The Emptiness of Atheism

[Free]

1. We know that from chaos, order can arise.

How do we know that?

2. Secondly, your reasoning is self-defeating: If you believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, then the creator you are proposing must be at least as complex as the universe whose complexity you are trying to explain. Accordingly, if you are to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion, the creator you are proposing must also be designed, and all you have is an infinite regress, which is no explanation at all.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

 

[AAA]

2. Secondly, your reasoning is self-defeating: If you believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, then the creator you are proposing must be at least as complex as the universe whose complexity you are trying to explain. Accordingly, if you are to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion, the creator you are proposing must also be designed, and all you have is an infinite regress, which is no explanation at all.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Yes it does.

 

[Free]

2. Secondly, your reasoning is self-defeating: If you believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, then the creator you are proposing must be at least as complex as the universe whose complexity you are trying to explain. Accordingly, if you are to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion, the creator you are proposing must also be designed, and all you have is an infinite regress, which is no explanation at all.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

Yes it does.

Then you have to explain the leap between your argument applying to creation and applying to the Creator, who, by definition, is not created. You need to explain just why it is that the creator "must also be designed."

 

[AAA]

You have to explain the leap between your argument applying to creation and applying to the Creator, who, by definition, is not created. You need to explain just why it is that the creator "must also be designed."

The short answer is this: as far as the argument from design goes, the designer is not, by definition, not designed. Saying that the designer is itself not designed is purely ad hoc so as to stop the endless regress.

Here's the longer answer. Let's look at the argument from design. It goes like this (in very short form):

P1: The universe is too complex and improbable to have arisen from chance.

Therefore, the universe must have been designed.

Here's the problem: the designer must be more complex than the universe because the designer contains the design for the universe. Accordingly, if the complexity of the universe is sufficient to mandate a designer (see the premise, P1), then the designer itself must also mandate a designer. And off you go. The endless regress is the logical conclusion of the very argument from design. In order to stop it, you must come up with the purely ad hoc assertion that the designer is not designed. Well, if the complex designer doesn't require a designer of its own, then why does the universe? And so goes the whole argument.

 

[jasoncran]

then same could be said if there was no designer, as something doesnt arise from nothing, at least that's what i was taught in high school chemistry.

 

[AAA]

1. We know that from chaos, order can arise.

How do we know that?

An analogy is in order.

Imagine rolling a die. The chance of rolling, in sequential order, 1-2-3-4-5-6, are something like one in fifty thousand.

However, if you were to roll a die a hundred thousand times, the chance of rolling 1-2-3-4-5-6 in sequential order at some point in those hundred thousand rolls is better than 5 out of 6: that's close to guaranteed.

In large pools of chaos, order naturally arises, given time. The larger the pools of chaos, the more likely order is to arise more frequently. Just as the Theory of Evolution explains the unimaginably complex order of life on Earth arising from very simple and rudimentary life (order), so are there entirely plausible hypotheses for the order apparent in the universe beginning from small amounts of order that could theoretically arise naturally out of chaos - hypotheses that do not require an intelligent designer. (Please note that in this illustration, there is a world of difference between a Theory and a hypothesis)

 

[Aero_Hudson]

Is it more plausible to think that the universe and life came from chaos or an orderly creaton by a designer. Which seems to be the simplest explanation to you?

That one's easy: chaos. Two reasons:

1. We know that from chaos, order can arise.

2. Secondly, your reasoning is self-defeating: If you believe that the universe is too complex to have arisen by chance, then the creator you are proposing must be more complex than the universe whose complexity you are trying to explain. Accordingly, if you are to follow your own reasoning to its logical conclusion, the creator you are proposing must also be designed, and all you have is an infinite regress, which is no explanation at all.

Note that the designer cannot possibly be simple, and therefore cannot possibly provide a simple explanation. The argument from design replaces the problem of the complexity and order of the universe with something considerably more complex: god.

If you are looking for a simple solution, a designer god surely cannot be it.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a solution that is simple-minded, then you have indeed found mankind's favorite simple-minded explanation for anything that is complicated and hard to understand. The explanation for lightening just must be an entity like us in many ways but with the magical power to make lightening (let's call him Zeus). The explanation for fertility must be an entity that is very much like us but with the magical power to permit pregnancy (let's sacrifice animals to this entity to keep it happy). The explanation for a good crop, or rain, must be an entity that is very much like us but with the magical power to provide a good crop, or control the weather (let's sacrifice our first born, granted to us by the fertility entity, to the good crop entity to ensure food for the clan). The explanation for the unfairness of life must be that there is a supernatural judge who provides justice after our death (and he will sacrifice his own son so that we can receive mercy)...The explanation for the order and complexity of the universe must be...godidit.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... id=3331556[/url]

- We know that leprachans do not exist. We know this because we are not ignorant to history and understand that they were fairy tales. The concept of a creator cannot be refuted with history or science at the moment. No one knows the answer from a scientific standpoint so to be honest how can we toss the possibility aside so easily?

Just my additional 2 cents.

 

[Orion]

I will offer some thoughts as well.

Order out of chaos. . . . . . . ---> The snowflake.

- We know that leprachans do not exist. We know this because we are not ignorant to history and understand that they were fairy tales. The concept of a creator cannot be refuted with history or science at the moment. No one knows the answer from a scientific standpoint so to be honest how can we toss the possibility aside so easily?

How do you know this? What if history was incorrect about them? Or with Pixies, Faeries, Sprites, etc.? If they can't be detected with the scientific method either, then it would only be logical that history would count them as fables. . . . . . . . but there are people who truly believe in their existence.

 

[Relic]

.


Atheist: What’s this fly doing in my soup?
Waiter: Praying.
Atheist: Very funny. I can’t eat this. Take it back.
Waiter: You see? The fly’s prayers were answered.

.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

I will offer some thoughts as well.

Order out of chaos. . . . . . . ---> The snowflake.

- We know that leprachans do not exist. We know this because we are not ignorant to history and understand that they were fairy tales. The concept of a creator cannot be refuted with history or science at the moment. No one knows the answer from a scientific standpoint so to be honest how can we toss the possibility aside so easily?

How do you know this? What if history was incorrect about them? Or with Pixies, Faeries, Sprites, etc.? If they can't be detected with the scientific method either, then it would only be logical that history would count them as fables. . . . . . . . but there are people who truly believe in their existence.

We have historical evidence to refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Leprachans, etc. There is no hard historical or scientific evidence that refutes the existence of a Creator. Don't look at this in terms of the Christian God or the Muslim God etc. Look at this from the concept of a Creator or Designer. There is no evidence refuting its existence.

 

[Orion]

We have historical evidence to refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Leprachans, etc. There is no hard historical or scientific evidence that refutes the existence of a Creator. Don't look at this in terms of the Christian God or the Muslim God etc. Look at this from the concept of a Creator or Designer. There is no evidence refuting its existence.

I understand your point, but there is no evidence supporting a creator either. As for "historical evidence refuting the existence of faeries [not "the tooth fairy", by the way], sprites, etc., it just goes to those who believe them to be fables with no proof, . . . no evidence. There are those who would disagree, today. There are those who believe that Hecate is still doing her thing. Can you disprove? How about those who believe that Allah was the creator? No? I agree.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

We have historical evidence to refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Leprachans, etc. There is no hard historical or scientific evidence that refutes the existence of a Creator. Don't look at this in terms of the Christian God or the Muslim God etc. Look at this from the concept of a Creator or Designer. There is no evidence refuting its existence.

I understand your point, but there is no evidence supporting a creator either. As for "historical evidence refuting the existence of faeries [not "the tooth fairy", by the way], sprites, etc., it just goes to those who believe them to be fables with no proof, . . . no evidence. There are those who would disagree, today. There are those who believe that Hecate is still doing her thing. Can you disprove? How about those who believe that Allah was the creator? No? I agree.

Fair enough however, there are no other theories on how everything started. What came before the Big Bang? What set everything into motion. There is not scientific evidence supporting any theory to answer this question. We are left with the concept of God or...nothing. Can folks honestly be alright with an answer of nothing without any evidence to support such a contention?

 

[AAA]

We have historical evidence to refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Leprachans, etc.

No you don't.

You just don't have any good evidence that the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns do exist.

What came before the Big Bang? What set everything into motion. There is not scientific evidence supporting any theory to answer this question. We are left with the concept of God or...nothing. Can folks honestly be alright with an answer of nothing without any evidence to support such a contention?

I'm not alright with an answer of nothing, but I am perfectly alright with an answer of "we don't know". That doesn't mean the answer has to be god! This choice, god or nothing, is a false dichotomy. The alternative to god is a purely natural explanation, not "nothing". Sure, we haven't figured out whether the answer is god or a natural explanation that we are not yet aware of. I'll say it again: that doesn't mean it has to be god!

Mankind has made the mistake of attributing the explanation to god or other god-like entities thousands of times and been proven wrong time and time again. Accordingly, you should be highly skeptical of this explanation now.

Furthermore, science has shown us that our intuition is a poor way to find answers. It should come as no surprise to you that our intuition ought to be particularly unreliable when it comes to considering nonsensical questions like "what came before time"...

Don't you think that you should put the god hypothesis on the back-burner, where all hypotheses belong until there are ways to actually investigate them? In the meantime, let's rejoice in the knowledge that there are people who are willing to get off of their armchairs, roll up their sleeves, and do the work to try to test the hypotheses that can be investigated. And let's rejoice in the natural splendour that has been uncovered.

 

[Orion]

Fair enough however, there are no other theories on how everything started. What came before the Big Bang? What set everything into motion. There is not scientific evidence supporting any theory to answer this question. We are left with the concept of God or...nothing. Can folks honestly be alright with an answer of nothing without any evidence to support such a contention?

Read up on cosmology/big bang and you'll see that the theories have nothing to do with "starting from nothing". At least, that's what is said by those who believe in the big bang and abiogenesis....

As for "what else could it be", . . . there could be many possibilities that just haven't been found yet. Why automatically go to "a creator must have done it", . . . in other words, magic must have been involved?

I will say this, . . . . an "I don't know" answer is perfectly valid. We hadn't a clue about many things until scientific advancements allowed new thought.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

We have historical evidence to refute the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Leprachans, etc.

No you don't.

You just don't have any good evidence that the Tooth Fairy and Leprechauns do exist.

Actually, I think it is very hard to ignore history. I understand some folks wanting to look to science for all answers but this goes a bit too far.

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

 

[Aero_Hudson]

As for "what else could it be", . . . there could be many possibilities that just haven't been found yet. Why automatically go to "a creator must have done it", . . . in other words, magic must have been involved?

Why automatically go to "there is no such thing as a creator"?

 

[AAA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_fairy[/url][/quote:20v64pnh]

How can history prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist today, or that the person who first wrote about her wasn't intimately aware of her existence? She may work in very mysterious ways...

Do you think that by providing a plausible explanation for the invention of the Tooth Fairy, that she has been disproven? Well I can provide you with a perfectly plausible explanation for the invention of Christianity, and I am sure you will want to argue the opposite position. You will no doubt tell me that I am guilty of the genetic fallacy: that showing where or how an idea originated does not prove the idea false, for the idea must be assessed on its own merit. If the idea is "the Tooth Fairy exists", then that idea must be assessed by the means that the existence of entities are assessed.

Here's the point (again): belief in the Tooth Fairy is only reasonable if there is reasonable evidence of her existence. Same goes for god.

 

[Orion]

As for "what else could it be", . . . there could be many possibilities that just haven't been found yet. Why automatically go to "a creator must have done it", . . . in other words, magic must have been involved?

Why automatically go to "there is no such thing as a creator"?

Why would a creator make him/herself completely unfindable? I don't know how it all happened, . . . but I trust the work of those who have spent years and years in a specific field to know what they're doing when they test a hypothesis and the results are repeatable. What they have discovered points much more towards current scientific theories and not at all towards "an creator who made everything we see ~6,000 years ago".


Once again, . . ."the Tooth Fairy" is not the same thing as those who believe in faeries. Apples and oranges thing here.

 

[AAA]

As for "what else could it be", . . . there could be many possibilities that just haven't been found yet. Why automatically go to "a creator must have done it", . . . in other words, magic must have been involved?

Why automatically go to "there is no such thing as a creator"?

Who's doing that?

All I'm saying is that I don't see any good reasons or evidence to believe in a creator. It's that simple.

But you believe in much more than a creator don't you Aero? I mean, somehow, you believe that the creator isn't evil, or that the creator isn't an alien race, or that the creator isn't a bunch of "gods" watching the whole thing unfold the way we watch reality TV, or that the creator isn't dead, or that the creator isn't Allah, or Thor, or Vishnu, or Baal... Where's the "historical evidence" that proves that none of those gods exist the same way that historical evidence apparently proves that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, permitting you to reasonably believe in Jesus?

 

[mondar]

As for "what else could it be", . . . there could be many possibilities that just haven't been found yet. Why automatically go to "a creator must have done it", . . . in other words, magic must have been involved?

Why automatically go to "there is no such thing as a creator"?

Who's doing that?

All I'm saying is that I don't see any good reasons or evidence to believe in a creator. It's that simple.

But you believe in much more than a creator don't you Aero? I mean, somehow, you believe that the creator isn't evil, or that the creator isn't an alien race, or that the creator isn't a bunch of "gods" watching the whole thing unfold the way we watch reality TV, or that the creator isn't dead, or that the creator isn't Allah, or Thor, or Vishnu, or Baal... Where's the "historical evidence" that proves that none of those gods exist the same way that historical evidence apparently proves that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist, permitting you to reasonably believe in Jesus?

What would you accept as evidence?