Is atheism logical?

[Eudaimonist]

How can you justify existance without a divine Creator?

That's an odd question. Existence doesn't need to be justified. Existence simply is. I take it you are asking for the justification of my metaphysics.

How did the heavens and the earth come to form out of a vast expanse of nothing?

(I'll assume here that by "heavens" you mean everything in the Universe that is not the Earth.)

I don't believe that they came from "a vast expanse of nothing". I'm not sure how a vast expanse of nothing can even exist, since expanse implies a relation between different locations, and locations would not exist where there is truly nothing.

The universe as we know it today came from something. I do not view nothingness as a "default state" that must precede existence in some fashion. IMV, there has always been something.

Surely there was a divine beginning and initial creation set in motion by a higher power.

This just special pleading where the question of the origin of the divine power is left unanswered.

I think that a natural beginning in which all entities are naturally in change and motion is quite sufficient.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

No one was around for the beginning of a universe, so it's possible that our laws of physics just didn't apply when the universe began, if indeed it began at all (something I find unlikely).

We have no frame of reference for what the beginning of a universe might be like. You want to say that God did it; I want to say that it happened in some manner which we are yet to properly understand. Sometimes being non-committal is the most rational response when you have no evidence. There is no particular evidence that the universe was begun by what you might like to call a divine spark. Perhaps it was created by a natural force which is only in action when universes begin. Perhaps the universe was just always there. God is no more a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe than either of these hypotheses.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

No one was around for the beginning of a universe, so it's possible that our laws of physics just didn't apply when the universe began, if indeed it began at all (something I find unlikely).

We have no frame of reference for what the beginning of a universe might be like. You want to say that God did it; I want to say that it happened in some manner which we are yet to properly understand. Sometimes being non-committal is the most rational response when you have no evidence. There is no particular evidence that the universe was begun by what you might like to call a divine spark. Perhaps it was created by a natural force which is only in action when universes begin. Perhaps the universe was just always there. God is no more a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe than either of these hypotheses.

well, in that case, wouldn't the logical position be to take an agnostic approach? do you think man will actually understand how we came to be? Personally as an objective observer of increasing global violence, ideological conflicts, and technologies that make humanity a greater threat to itself than ever before, I don't see us lasting that long. Man has demonstrated to be quite capable of destroying the entire world many times over with nuclear weapons.

Do yall believe that somehow it was just a coincidence that our universe is as self sustaining as it is? Is it really that crazy to believe that just maybe a higher power not known to science had some effect on everything?

 

[ralphSpoilsport]

well, in that case, wouldn't the logical position be to take an agnostic approach?

Most non-theists are happy to admit that they don't know how the universe came into being (if that's even an appropriate concept).

do you think man will actually understand how we came to be?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Personally as an objective observer of increasing global violence, ideological conflicts, and technologies that make humanity a greater threat to itself than ever before, I don't see us lasting that long.

The rest of the universe will tick along quite nicely without us.

Man has demonstrated to be quite capable of destroying the entire world many times over with nuclear weapons.

We've demonstrated no such thing. I doubt humankind has the ability to destroy the entire world even once, let alone theoretically multiple times.
Life is very resilient, and even is we are gone, the process of evolution will continue.

Do yall believe that somehow it was just a coincidence that our universe is as self sustaining as it is? Is it really that crazy to believe that just maybe a higher power not known to science had some effect on everything?

It may not be crazy, but why believe such a thing without evidence?
I don't believe the universe is here to "fit" us. We are here because we fit the universe.

 

[cantata]

well, in that case, wouldn't the logical position be to take an agnostic approach?

Really, it depends how you define atheism and agnosticism. I might be described as an agnostic atheist, or perhaps a non-theist, insofar as I don't believe in any gods, but if you showed me some darn good evidence for one, I might be convinced. I think it is very difficult to neither believe or disbelieve in gods. Either you live your life as if they exist or you do not. So I prefer the term 'atheist' to 'agnostic' when describing myself, because agnosticism implies a very general 'don't know' as opposed to a 'probably this, unless you give me some better evidence'.

At best, the question of the origins of the universe puts before me a choice between non-theism and deism. Even if the universe were created by a divine spark, it would not constitute enough evidence for me to believe in a personal god.

do you think man will actually understand how we came to be?

I find it highly unlikely that either theists or non-theists will ever know that.

Personally as an objective observer of increasing global violence, ideological conflicts, and technologies that make humanity a greater threat to itself than ever before, I don't see us lasting that long. Man has demonstrated to be quite capable of destroying the entire world many times over with nuclear weapons.

Surely this is evidence against the existence of a god with a purpose for the world, unless he has an extremely unpleasant purpose for it.

Do yall believe that somehow it was just a coincidence that our universe is as self sustaining as it is?

The universe is very old. It may have gone through many different forms before it got to the way it is now. I also ascribe to the anthropic principle.

Is it really that crazy to believe that just maybe a higher power not known to science had some effect on everything?

Well, if it were "unknown to science", we'd have no evidence of it - so what would be the point of believing in it? You may as well believe that there are sentient biscuits on a distant planet.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Really, it depends how you define atheism and agnosticism. I might be described as an agnostic atheist, or perhaps a non-theist, insofar as I don't believe in any gods, but if you showed me some darn good evidence for one, I might be convinced. I think it is very difficult to neither believe or disbelieve in gods. Either you live your life as if they exist or you do not. So I prefer the term 'atheist' to 'agnostic' when describing myself, because agnosticism implies a very general 'don't know' as opposed to a 'probably this, unless you give me some better evidence'.

At best, the question of the origins of the universe puts before me a choice between non-theism and deism. Even if the universe were created by a divine spark, it would not constitute enough evidence for me to believe in a personal god.



I find it highly unlikely that either theists or non-theists will ever know that.



Surely this is evidence against the existence of a god with a purpose for the world, unless he has an extremely unpleasant purpose for it.



The universe is very old. It may have gone through many different forms before it got to the way it is now. I also ascribe to the anthropic principle.



Well, if it were "unknown to science", we'd have no evidence of it - so what would be the point of believing in it? You may as well believe that there are sentient biscuits on a distant planet.

which brings us back to more philosophical questions. can you really trust the things you observe? do mere observations define your reality? is there a far greater reality than you can observe with mere human senses? Is a man's reliance on things only he can observe a hinderance to a greater truth?

 

[cantata]

which brings us back to more philosophical questions. can you really trust the things you observe? do mere observations define your reality? is there a far greater reality than you can observe with mere human senses? Is a man's reliance on things only he can observe a hinderance to a greater truth?

If you have access to knowledge via a different path than observation and reflection, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

If you have access to knowledge via a different path than observation and reflection, I'd love to hear about it.

To be completely honest, I'm not so sure you want to. It would involve doing things you probably aren't comfortable with.

 

[cantata]

To be completely honest, I'm not so sure you want to. It would involve doing things you probably aren't comfortable with.

I beg your pardon?

I'd have to do things I'm uncomfortable with in order for you to tell me how else you have access to information other than by sensation and reflection?

I'm not exchanging sexual favours for CF posts, LonesomeTexan, however much you might like me to

 

[LonesomeTexan]

I beg your pardon?

I'd have to do things I'm uncomfortable with in order for you to tell me how else you have access to information other than by sensation and reflection?

I'm not exchanging sexual favours for CF posts, LonesomeTexan, however much you might like me to

lol. your mind is in the gutter. I was thinking more in lines of keeping on open mind and heart that God exists first. I'm trying to lead you out of the allegorical cave here.

 

[cantata]

lol. your mind is in the gutter. I was thinking more in lines of keeping on open mind and heart that God exists first. I'm trying to lead you out of the allegorical cave here.

Shall I keep an open mind and heart about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Shiva too?

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Shall I keep an open mind and heart about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Shiva too?

I can't help you if you don't want it. I'm not here to condemn you. Why not give it a shot?

 

[UncleHermit]

lol. your mind is in the gutter. I was thinking more in lines of keeping on open mind and heart that God exists first. I'm trying to lead you out of the allegorical cave here.

Being an atheist doesn't require one to have a "closed mind" concerning the existence of God. I've always been open to the idea, but haven't seen a compelling reason to believe.

Regarding the OP, I don't have a clue as to how the universe came to be, or if there was ever a time that it didn't exist. I don't see this as a good reason to assume an unevidenced entity is responsible.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I can't help you if you don't want it. I'm not here to condemn you. Why not give it a shot?

Why "give it a shot" when one already has a worldview one finds persuasive?

It's like asking you to give Buddhism a shot, when you're already happy with Christianity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[cantata]

Why "give it a shot" when one already has a worldview one finds persuasive?

It's like asking you to give Buddhism a shot, when you're already happy with Christianity.

Exactly.

I'm sure you can have a stab at explaining how you have access to knowledge via some path other than sensation and reflection, LonesomeTexan.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

There is no such thing as an aethist- only a person of God who tries hard, for a multitude of reasons, to maintain themselves in a state of denial- despite the obvious.

We are born with a conscience- how can that possibly come to us except through God?

Also, each and every one of us can directly trace our very existence back to a common origin. I happen to believe that the origin was the created Adam, but even if you believe it to be the first cell, it still had to be created by God from the material of the earth and given, at exactly the same instant, the breath of life and the ability to reproduce itself.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

You can run, but you can't hide from the living God.

 

[cantata]

There is no such thing as an aethist

No indeed; my dictionary agrees with you. There are, of course, many people who are atheists.

- only a person of God who tries hard, for a multitude of reasons, to maintain themselves in a state of denial- despite the obvious.

There is no such thing as a theist: only a human being who tries hard, for a multitude of reasons, to maintain themselves in a state of denial - despite the obvious.

See how silly statements of this sort are?

We are born with a conscience- how can that possibly come to us except through God?

Through the process of natural selection.

Also, each and every one of us can directly trace our very existence back to a common origin. I happen to believe that the origin was the created Adam, but even if you believe it to be the first cell, it still had to be created by God from the material of the earth and given, at exactly the same instant, the breath of life and the ability to reproduce itself.

Why in the world did it have to be given those things at all, and why, if given, must they have been given by God?

The 'breath of life', at that basic, viral level, is, arguably, the ability to reproduce oneself.

 

[UncleHermit]

There is no such thing as an aethist- only a person of God who tries hard, for a multitude of reasons, to maintain themselves in a state of denial- despite the obvious.

I would say that you're wrong and I'm not in denial, but I suppose that you wouldn't believe that (since you think I'm in denial, and all).

We are born with a conscience- how can that possibly come to us except through God?

The Theory of Evolution provides some very good answers to this question. But even if it didn't, you're making the same mistake as the OP - not knowing the origin of something doesn't mean it's reasonable to posit a god. It just means the origin of that particular thing is unknown.

Also, each and every one of us can directly trace our very existence back to a common origin. I happen to believe that the origin was the created Adam, but even if you believe it to be the first cell, it still had to be created by God from the material of the earth

Why?

and given, at exactly the same instant, the breath of life and the ability to reproduce itself.

I don't know what you mean by "breath of life" here.

 

[LonesomeTexan]

Exactly.

I'm sure you can have a stab at explaining how you have access to knowledge via some path other than sensation and reflection, LonesomeTexan.

you'll have to PM me. I'm not going to waste my time unless you genuinely want this.