Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[KCfromNC]

And as for the claim that it is "highly unlikely that we would be in a fine tuned universe", I assume you mean fine-tuned for life. How do you figure it is highly UNlikely? After all, it would be completely IMPOSSIBLE for us to exist in a universe that is NOT suited for life, isn't it!

We could exist in a universe where natural laws prevented it if supernatural beings were involved. The fact we don't exist in that situation is evidence against them existing. After all, we've been told that the chances of natural laws being hospitable to human life is extremely unlikely, so it would be way more likely for life to exist in an inhospitable universe and sustained by supernatural forces than the situation we see now.

 

[Strathos]

We could exist in a universe where natural laws prevented it if supernatural beings were involved. The fact we don't exist in that situation is evidence against them existing. After all, we've been told that the chances of natural laws being hospitable to human life is extremely unlikely, so it would be way more likely for life to exist in an inhospitable universe and sustained by supernatural forces than the situation we see now.

What makes more sense: Constantly holding up a square peg so it doesn't fall out of a round hole, or putting it in a square hole?

 

[Kylie]

What makes more sense: Constantly holding up a square peg so it doesn't fall out of a round hole, or putting it in a square hole?

You are, of course, deciding on the shape of the peg and then seeing if it will fit in a hole.

Why don't you try getting the hole first, and then shaping the peg to fit the hole that is already there?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We were discussing rational evidence about the universe. I had supposed there may be alternative non scientific empiricisms. You said they didn't provide raitonal evidence.

Unfortunately, none of these other empericisms can provide any valid information about our universe. And I am not using an atheist point of view, I am using a scientific point of view.

Ok, lets look at rationality and science. We might move to validity after that. As far as I can tell, it (rationality) precedes science. Rationality causes science, not science causes rationality.

You seem to be making an argument for some kind of scientism. Which might be based in a modal fallacy i.e. going form "science is necessarily rational" to "therefore, rationality is necessarily scientific."

But if rationality is not necessarily scientific, as i think, then there may well be a class of unfalsifiable claims (ie an non-scientific domain) that we can be rational about. Eg. that of the nature of rationality itself (i never actually saw scientific paper on that, did you?), or things like last thursdayism, the existentce of an external world etc.

How does science deal with a claim like "Pleople say that last-thursdayism is necessarily unfalsifiable"

Stock argument: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism#Falsifiability

And I add: "... therefore if so, anti-last-thursdayism (including standard evoluitonary theory) can never ever actually be shown to be true"....?



Hint: if it could, it would falsify last-thursdayism.

(....because the truth of evolution would logically entail the falsity of last-thursdayism, yet, we'd have to accept the a priori unfalsifiability of last-thursdayism utterly excludes that possibility).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

And so to keep up too, Ill ask what is your definition of "valid information about the universe!"...? And how, for instance, is evolutionary theory "valid" according to that idea? Do you mean its actually true?

 

[Kylie]

Ok, lets look at rationality and science. We might move to validity after that. As far as I can tell, it (rationality) precedes science. Rationality causes science, not science causes rationality.

Agreed. Everything that counts as science must be rational. But things that are rational are not necessarily scientific.

You seem to be making an argument for some kind of scientism. Which might be based in a modal fallacy i.e. going form "science is necessarily rational" to "therefore, rationality is necessarily scientific."

No, I am saying that I have not found any method of investigation of our universe other than science which uses rational means.

But if rationality is not necessarily scientific, as i think, then there may well be a class of unfalsifiable claims (ie an non-scientific domain) that we can be rational about. Eg. that of the nature of rationality itself (i never actually saw scientific paper on that, did you?), or things like last thursdayism, the existentce of an external world etc.

How does science deal with a claim like "Pleople say that last-thursdayism is necessarily unfalsifiable"

Stock argument: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism#Falsifiability

And I add: "... therefore if so, anti-last-thursdayism (including standard evoluitonary theory) can never ever actually be shown to be true"....?

Hint: if it could, it would falsify last-thursdayism.

I don't think science does deal with it.

Science must be rational, but it must also be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it doesn't fall into the realm of science.

(....because the truth of evolution would logically entail the falsity of last-thursdayism, yet, we'd have to accept the a priori unfalsifiability of last-thursdayism utterly excludes that possibility).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

And so to keep up too, Ill ask what is your definition of "valid information about the universe!"...? And how, for instance, is evolutionary theory "valid" according to that idea? Do you mean its actually true?

I don't think I agree with you here.

Evolution is simply an explanation for the relationships we see between different species. It is supported by a huge amount of evidence of many different types. It does not make any claims about last Thursdayism. And even if we were to believe Last Thursdayism, we could explain away the evidence for evolution as part of the world that was created Last Thursday. Your own link says that Last Thursdayism postulates that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. That evidence would include the evidence for evolution. So the presence of evidence for evolution makes no comment about the validity of Last Thursdayism, since it can be explained whether we accept LT or not.

 

[KCfromNC]

What makes more sense: Constantly holding up a square peg so it doesn't fall out of a round hole, or putting it in a square hole?

For an omnipotent being, either is equally simple. For natural processes, one is impossible. We find us in the situation where natural processes might be an explanation, and there are a lot fewer of those cases than the one which would be obvious evidence for the supernatural. That observation requires an explanation.

 

[Ken-1122]

I have reasons for rejecting Islam, positive reasons that are not simple refutations of Islam itself i.e. the evidence for Christianity and its incompatibility with Islam.

Here, I will give you a cookie cutter argument for atheism

P1 - If God exsited we would expect to see X
P2 - We do not see X
Therefore, God does not exist.

I understand why atheists are so reluctant to provide an argument for atheism, because the arguments are scant and refutable.

Question: "Do you think God exists?"

Answer: "No I do not", (as in "No I do not think God exists").

My claim is that thinking God exists is a state of mind that does not apply to me. My burden of proof is to show that my claim - regarding my state of mind - is accurate. I did so by explaining to you what my state of mind is.

Do you not understand the difference between "I do not believe X is true" vs "I believe X is false”?

 

[evoeth]

"I do not believe X is true" vs "I believe X is false”?

Gumball analogy, stolen from Matt Dillahunty:

There are gumballs in a glass jar. I let you examine, but not open the jar. Leading question: would you agree there is an even or odd number of gumballs, partial gumballs aside? <yes>.
Leading question: I believe the number of gumballs is odd, do you accept that the number is odd? <no> Then you believe it's even? <no>

The point being: rejecting a statement for lack of evidence is sufficient, and does not indicate acceptance of complimentary statements.
​

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, I am saying that I have not found any method of investigation of our universe other than science which uses rational means.

So humanity has been around in various forms for millions of years, but they have only been rational for a couple of centuries or so. (i.e. for so long as science has been with us)...?

And if atheism has been a rational position, then only for that short time? Those carvakas etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Cārvāka

Also, if atheism is not a scientific point of view, then its not rational per se, even after the advent of science?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

. So the presence of evidence for evolution makes no comment about the validity of Last Thursdayism, since it can be explained whether we accept LT or not.

Wrong. For evolution says the universe predated Last Thursday. If we accept LT, then we have to reject evolution. And if we accept evolution we have to reject LT.

The way Id look at this is LT is a an 'a priori' position, similar lets say to the kalam argument in theology. Its logically sound if we accept the axioms. Eg in the case of kalam, material infinites cannot exist, and a finite thing cant cause itself. In the case of LT, illusory age is real and that is that.

Wear kalam glasses, and you're a theist. Or you have theo-vision TM.

Take them off, and you've no commitment.

LT makes necessary claims (ie of unfalsifiability and illusory age come what may) where as evolution is a contingent position. Different fossils discovered, theory updated etc. There is openness to new evidence and feedback.



Wear LT glasses, and its "true"...



To understand properly...

Two different pairs of glasses are required. One (LT) makes indefeasible empirical claims, at the expense of scientific realism.

The other (evo) also makes claims about metaphysics (what exist and its nature), but in more of an open system, and leaves the flexibility science intact.

BTW open systems are known for their capacity to complexify, or to reduce entropy.

But a warning , systems with ongoing positive feedback loops (science has positive and negative) are often unstable. Think, advances in science can bring climate change and nuclear war etc.

On the other hand LT and the omphalos hypothesis is more of a closed system. The Bible says, it that settles it etc.

Maybe its a God send after all?

 

[Kylie]

So humanity has been around in various forms for millions of years, but they have only been rational for a couple of centuries or so. (i.e. for so long as science has been with us)...?

You make it sound like science is some amazing hard to do thing. It's not. It's being systematic. Anyone can do it, provided they put a bit of thought into it and look for evidence.

And if atheism has been a rational position, then only for that short time? Those carvakas etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism#Cārvāka

Please don't equate atheism with science. There are lots of scientists who are not atheists, and lots of atheists who believe things that are not scientific.

Also, if atheism is not a scientific point of view, then its not rational per se, even after the advent of science?

I'm sorry, but why are we talking about the rationality of atheism when I was talking about the rationality of science?

But to answer your question, atheism is simply a rejection of the claims of the religious. It is no more rational or irrational than denying that leprechauns exist.

As I have already said, atheism and science are two different things.

 

[Kylie]

Wrong. For evolution says the universe predated Last Thursday. If we accept LT, then we have to reject evolution. And if we accept evolution we have to reject LT.

The way Id look at this is LT is a an 'a priori' position, similar lets say to the kalam argument in theology. Its logically sound if we accept the axioms. Eg in the case of kalam, material infinites cannot exist, and a finite thing cant cause itself. In the case of LT, illusory age is real and that is that.

Wear kalam glasses, and you're a theist. Or you have theo-vision TM.

Take them off, and you've no commitment.

Did you bother even trying to understand what I was saying?

I said that the presence of evidence for evolution is consistent with Last Thursdayism, as Last Thursdayism explicitly says that the universe will have the appearance of being billions of years old. The evidence for evolution counts as part of that evidence. That is from the link about Last Thursdayism that you yourself provided. Don't start complaining about it now.

LT makes necessary claims (ie of unfalsifiability and illusory age come what may) where as evolution is a contingent position. Different fossils discovered, theory updated etc. There is openness to new evidence and feedback.



Wear LT glasses, and its "true"...



To understand properly...

Two different pairs of glasses are required. One (LT) makes indefeasible empirical claims, at the expense of scientific realism.

The other (evo) also makes claims about metaphysics (what exist and its nature), but in more of an open system, and leaves the flexibility science intact.

BTW open systems are known for their capacity to complexify, or to reduce entropy.

But a warning , systems with ongoing positive feedback loops (science has positive and negative) are often unstable. Think, advances in science can bring climate change and nuclear war etc.

On the other hand LT and the omphalos hypothesis is more of a closed system. The Bible says, it that settles it etc.

Maybe its a God send after all?

You are making the mistake that since Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, everything within a Last Thursdayist universe must also be unfalsifiable.

 

[Holoman]

Question: "Do you think God exists?"

Answer: "No I do not", (as in "No I do not think God exists").

My claim is that thinking God exists is a state of mind that does not apply to me. My burden of proof is to show that my claim - regarding my state of mind - is accurate. I did so by explaining to you what my state of mind is.

Do you not understand the difference between "I do not believe X is true" vs "I believe X is false”?

Yes there is a difference. In philosophy, only the latter would be labelled "atheism" whereas the former would cover both agnosticism and atheism.

I don't really understand why at a popular media level, people are so keen to call themselves atheists that they have altered the meaning. It is clearly evident from the writings of many popular "atheists" though that their philosophical knowledge is woeful.

"The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’” ~ Antony Flew

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes there is a difference. In philosophy, only the latter would be labelled "atheism" whereas the former would cover both agnosticism and atheism.

I don't really understand why at a popular media level, people are so keen to call themselves atheists that they have altered the meaning. It is clearly evident from the writings of many popular "atheists" though that their philosophical knowledge is woeful.

"The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’” ~ Antony Flew

How do you define Atheism, and how do you define Agnosticism?

K

 

[Holoman]

How do you define Atheism, and how do you define Agnosticism?

K

Atheism would be the view that God does not exist.
Agnosticism would be the view that the existence of God is unknown.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Atheism would be the view that God does not exist.
Agnosticism would be the view that the existence of God is unknown.

That’s not the typical way those terms are defined now, at least in the circles I’m involved in, and even as far back as the late 80s when I was a Philosophy student, we were using the terms in the way they’re used in my signature.

 

[quatona]

Yes there is a difference. In philosophy, only the latter would be labelled "atheism" whereas the former would cover both agnosticism and atheism.

I don't really understand why at a popular media level, people are so keen to call themselves atheists that they have altered the meaning. It is clearly evident from the writings of many popular "atheists" though that their philosophical knowledge is woeful.

"The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’” ~ Antony Flew

Since "common usage" is apparently debatable (and I guess semantics wasn´t the intended topic):
It seems the original question is directed towards those who positively assert that no Gods exist. Unfortunately for the OP there are only very few such persons around.

 

[Jon Osterman]

But really, I don't see that happening. There sheer number of different religions today points to that. And the huge number of different sects of Christianity alone is even stronger evidence. How could there be so many different variations of the One True Religion (tm)?

There have been a vast number of physical theories of the universe too, but only one can be correct. A proliferation of ideas doesn't not make all ideas false.

I don't see how this is possible. Science is the study of the objective facts about our universe. Unless the laws of the universe change, what we discover about those laws would remain the same as what we know today.

It is quite manifestly true, at least for some branches of science. As long as theories reproduce the observable data, they are good theories, and it is clear that different theories may reproduce the same observable data. (There have also been many examples in physics of "wrong" theories producing correct predictions.)

Doesn't the idea of multiverses explain the apparent fine tuning? Every single possible universe is formed, and naturally we would only exist in the universes where the laws were suitable for us to appear. So naturally, we should not be surprised when we find that we are in a universe that is capable of supporting life.

The multiverse has no evidence to support it though. It is as much a statement of faith as any religion. There isn't even circumstantial evidence because there is no agreed on formulation of M-theory to provide the vacuum states never mind an analysis of the actual vacua themselves. Also, one would expect to see domain walls in the universe at the boundaries between the vacuum state bubbles, and we do not see them. Then the question becomes, why are the bubbles larger than our observable universe? (Though to be fair, cosmic inflation, if ever confirmed could be an answer to that last question.)

 

[Ken-1122]

Atheism would be the view that God does not exist.
Agnosticism would be the view that the existence of God is unknown.

When you say "God" is this a specific God? Or anything/being people believe is God?

 

[Kylie]

Atheism would be the view that God does not exist.
Agnosticism would be the view that the existence of God is unknown.

I would disagree.

Atheism is a LACK of belief in God.

There's a big difference between saying you lack belief in something and saying something doesn't exist.

For example, I do not have the belief that a person named Jessica Barnes-Wilcox lives in the city of New York. I have no reason to hold that belief.

But that's a very different thing to me saying that I believe that there is no such person by that name living in NYC.