What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
#271
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
We don't know all the laws of physics, so any claim that the Big Bang violated those laws is unfounded.

Your conclusion is based on us not yet understanding the Big Bang, We don't understand it, therefore God. That is precisely the God of the Gaps fallacy.
#272
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
By rewriting the program I mean theistic claims such as answering prayers, performing miracles, bestowing blessings on certain activities or people, etc. Your view that God is hands-off and just lets the universe run is deism.

So you would take the hundred-and-first alien abduction claim as seriously as the first?
Topic's author
#273
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
See Stephen Hawking's lecture about the beginning of time. It's freely available on the internet. According to him, all laws were broken down. I'm basing my conclusion on his findings. Why should I trust you over him?


Topic's author
#274
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
That isn't a requirement for God. God in this sense is a prime, eternal consciousness.
Topic's author
#275
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
As for alien abductions, aliens are physical beings. We have inductive evidence against them at least visiting our planet. So no
#276
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Hawking was writing for a lay audience, and probably should have chosen his words more carefully. I doubt he meant to imply that we know all laws of physics.

But if you want to use Hawking as your authority, here is an excerpt from that same lecture..

"By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."
Topic's author
#277
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
He is saying that the laws themselves are traceable back to a point at which they all broke down. That is intrinsic to the laws themselves, and not any external agency. An explanation as to how these laws originated is not offered.

#278
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I almost think of God as a set of car keys. 
A jingle jangle jingle. Everyone focus on god. 

God doesn't exists.
Yes he does 
No he don't.
Does to 
Does not 
But he is real .
No it ainf 
Is 
Isn't.

And this continues on and on. 

Everyone talk about .
Focus on god. 
Well stated.  It's merely a distraction, a red-herring, an attempt to derail intelligent discussion.

Deism cuts to the meat.  (IFF) Desim is True (THEN) what? [crickets].
#279
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
He is saying that the laws themselves are traceable back to a point at which they all broke down. That is intrinsic to the laws themselves, and not any external agency. An explanation as to how these laws originated is not offered.
An explanation as to how these laws originated is beyond our epistemological limits.
#280
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Which defintion of God has no evidence either way? And I think we understand the term "evidence" differently.
What is your "best evidence"?

The Teleological (anthropomorphic) fallacy?

The (purely semantic) Ontological argument?

The (sample biased) Rare Earth Hypothesis?

Spinoza wrote an airtight logical proof of god, but somehow I don't think you'd agree with his deductions.

Why would you quibble about the term "evidence" when you can just SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE.
#281
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
An explanation as to how these laws originated is beyond our epistemological limits.But back to the second, tougher half of our original question: Could the laws of physics themselves, and not just the constants sewn into them, be changing? “That’s much harder to say,” says Carroll, who points out that there are different degrees of disruption to consider. If the rules of some “sub-theory” of quantum mechanics, like quantum electrodynamics, turned out to be fluid, maybe existing theory could accommodate that. But if the laws of quantum mechanics itself are in flux, says Carroll, “That would be very bizarre.” No theory predicts how or why such a change might happen; there is simply no framework from which to investigate the question.But back to the second, tougher half of our original question: Could the laws of physics themselves, and not just the constants sewn into them, be changing? “That’s much harder to say,” says Carroll, who points out that there are different degrees of disruption to consider. If the rules of some “sub-theory” of quantum mechanics, like quantum electrodynamics, turned out to be fluid, maybe existing theory could accommodate that. But if the laws of quantum mechanics itself are in flux, says Carroll, “That would be very bizarre.” No theory predicts how or why such a change might happen; there is simply no framework from which to investigate the question.
Because no rational, logical common sense 'origin' explanations exist.

Cosmic laws/principles are eternal, Ex there can only exist, for eternity, five and only five regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra of Universe.

No amount of hand waving or hoky pokey can change eternal truths.

Lee Smolin --"3 Roads To Quantum Gravity"-- attempts to allow for the finite set of cosmic laws to not be so cosmic afterall with his multiverse or bubble verse local universes popping into existence with black holes.

He actually goes into this more in his first book, that I forget the name as I do his last book.

...."But back to the second, tougher half of our original question: Could the laws of physics themselves, and not just the constants sewn into them, be changing?

...“That’s much harder to say,” says Carroll, who points out that there are different degrees of disruption to consider. If the rules of some “sub-theory” of quantum mechanics, like quantum electrodynamics, turned out to be fluid, maybe existing theory could accommodate that. But if the laws of quantum mechanics itself are in flux, says Carroll, “That would be very bizarre.” No theory predicts how or why such a change might happen; there is simply no framework from which to investigate the question.

...As far as we can tell, the universe seems to be playing fair"..


#282
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
He is not just talking about the origin of physical laws. He is talking about the origin of the universe. He is essentially saying that the Big Bang did not require an outside agent. Here is the quote in full context, where he contrasts this explanation to religious explanations.

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside." --Hawking

Anyway, quoting Hawking  amounts to an argument from authority. If you want to accept him as an authoritative source, then here is a quote from his final book.

"There is no god." --Hawking 

If you think he is wrong about that, then you are just cherry-picking his statements.
#283
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
We knew about the Higgs particle decades before it was verified empirically through pure math alone.

We did not know. We predicted. It turned out to be true.

Kurt Godels modal ontological argument, using axioms of logic, was computer verified.
Hotels presupposes the notion of positiveand negative properties i believe I have already explained my feelings about presuposition.
#284
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I keep telling you this and you run away in fear because you have no rebuttal.
Men invent gods. I know why you are so afraid of that answer, do you?
#285
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
i believe I have already explained my feelings about presuposition.
Same story with mesons predicted existence, to which Richard Feynman shouted out from back of the audiencce "in a pigs eye", and of course he late had to eat his pigs eye comment.


..."Predicted theoretically in 1935 by the Japanese physicist Yukawa Hideki, the existence of mesons was confirmed in 1947 by a team led by the English physicist Cecil Frank Powell with the discovery of the pi-meson (pion) in cosmic-ray particle interactions.

Same goes with black holes that are pretty much confirmed as the powerful source at centers of many if not all galaxies.



Topic's author
#286
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We knew using mathematics. As predicted, it was true.

Positive properties are just ones that don't contradict themselves.

#287
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Then many god concepts have negative properties and so can be dismissed. 
#288
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Fallaneze
It depends on what type of atheism you are talking about. By strict definition, i wouldn't need a strong argument. I could just say i haven't seen any evidence to believe in any gods. If said person never experiences anything that would change his/her mind than they have sufficient enough reason to stay skeptical. 

I'm not an atheist by the strict definition, i just understand their concerns. Furthermore, their logic has made me realize what spiritual platforms are man-made. This would be all of the main religions... they are clearly man-made. However, i am not an atheist in the sense of spirituality in general bc i see a very possible if not probable platform of non-duality... a pantheistic type of platform. That i wouldn't be able to confidently disprove. I have also had spiritual experiences so i personally have strong evidence to suspect a manifestation of spirituality. However, to everyone else this is weak evidence and i know that. So i can't confidently disprove an atheist's logic and reasoning they don't believe. All i can do is explain my reasons in what i choose to believe and hope they see it. Most of the world can't see beyond their awareness. There are different levels of awareness and open-mindedness. If a person can't transcend their level of understanding... then they can't put where they are in perspective. Unfortunately, at this point in humanity... many people can't think in a meta level... observing everything from beyond their own perspective. So there is no argument other than direct strong evidence you can give an atheist to change their perspective. Even then it might not be enough. However, there is strong enough evidence to truly doubt the man-made religions. If there wasn't there wouldn't be atheists... so to that level i would also be an atheist.  
#289
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Fallaneze
STRONGEST ?    the word itself ATHEIST has no meaning....it was invented by MIND and LIFE molesting Parasite Vampires who play "GOD" ?

........"GOD" like the word ATHEIST is another human invention...it was derived from a now extinct East Germanic language which itself did not
have the word in its vocabulary...."GOD" is a derivative of other words.....it never existed in all of human history until some Roman Church Vampire 
conceived it while translating the Hebrew/Greek Bible versions into some GOTHIC Comic Book version...in 400 AD...

.........GOT IT ?    400 AD....400 years after one of the idiotic DIVINE BEING hoax....   i.e. JESUS was executed...by none other than ROME !  


The JEWS made MONOTHEISM the RULE for their DIVINE CREATOR....they were forbidden from using his name ?  they did NOT use the word 
"GOD" it did not exist in the time of MOSES..and the JEWS did not go on a rampage of trying to CONVERT humanity into JUDAISM.....it was and 
still is very selective..like a private Country Club for true BLOODLINE only...to a JEW anyone who does not believe in "GOD" that is NOT A JEW
is like SO WHAT....go away...you are not invited or welcome to accept the JEW GOD ?   the word ATHEIST has no meaning to them...and these 
are the people that started the Abrahamic construct...that was knocked off by ROME and ISLAM...both kicking the JEW GOD construct in the crotch
by building JESUS and ALLAH with similar storylines as the JEW..!   it's a 3 way HOAX by Middle East PSYCHOPATHS...JEW-JESUS-ALLAH
All three "GODS" at WAR with each other..each claims to be the only GOD of GODS...and their followers are HYPNOTIZED VAMPIRES,,,

and all of the other civilizations on EARTH did not use the word "GOD" it did NOT EXIST...but the construct of SUPER DIVINE BEINGS did...hundreds, thousands of them...many civilizations did NOT CONDEMN others for not accepting their DIVINE BEING CONSTRUCTS...

So the concept of ATHEIST was never valid...it did not EXIST...only when the JESUS hoax was spun into a MONOTHEIST DIVINE BEING...and the
ROMAN CHURCH in 400 AD coined the word "GOD"  and continued its RAMPAGE of assimilation and POWER GRAB using every and any strategy
they could FABRICATE to enslave the masses into their CULT...

"GOD" is a human construct WORD invented by the ROMAN CHURCH...and used as a tool for assimilation...then it was used by the ISLAM psychopaths who use ALLAH as their scapegoat...for assimilation...regardless ATHEIST is a word TOOL used by the Jesus and Allah psychopath Vampires ti degrade-humiliate-diminish-mutilate and murder all who do not accept their DIVINE BEING construct and the retarded DOGMA these
VAMPIRE PARASITES attach to their "GOD" hoax...it's all a POWER and CONTROL strategy...

NO HUMAN is a label..or title...these are the constructs of HUMANS not the so called "GODS"   it is the HUMAN that PLAYS "GOD" not the entity they created...NONE of the "GODS" has ever revealed itself to the whole of humanity to be SEEN and HEARD...."GOD" is a hoax 

..........The G = genius  O = of   D= deception....when some "GOD" shows up...then....all who do not fall for the HOAX will believe...does not mean they will follow....Just because a "GOD" shows up (hasn't happened yet)  does not mean all humans must OBEY IT...we choose not IT...


#290
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@WisdomofAges
None of this is applicable to The Orthodox Church and what it teaches.

What do we really teach? The Truth sets you free. There is certainly no compulsion here. No power grab. We are a nation of priests.

#291
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mopac
We are a nation of priests
So, you produce nothing and fill peoples heads with worthless lies.

#292
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
YOU SAID IT !    absolutely RIGHT...

It's truly pathetic how some Church clown that attaches the word "preacher" to his/her identity is nothing more than a MIND and LIFE molesting con artist...these Parasite Vampires thrive off of their petty attempts to inspire others with Bible verse VOMIT and all manner of Church Diarrhea DOGMA.

The real intention is to HYPNOTIZE weak minded humans into their Church CULT and become another Church VOMITING and promoting sheeple drone..

The most prolific "GOD" vomiting criminals on EARTH are aligned with the 2 Middle East JESUS and ALLAH "God" invented hoaxes...The JESUS
Parasite vampires totally exploit this young Jewish guy who was set up by the JEWS to be executed by the ROMANS !  

So here is this clown running around Ancient Jerusalem preaching that he is the Jewish MESSIAH returned to save humanity !   happens every day 
globally..there is always some delusional BOZO claiming he/she is JESUS or talked to GOD and is a Prophet ! but in Ancient Jerusalem this BOZO 
was not taken lightly by the PSYCHOTIC JEWS of the day...so instead of ignoring the clown they set him up to be executed...JUST LIKE THEIR 
10 commandments says ?   Thou shalt NOT KILL....unless it is some FAKE GOD ACTOR !  (what a joke these Religious dogmas are) 

So the boy "GOD" hoax...this is HOW THE JEWS VIEWED HIM.....a HOAX..a CHARLATAN..!...they had him EXECUTED !

and ROME ...which loves GRAND SPECTACLES complied...whipped-beaten-dragging his cross to the altar (pile of dirt) where he was nailed up to ROT....the JEWS were THRILLED...the boy "GOD" hoax is dead....blood on the ROMANS hands !    

Then a twist of FATE...ROME resurrects the murdered boy and martyrs him into their "GOD"  what a kick in the JEW CROTCH that was !   the JEWS
condemn the guy then conspire to have him MURDERED...a FAKE MESSIAH they shout....kill the heretic !   and now JESUS is declared as the only
"GOD that matters by Emperor Constantine 300 years after his MURDER !  

Ever since JESUS has been ripped apart by the Parasite Vampires of so many different CHURCH spins that abuse his name for their PROFIT and GAIN....no one agrees on the poor boy GOD beaten and nailed to a cross...NO MATTER...for MONEY-POWER-CONTROL these con artist scum
will do and say anything to get idiot weak minded humans to PAY and PRAY for their SALVATION !   what a SCAM !  

and so it continues with the VAMPIRE that claims he/she is part of an HONEST TRUE CHURCH !   none of these Parasite vampire organizations could give a crap about JESUS...they want MONEY-POWER-CONTROL and to enslave as many stupid people they can into their CULTS to serve them...NOT SOME Jewish kid set up to be MURDERED by his own people !   

The other "GOD" hoax from the Middle East is ALLAH...who has his own Moses meet "GOD" knockoff story...when some wandering illiterate Tribal guy (MUHAMMAD) has hid meetup with "GOD"  no not JESUS...not the Moses JEW GOD...but his very own version "ALLAH"  and soon after ISLAM
is created along with their Comic Book garbage "KORAN" to MURDER and ASSIMILATE weak minded humans into some slave CULT...

No other GOD inventors beyond the Middle East go on MURDEROUS CRUSADES destroying Cultures and slaughtering countless humans for not 
accepting their idiot GOD hoax and worse the PSYCHOTIC DOGMA they attached to their GOD hoax...

POINT = this Church BOZO is HYPNOTIZED beyond the ability to think and reason independently...all he/she is capable of is repetition of the same Bible verse VOMIT or statements that point to the CHURCH is all you need..PROOF of the BRAINWASHING the CHURCH CULT VAMPIRES have done to this FORMER HUMAN turned dumbed down sheeple drone ZOMBIE !


#293
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I dont know what you mean when you say deism is functionally equivalent to atheism. You mean the world will continue as is with no supernatural intervention? 
Yes.

Deism offers absolutely zero moral or practical prescriptions.

Deism offers absolutely zero evidence to distinguish Marduk from Zeus from Vishnu from "YHWH" from Nanabozho.

Deism is not "a bridge to theism".

Deism is functionally identical to atheism.

Topic's author
#294
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
No it's not because science would have a design-first approach. It also means that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental which has many implications.
#295
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
No it's not because science would have a design-first approach. It also means that consciousness rather than matter is fundamental which has many implications.
A so-called "design-first approach" suffers from the anthropomorphic fallacy.  Ontologically calling "the big bang" "god" does absolutely nothing to imply that "god" has anything resembling human "consciousness".

Deism gives us zero insight into "god(s)" "intentions" or "motives".
Topic's author
#296
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not calling the big bang God. Restart everything in your post.
#297
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not calling the big bang God. Restart everything in your post.
I'm describing Deism.

Deism is functionally identical to atheism.
Topic's author
#298
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Deism is not functionally identical to theism. Deism refers to a God who created the universe and but doesn't intervene in ongoing affairs. The functional difference, with atheism, is that the universe was designed rather than undesigned. Junk DNA is now viewed as functional DNA we haven't discovered a purpose for yet. There is one functional difference right there. Consciousness rather than matter would be fundamental. There's another functional difference.
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
The functional difference, with atheism, is that the universe was designed rather than undesigned.
Deism implies no such thing.

The idea of "consciousness" is specific to humans (anthropomorphic fallacy).

The concept of "designed" is specific to humans (anthropomorphic fallacy).

We have absolutely no reason to believe that "gods" would be constrained by such feeble terminology.
Topic's author
#300
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
So you think animals aren't conscious? 

You think that intending to create something is limited to human beings only?

There is nothing "constrained" about it except for the arbitrary contraints you mentioned.