Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[variant]

You have a skewed sense of humor.

I find my sense of humor very appropriate.

And no, it's not like that at all. You're thinking I'm positing God as a natural hypothesis just because. I'm claiming there are logical and metaphysical (infinite regress) requirements that make an eternal universe impossible (which means a universe that always existed in macro form, e.g., big crunch, or one that always existed in quantum form, God help us), and lead us to the absurd conclusion that we have to give up the principle of sufficient reason (i.e., our basic understanding of causality) to accept a universe without a creator (which doesn't necessarily mean a personal God). Let me state that again: we need to give up our faith in basic reasoning to accept a universe without God along complicated eternal universe lines. That's no different at all than "Goddidit".

You are saying that we don't know how the universe started therefore supernatural.

The metaphysical constraints you would like to put on an event you are essentially ignorant of are hogwash.

The correct conclusion you should come to is that something happened at the beginning of the universe that we do not currently understand. To label this as "supernatural" or "god" is basically coming directly from your bias.

We do not know how the universe started so we certainly do not know it was started by a God, we certainly can not rule out every other option rather than God that is truly absurd.

We can never rule out God of course because we can never rule it out (it has no falsifiable criteria), but this doesn't make it the only possible answer because you aren't capable of a different one.

 

[Received]

I'm using the words to mean what they mean.

So, how do we test for God or the supernatural?

You're being disingenuous. If you want, any time you post "test" I'd be happy to edit it for you to mean "determine to be true". Like this:

I'm using the words to mean what they mean.

So, how do we determine God or the supernatural to be true?

See?

 

[Received]

I find my sense of humor very appropriate.

Of course you would.

You are saying that we don't know how the universe started therefore supernatural.

Nope.

 

[variant]

You're being disingenuous. If you want, any time you post "test" I'd be happy to edit it for you to mean "determine to be true". Like this:

See?

You didn't answer the question though.

How do we test for God or the supernatural? I will accept any test that will differentiate truth from falsity.

 

[variant]

Nope.

Yes you really are, this is an argument from ignorance.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not quite. I'm saying that we don't understand physical causality but still accept it in practice, so there's no problem with the spirit "causing" the physical or us not understanding it as a barrier to accepting this realm as metaphysically necessary (i.e., required for the creation of the physical universe).

Well, yes, there is a barrier, given that what we see is matter interacting with matter in spacetime. That's the context in which our understanding of causality makes sense.

Too late. Let's try to have a dialogue here.

You might see where I'm going. Asking how I know creatio ex nihilo happened is in a sense uncovered in this very question: if you create something from nothing, there was previously nothing. I relate this to the universe by saying that the universe either didn't exist (nothing), which means creatio ex nihilo, or (assuming creatio ex nihilo can't be the case) that therefore the universe existed eternally in some form, from which we can say the universe as we know it was created ex materia from some mysterious quantum world "before" time and space as we know it. So it's either ex nihilo if the universe was truly bought into being from nothing, or ex materia in that the universe has always existed.

How do you know nothingness was a real state of affairs, particularly one that preceded somethingness?

And the latter has extremely problematic metaphysical considerations, notably the problem of an infinite regress, which if true doesn't "allow" for the present moment --

Not necessarily, no. The universe, or rather the material from which the universe emerged, may have existed in a timeless, spaceless state.

or we have to go as far as suspending the principle of sufficient reason, meaning we give up trust in our basic sense of causality and our faculties to allow for an infinite regress.

You're already asking us to make exceptions to our basic sense of causality so as to allow for creatio ex nihilo.

But the moment you do this, you're reaching out with faith for something that not only has no evidence, but is also counterintuitive and against our very basic faculties.

Creatio ex nihilo is also counterintuitive.

 

[variant]

Creatio ex nihilo is also counterintuitive.

Why should we expect the creation of the universe, something we have yet to actually describe in any terms of thinking, to be intuitive?

This is a bit like asking Galileo to posit black holes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why should we expect the creation of the universe, something we have yet to actually describe in any terms of thinking, to be intuitive?

I'm not saying that we should. It's a situation that defies our basic intuitions after-all. I'm making a counterpoint to Received who suggests that the notion of an infinite succession should be excluded on the grounds of it being counterintuitive.

 

[Received]

Ex nihilo isn't counterintuitive, at least not for me. We have a concept of nothingness, and we can apply it (literally or metaphorically, it doesn't matter) to what "preceded" the universe.

 

[variant]

I'm not saying that we should. It's a situation that defies our basic intuitions after-all. I'm making a counterpoint to Received who suggests that the notion of an infinite succession should be excluded on the grounds of it being counterintuitive.

Exactly, intuitive rationality excludes ideas that reality does not.

We would need a huge amount of information that we don't have to rule out every possibility except the supernatural.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ex nihilo isn't counterintuitive, at least not for me. We have a concept of nothingness, and we can apply it (literally or metaphorically, it doesn't matter) to what "preceded" the universe.

We have an idealised Platonic version of nothingness, but we don't know whether nothingness is or was a real state of affairs.

 

[Received]

Well, yes, there is a barrier, given that what we see is matter interacting with matter in spacetime. That's the context in which our understanding of causality makes sense.

And we assume causality in practice (without knowing on a very basic philosophical level whether it really is so, when things could easily be flux with no intrinsic Newtonian understanding of causality), so why can't we assume spirit can cause matter?

How do you know nothingness was a real state of affairs, particularly one that preceded somethingness?

Because the options are 1) nothingness, 2) something that always existed. IOW, time is finite or it's infinite.

Not necessarily, no. The universe, or rather the material from which the universe emerged, may have existed in a timeless, spaceless state.

Sounds a lot like how theologians describe God.

You're already asking us to make exceptions to our basic sense of causality so as to allow for creatio ex nihilo.

Causality and creatio ex nihilo go together fine: there was nothing, then there was something, therefore an agent who caused this something.

Creatio ex nihilo is also counterintuitive.

Quite the opposite: creatio ex materia with an infinite regress of mysterious quantum stuff preceding the cosmos as we know it is truly counterintuitive.

 

[variant]

Ex nihilo isn't counterintuitive, at least not for me. We have a concept of nothingness, and we can apply it (literally or metaphorically, it doesn't matter) to what "preceded" the universe.

We don't have evidence for nothingness, the state of the universe preceding what we know is unknown..

And of course nothing is counterintuitive when you have a God (that can literally do anything) to bridge all gaps.

 

[Received]

We have an idealised Platonic version of nothingness, but we don't know whether nothingness is or was a real state of affairs.

I don't think nothingness is Platonic. It's just nothingness. And because we can't *know*, we must take a look at probability given metaphysical considerations. Which means there is no justification in the hard sense of justification (as we use it in arguments in any other context) for being a theist or an atheist, given that both presuppose metaphysical states of affairs that are by definition assumptions. Except what I'm saying is that the atheistic metaphysical assumptions are more problematic than the theistic ones in terms of a creator of everything.

 

[Received]

We don't have evidence for nothingness, the state of the universe preceding what we know is unknown..

We don't have evidence for something either; i.e., that because there is something now there was always something then (eternally in the past).

 

[variant]

We don't have evidence for something either; i.e., that because there is something now there was always something then (eternally in the past).

So why are we reasoning from evidence we don't have?

We wouldn't know there was an eternal past.

 

[Received]

So why are we reasoning from evidence we don't have.

We wouldn't know there was an eternal past.

Because life is more than evidence, mon cher. We have no evidence either way in the sense you've defined evidence. We only have metaphysics and probability for which set of metaphysics (theist or atheist) cause less problems. That's how the world is when you look closely enough: no certainty, no evidence, only fragments of metaphysical requirements which we must string together using reason.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And we assume causality in place (without knowing on a very basic philosophical level whether it really is so, when things could easily be flux with no intrinsic Newtonian understanding of causality), so why can't we assume spirit can cause matter?

Because, as I've already explained, we don't see supernatural entities causing material entities to do anything. We only see material entities interacting with other material entities.

Because the options are 1) nothingness, 2) something that always existed. IOW, time is finite or it's infinite.

Not necessarily. Some physicists have posited oscillating universe models, which combine the Big Bang and the Big Crunch in a cycle of expansion and contraction.

Sounds a lot like how theologians describe God.

Okay... I don't hear many theologians describing God as matter existing in a timeless, spaceless state, but okay...

Causality and creatio ex nihilo go together fine: there was nothing, then there was something, therefore an agent who caused this something.

Quite the opposite: creatio ex materia with an infinite regress of mysterious quantum stuff preceding the cosmos as we know it is truly counterintuitive.

They only "go together fine" if we make exceptions to our basic understanding of causality so as to accommodate your theological doctrine.

 

[variant]

Because life is more than evidence, mon cher. We have no evidence either way in the sense you've defined evidence. We only have metaphysics and probability for which set of metaphysics (theist or atheist) cause less problems. That's how the world is when you look closely enough: no certainty, no evidence, only fragments of metaphysical requirements which we must string together using reason.

I think reasoning based upon what you don't know simply limits the possibilities to that of your imagination.

You imagine a God because you can't imagine an alternative.

Does this help us?

 

[Received]

Because, as I've already explained, we don't see supernatural entities causing material entities to do anything. We only see material entities interacting with other material entities.

You can't see supernatural entities causing anything, because being "super" natural it means going beyond physical perception. My point is simply that we don't understand physical causality, and saying "we see X hit Y which moves" assumes causality, therefore we don't need to posit comprehension of causality at all for anything to allow it to exist, physical or supernatural.

Not necessarily. Some physicists have posited oscillating universe models, which combine the Big Bang and the Big Crunch in a cycle of expansion and contraction.

Yeah, eternal universe.

Okay... I don't hear many theologians describing God as matter existing in a timeless, spaceless state, but okay...

But you do hear them describing God as timeless and spaceless. It's interesting how you would rather posit a timeless and spaceless matter with the incredible problem of *how* this timeless and spaceless matter *became* contained in time and space (which would otherwise imply intelligence in any other situation that causes this change) than God who fits the bill much easier as a creator.

They only "go together fine" if we make exceptions to our basic understanding of causality so as to accommodate your theological doctrine.

Not at all. There is nothing more easy to understand than nothing, something, therefore someone. Just as we do this without thinking for a millisecond with creatio ex materia when we make cars (no car, car, therefore someone), so it's also the case with the exact same reasoning ability with ex nihilo (nothing, something, therefore someone).