist are about their own particular inventions regarding God.
Do you feel this claim is found in the Bible, follows from evidence, or logic, or did you just make it up?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Again, an absolute, bald-faced cop-out.

"And it all comes down to God." QED

Sorry, that does not fly. We reduce the material world down to its nethermost levels and see all behaving in accordance with physical law, and then, then, when we cannot explain any further the mechanisms of the next layer down, well then physical laws must gi ...[text shortened]... y crutches and biased double-standards of logic and argumentation.

Either I failed to clearly articulate the argument or you have missed it. One of the main points was that the atheist who claims that existence has always been is just as guilty of short-circuiting explanation as the theist who ends all discussion with the dismissive 'goddunnit' proclamation.

One points to an perpetually self-reliant, non-personal entity while the other points to a perpetually existent, personal causal agent as the source of existence. One is both the thing and the thing which causes itself, while the other is outside of the thing and has no cause. Both take upon themselves (pardon the expression) God-like properties. Therefore, your contention that the former is more plausible than the latter sounds more like wishful thinking than thinking itself. There is no God... but existence has pretty much the same properties as God, except it is internally contradictory.

But the very idea of a "beginning of time" is itself specious.
And, of course, time is not on the side of the atheist who claims that existence has always been. Everything we know about time--- as we move and act within it--- suggests nothing but a linear trajectory. And the extrapolation backwards points to a single moment of origin. Thus, the need for the atheist to start imagining the universal burping mechanisms, which really do nothing for the argument than simply push the time frame back, back, back, ah, forget about it: it's inscrutable.

One cannot soundly reject the beginning, and only a fool would resort to endless waves of existence as an explanation for a.) existence; and b.) the rise of man.

Every time mankind thinks he's found something with magical properties, further investigation reveals that it actually functions in accordance with natural laws.
You have a hard time remaining consistent in your thinking, even within the same paragraph. If, as you insist, the laws of the universe are a constantly moving body of rules-that-really-aren't-rules-so-much-as-expedient-suggestions-for-the-time-being, then there really exists no such thing as natural law... at least, nothing recognizably so.

There can be no further progress until both camps get to play by the same rules and the theists renounce their intellectually slovenly crutches and biased double-standards of logic and argumentation.
Well, in the end we finally agree. That's exactly what I've been saying about the atheist.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Oh, I see. So, exactly as I had it.

Nope. Try reading again.

Riiiiight. He is allowed to simply ignore the creation/cause of existence and jump right into the middle of things and start espousing, waxing eloquent about the state of things... without actually addressing how the state of things even came about in the first place. I cry fo ...[text shortened]... ake a coherent statement? Or do you think God's existence is simply at bottom a brute fact?

WTF are you talking about?
The same thing I've been saying since the opening thread. The atheist who claims that existence is a result of itself--- materialism--- has no way of categorizing or in any other meaningful and consistent way describing what a moral value is.

For the atheist who refuses to discuss origins Reveal Hidden Contentthis discussion is meaningless. This type of atheist will not be bothered with such trivialities, and is allowed to simply play the ball where it lies instead of having to account for the beginning and--- more importantly--- how man's acknowledgement of moral values relates to that beginning. If, as the atheist insists, itReveal Hidden Content is all just physics and chemistry, he is hard pressed to describe moral values in those terms.

Essentially, right out of the gate, the atheist is faced with a death-knell pebble: just as God cannot make a rock bigger than He can lift, the atheist cannot describe something as simple as a moral value using the terms he associates with existence. Except, of course, for that atheist who simply refuses to talk about origins of existence.

Or do you think God's existence is simply at bottom a brute fact?
I do.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The reason why I bring up the multiverse concept is two-fold:

1) It puts to rest the idea of a "beginning" to physical reality.

2) It supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life. If there are limitless universes with different physical properties, then statistically some will possess qualities conducive to life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Limitless universes? That's all it takes? Huh. Given the statistical boundaries of improbability of life just on this planet, I am wondering what yardstick you're using for all of these other ones. One in a Graham's cracker?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I'm going with the second one, for reasons numerated above.

Then your view is incoherent. You asked to fill in the blank "existence began as a result of []". Now you say that you presume to fill in the blank with God. How is that not simply incoherent? It's like when theists claim that God created everything that exists. My response to that is "WTF?" God himself is something that exists (under the theist's view).[/b]

The thingReveal Hidden Content cannot be both the thing and the thing outside of itself. Our study of time insists that all of this matter started at a single point in the past, therefore, existence could not have created itself.

Only one entity known to manReveal Hidden Content has claimed properties of an existence outside of this existence, namely, God. The fabric of His being is something other than what we find in this existence, although He has manifested Himself to us using various methods and medium in the past in ways which are at least comprehensible.

I like that.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The thing[hidden]existence[/hidden] cannot be both the thing and the thing outside of itself. Our study of time insists that all of this matter started at a single point in the past, therefore, existence could not have created itself.

Only one entity known to man[hidden]via revelation[/hidden] has claimed properties of an existence outside of this exis ...[text shortened]... arious methods and medium in the past in ways which are at least comprehensible.

I like that.

I don't. Revelation has no test for authenticity and reliability.