What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 590
#91
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Havevyoubever observed a nonhuman use math or logic consciously that you could confirm? If both you may consider the idea that both ate human inventions. Human tools. Human thought processes.
Topic's author
#92
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Would the world still be spherical and not rectangular if nobody was around? The law of identity would still be at play. There just wouldn't be any language to describe it.
#93
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Also are you seriously suggesting that there is no way to physically test the concept 2+2=4 as measurably true or false? All you need is two objects and two more objects.
Topic's author
#94
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Same with math. If everyone died it's not as though 0 = 1 instead of 1 = 1 anymore.
Topic's author
#95
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes because there is no physical component to that. No matter or energy 

#96
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
'More rational' implies there are things that are 'a bit rational', 'fairly rational', 'very rational', etc.... how do you define how rational something is?
Topic's author
#97
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Some beliefs are more rational than others. How rational a belief is depends on the preponderance of evidence for and against.

#98
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So you are saying people should believe what there is a prepoderance of evidence for?   Well, I think that is pretty uncontroversial!

But there is still the problem of what counts as a preponderance.   It seems like a subjective thing to me.
Topic's author
#99
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Yep. 

A preponderance of evidence is subjective to an extent. The objective is to have (1) all of the available evidence and (2) the most rational interpretation of it. Those two factors will vary from person to person so it's subjective in that sense.
#100
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
What's the strongest argument for atheism?
Men create gods.

#101
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Can you articulate what available evidence are you using to justify your belief in God?
#102
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Even though we cannot re-create the Big Bang, most of the evidence for the Big Bang is reproducible. Red shifts, for instance, or the microwave background radiation, or effects of  high-energy particle collisions.

It is a mistake to make a distinction between  nature and God. If God exists, then God is an integral part of nature. Saying that God is somehow "beyond" nature strikes me as just an attempt to render God untestable and unobservable, and thus unfalsifiable. There is no good reason to assume that God, if He exists, is not subject to empirical inquiry the same as the rest of nature.

#103
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
Lack of evidence, when something should have left evidence, is certainly evidence of a lack of that something.

The number of different versions of God shows that humans have an ingrained propensity to invent supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. That propensity, along with the fact that no supernatural explanation has ever been convincingly demonstrated, is enough to make any supernatural claim immediately suspect.

#104
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
Precisely.   We know people have always invented gods.  i suppose the question is 'does what we observe suggest god is real or imaginary?'.   'belief in god' certainly exists and has plenty of obserable effects, but ascribing anything observable (such as 'life') to a actual god is problematic.  
#105
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze

Same with math. If everyone died it's not as though 0 = 1 instead of 1 = 1 anymore.
What is 1. Can you tell Me What it means without referencing objects?
Yes because there is no physical component to that. No matter or energy 
There is no two unless there are at least two things to reference. Math is not itself physical it is only an easy reference to an actual physical thing. A place holder in our minds. It is a physical reality in the way any thought is and the brain produces physically detectable and measurable energy. Math only exists in the human mind which would appear to be dependent on the human brain which is a physical object.
#106
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
but 7 is a prime number here and on alpha centauri.     
#107
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
What is seven? Can you explain the term without referencing objects?

#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I'd like to hear any strong arguments you might have for atheism.
Deism is functionally identical to atheism.

Every single intellectual defense of "god(s)" is an appeal to Deism.

For example, "intelligent design" = Deism.

Also, "what caused the big bang" = Deism.

Also, "the ontological argument" = Deism.

Also, "the rare earth hypothesis" = Deism.

Deism is functionally identical to atheism.

Topic's author
#109
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
Yes, but there's too much to say. Each argument would need to be its own separate topic.
Topic's author
#110
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
The Big Bang was just one example. We need to rely on an inference to the best explanation for many things. Not everything can be reproduced in a controlled environment, even though that might be ideal.

God would have designed nature so there'd be a certain level of intellect exhibited in nature. That said, God is not "intertwined" in nature. A programmer is beyond the program he creates. He is not contained by it but he leaves signatures of his intelligence inside the program.

The number of versions of something conceived beforehand does not make it more or less likely that the next version is any more or less likely to exist. It 100% depends on the defintion. This also overlooks the commonalities in many different variations of God. One of those commonalities for instance is an eternal consciousness, not Christianity or Islam.

#111
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
What is seven? Can you explain the term without referencing objects?
"Objects" = occupied space.

7 or any number of abstract concepts exist because occupied space exists.

SPACE......---> occupied convex >(< concave occupied <------....SPACE

Repeat after me "objects" = occupied space.

There, that wasnt so hard, was it.

Occupied space can never be less than than and integral set of;

6 edges/chords /\/\/\  aka event trajectories

4 vertexia events, somethings, crossings, intersections, points,

4 openings

12 surface angles

12 dihedral angles

12 radial angles
Topic's author
#112
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@Stronn
Define the word "evidence."

Lack of evidence when evidence was expected refers to an observed absence of something. Any time we have information that indicates the truthhood of a claim we have evidence. So in this instance we have evidence of absence, not absence of evidence.

It may be true that humans have an ingrained propensity to make up supernatural explanations. A supernatural explanation of what though? The Big Bang represents the expansion of all space-time and energy in the universe from a zero-dimensional point - a point where all of the natural laws known today, including physics and the law of conservation of mass were completely broken down according to Hawking. This actually indicates a non-natural (AKA supernatural) explanation.

Topic's author
#113
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
When you think of the number "1" must you imagine it as an object, like an apple or an orange? When you think of "1,000,000" do you hold a million different objects in your mind? We understand the meaning of numbers without having objects associated with them. 

If math required corresponding objects for us to know of it then the works of Pythagoras or Euclid would've been impossible.




Topic's author
#114
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If numbers depended on objects we would only be able to do math on an axis beginning at 1. This is obviously untrue since we know of 0 and negative numbers.

#115
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Yes, but there's too much to say. Each argument would need to be its own separate topic.
I suspect that the "evidence" is actually theoretical speculation based on what you can imagine to be the only logically possible answer to the question of how the universe was created. There is no testable physical evidence for or against the proposition. I and others do the same thing with topics like Free Will.

Topic's author
#116
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
My objective is to have the most rational inference. There may be other logically possible explanations for something but that doesn't mean it's the most rational explanation. It's logically possible that the Rosetta Stone was written through wind and erosion. There is no testable physical evidence of logic, meaning, math (& geometry), and moral truth propositions. Nor of conscious experiences, free will, etc.
#117
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
There is nothing wrong with trying to determine the most rational inference for an unknowable question. I and others only have a problem with that when it becomes the basis for unrelated irrational thought such as antiquated moral beliefs which in turn lead to harmful actions. An example would be jihadism.
Topic's author
#118
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
Well it's interesting you bring up moral beliefs. Aren't you against moral realism? 

#119
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Well it's interesting you bring up moral beliefs. Aren't you against moral realism? 
Yes, you could say that. I don't believe that objective morality exists other than that which is in relation to a predetermined moral standard(s). Hopefully those moral standards won't lead to irrational harmful actions.

Topic's author
#120
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
An ISIS member can counter this by saying that your moral standards lead to irrationally harmful actions too. They just have a different objective than you. In comparison, neither you nor they have a higher moral standard.