There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you believe people who claim they have been abducted by aliens and give specific descriptions of their experiences?

Answer the question I posed, then I'll answer yours.

 

[bhsmte]

Answer the question I posed, then I'll answer yours.

What question are you referring to exactly?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My argument is that if such a thing exists that is not constrained by physics such that we describe in the universe, then we can't know if it could or could not interact with the universe.

Well, as I see it, that's rather the point - if we know nothing about it and we don't and can't know if it interacts, then, for all practical purposes, it doesn't and can't - because if it could and did, we could detect it and so we could know.

And if something can influence the physical, we should know something about it, because the physics of everyday life (us and our immediate environment) is known - protons, neutrons, electrons, electromagnetism - we have a model that describes exactly how they behave and interact, and hundreds of thousands of experiments exploring that regime via billions of interactions that have never given any result incompatible with that model.

We know the model is incomplete at the fringes - there may be unknown particles or forces outside that regime, too short range or too weak to be significant, but the interactions of everyday life are pretty much nailed; for something to influence us or the things around us, it has to interact with the protons, neutrons, electrons we're made of, and the model tells us that we'd have detected it - if it was a particle we'd have made one, if a force, we'd have measured its effects - if it was significant enough to be relevant. To say something 'not constrained by physics' could influence these things is to say the model isn't just incomplete but wrong - and that it's a massive coincidence that we've just happened never to detect these anomalous influences.

You may as well be saying that it's entirely possible that magic works but we know nothing about it, and can't ever know - it not a reasonable conjecture; if something interacts, it can be detected if it has a significant effect.

I don't think the definition "can not act upon the physical" is a proper way of limiting the possibilitys of something we know nothing about.

So how would you distinguish between the physical and the non-physical? what do you think 'non-physical' means? e.g. is it like magic ?

 

[variant]

Well, as I see it, that's rather the point - if we know nothing about it and we don't and can't know if it interacts, then, for all practical purposes, it doesn't and can't - because if it could and did, we could detect it and so we could know.

Could know and would know are two differn't ideas.

We don't know what we don't know.

If we are proposing things that are not in evidence we can't use the lack of evidence to characterize them definitively.

The problem of interaction might be a problem, but we don't know it's a problem.

And if something can influence the physical, we should know something about it, because the physics of everyday life (us and our immediate environment) is known - protons, neutrons, electrons, electromagnetism - we have a model that describes exactly how they behave and interact, and hundreds of thousands of experiments exploring that regime via billions of interactions that have never given any result incompatible with that model.

The model breaks down at the beginning of the universe, it is nessisarily incomplete.

What we "should" know also breaks down then.

We know the model is incomplete at the fringes - there may be unknown particles or forces outside that regime, too short range or too weak to be significant, but the interactions of everyday life are pretty much nailed; for something to influence us or the things around us, it has to interact with the protons, neutrons, electrons we're made of, and the model tells us that we'd have detected it - if it was a particle we'd have made one, if a force, we'd have measured its effects - if it was significant enough to be relevant. To say something 'not constrained by physics' could influence these things is to say the model isn't just incomplete but wrong - and that it's a massive coincidence that we've just happened never to detect these anomalous influences.

You may as well be saying that it's entirely possible that magic works but we know nothing about it, and can't ever know - it not a reasonable conjecture; if something interacts, it can be detected if it has a significant effect.

So how would you distinguish between the physical and the non-physical? what do you think 'non-physical' means? e.g. is it like magic ?

It's not that you can't know anything about it but that you don't. If it can effect the natural universe in a meaningful way you should eventually discover evidence.

It's impossible of course to rule something like that out, but that is what we are dealing with.

I'm an atheist I don't support suppositions without evidence, I'm just describing the problem for you.

I don't think we have enough evidence to definitively describe a philosophical problem with "non-physical" things like the problem of interaction. We have the more problematic philosophical issue of dealing with things that are both not in evidence and defined in a non-falcefiable way.

This is part of the problem with many religious ideas, they present themselves in a way that make it impossible to evaluate them for the purpose of being impossible to evaluate.

That humans regularly propose ideas like this probably says more about humanity and their ability to honestly evaluate ideas than anything about the universe.

And then they get snippy with people who don't believe them.

 

[Moral Orel]

The reason we couldn't possibly strip the adjectives you are speaking of from Yahweh is because they are things we could never properly know about the subject.

Exactly, which means you can't disprove the existence of some specific deity either. That's the claim I was refuting: "I can't prove some vague deistic god doesn't exist, but I can prove Yahweh doesn't exist by showing that He doesn't have the qualities that make Him who He is." Not an exact quote, but I think an accurate paraphrase.

You can't disprove the existence of any deity of any kind, the best you can do is prove that the deity doesn't have some quality, but that doesn't affect it's existence. I might prove that omnipotence is impossible thanks to the Paradox of Stone, but I can't then say, "You claimed your god is omnipotent, but omnipotence is impossible, so your god doesn't exist." We just say, "Your god can't be omnipotent. If he exists, you're describing him wrong".

 

[variant]

Exactly, which means you can't disprove the existence of some specific deity either. That's the claim I was refuting: "I can't prove some vague deistic god doesn't exist, but I can prove Yahweh doesn't exist by showing that He doesn't have the qualities that make Him who He is." Not an exact quote, but I think an accurate paraphrase.

You can't disprove the existence of any deity of any kind, the best you can do is prove that the deity doesn't have some quality, but that doesn't affect it's existence. I might prove that omnipotence is impossible thanks to the Paradox of Stone, but I can't then say, "You claimed your god is omnipotent, but omnipotence is impossible, so your god doesn't exist." We just say, "Your god can't be omnipotent. If he exists, you're describing him wrong".

I don't think those specifics are specific enough to Yahweh, but virtually none of the characterization of God in any religion is open for demonstration or disproving.

 

[Moral Orel]

virtually none of the characterization of God in any religion is open for demonstration or disproving.

You're the first person I've seen agree with me on this.

 

[variant]

You're the first person I've seen agree with me on this.

It's not a point in the ideas favor, it is why I am agnostic, and why I lack belief.

If you can't even theoretically show something to be false, you can't show it to be true, and if you can't tell the difference there is no reason to believe it.

This makes religious ideas about God to be epistemological vapor.

If all aspects of God's nature are like this then the entire concept is counterproductive.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Could know and would know are two differn't ideas.

We don't know what we don't know.

Yes, but we know what we know and we know the approximate boundaries of what we can be certain of beyond reasonable doubt. For example, it's conceivable that my house might turn transparent, or gravity will just stop working, but you need some good reason to take that seriously enough to throw out the empirical knowledge that tells us beyond reasonable doubt that such things don't and can't happen in our local spacetime environment. To claim that something unphysical, undefined, and undetectable, can have significant influence on the physical world outside of physical law is simply incoherent - a significant effect will be detectable - that's what makes it significant; physical laws describe how the world behaves - any significant influences are already included; if we haven't seen their influence, it's not significant.

If we are proposing things that are not in evidence we can't use the lack of evidence to characterize them definitively.

Meh; we've also no evidence of magic leaking through from a parallel universe, so we can't characterize it definitively... how should we treat such a suggested possibility?

Aren't there an infinite number of things we could imagine are influencing our world but are not in evidence? What should we expect if they really were influencing our world? Evidence. Have we looked? Yes. Have we found a significant anomaly? No.

If something is not in evidence when it should be in evidence (i.e. when it is supposed to have significant influence on what we can detect and measure), then we can ignore it. A strong version of Hitchen's Razor.

The problem of interaction might be a problem, but we don't know it's a problem.

Because there's no evidence for that interaction - our current models describe and predict the behaviour of our human-scale regime precisely enough that no deviations have been found within the limit of experimental error, which is well below what would be significant to our everyday lives. I submit that whether any such interaction could occur or not, it isn't a problem because it has no significant (detectable, measurable) effect.

It's an example of Sagan's Dragon - and you can suggest that we can't dismiss the possibility of such a dragon; but when we've empirically established beyond reasonable doubt that it has no significant influence in the world, we can dismiss it.

The model breaks down at the beginning of the universe, it is nessisarily incomplete.

What we "should" know also breaks down then.

We know it's incomplete, and we also know its bounds of applicability; but we're not at the beginning of the universe or the other situations where it's inapplicable. Similarly, Newton's Laws are incomplete/wrong, but they're reliable at everyday human velocities, and even the velocities of planetary probes. Should NASA be concerned that, after so many successful journeys, some unevidenced, uncharacterizable, non-physical influence might push their next probe off course? I don't think so.

This is part of the problem with many religious ideas, they present themselves in a way that make it impossible to evaluate them for the purpose of being impossible to evaluate.

That humans regularly propose ideas like this probably says more about humanity and their ability to honestly evaluate ideas than anything about the universe.

Agreed; but when such ideas imply significant influence on our physical world, we can investigate them, and if they're valid we should see evidence of influence that is not accounted for by our physical models. But we don't.

And then they get snippy with people who don't believe them.

That's their problem - if they ignore or dismiss the definitional problem, the interaction problem, and the evidential problem, then they can't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[variant]

Yes, but we know what we know and we know the approximate boundaries of what we can be certain of beyond reasonable doubt. For example, it's conceivable that my house might turn transparent, or gravity will just stop working, but you need some good reason to take that seriously enough to throw out the empirical knowledge that tells us beyond reasonable doubt that such things don't and can't happen in our local spacetime environment. To claim that something unphysical, undefined, and undetectable, can have significant influence on the physical world outside of physical law is simply incoherent - a significant effect will be detectable - that's what makes it significant; physical laws describe how the world behaves - any significant influences are already included; if we haven't seen their influence, it's not significant.

Meh; we've also no evidence of magic leaking through from a parallel universe, so we can't characterize it definitively... how should we treat such a suggested possibility?

Aren't there an infinite number of things we could imagine are influencing our world but are not in evidence? What should we expect if they really were influencing our world? Evidence. Have we looked? Yes. Have we found a significant anomaly? No.

We have no real reason to posit the non-physical, beyond that, calling it ridiculous is unessisary.

Defining it with a philosophical problem like the problem of interaction is beyond what we are capable of. It is already purely undefined, and that is already the height of an absurd premise to rest a belief system upon.

If something is not in evidence when it should be in evidence (i.e. when it is supposed to have significant influence on what we can detect and measure), then we can ignore it. A strong version of Hitchen's Razor.

Because there's no evidence for that interaction - our current models describe and predict the behaviour of our human-scale regime precisely enough that no deviations have been found within the limit of experimental error, which is well below what would be significant to our everyday lives. I submit that whether any such interaction could occur or not, it isn't a problem because it has no significant (detectable, measurable) effect.

It's an example of Sagan's Dragon - and you can suggest that we can't dismiss the possibility of such a dragon; but when we've empirically established beyond reasonable doubt that it has no significant influence in the world, we can dismiss it.

We know it's incomplete, and we also know its bounds of applicability; but we're not at the beginning of the universe or the other situations where it's inapplicable. Similarly, Newton's Laws are incomplete/wrong, but they're reliable at everyday human velocities, and even the velocities of planetary probes. Should NASA be concerned that, after so many successful journeys, some unevidenced, uncharacterizable, non-physical influence might push their next probe off course? I don't think so.

I am not sure I would ever go so far as to asserting that I know what we "should" know, but it's an uninteresting discussion.

I have no problem with talking about it as un-evidenced, uncharicterizable and of no known influence.

The problem I was talking about is now turning around, assighning this purely hypothetical thing qualities via definition, when it is properly undefined.

This is why the problem of interaction isn't a problem, it only applies to a definition of a thing that is undefined by any actual experience or measurement.

It is at best restating the problem that what we are dealing with is undefined.

It is at worst, treating the idea with enough respect to merit serious philosophical discussion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We have no real reason to posit the non-physical, beyond that, calling it ridiculous is unessisary.

If I called it ridiculous, I was mistaken, but I don't think I did (citation?). Before we can call it ridiculous, we have to know what it's supposed to be, what it does or doesn't do, etc.

Defining it with a philosophical problem like the problem of interaction is beyond what we are capable of. It is already purely undefined, and that is already the height of an absurd premise to rest a belief system upon.

The problem of interaction is based on the application of the (philosophical) concept of dualism - especially substance dualism. Of course, if it is undefined it's effectively meaningless, but I've heard the religious give it various attributes in the categories of spirit, soul, etc., involving physical interaction, organization, behaviour, information transfer, persistence, etc. These do have meaning and can be addressed in physical terms, which is why I take issue with the descriptions 'non-physical' or 'immaterial'. It may be that those suggesting these attributes don't understand their implications, but that's why it's important to question and to explain.

I am not sure I would ever go so far as to asserting that I know what we "should" know, but it's an uninteresting discussion.

I have no problem with talking about it as un-evidenced, uncharicterizable and of no known influence.

Except there's not much to say about what is un-evidenced, uncharacterizable and of no known influence...

The problem I was talking about is now turning around, assighning this purely hypothetical thing qualities via definition, when it is properly undefined.

This is why the problem of interaction isn't a problem, it only applies to a definition of a thing that is undefined by any actual experience or measurement.

It is at best restating the problem that what we are dealing with is undefined.

OK.

It is at worst, treating the idea with enough respect to merit serious philosophical discussion.

Yeah, but serious philosophical discussion is all about clarifying at great length why certain positions, concepts, ideas, etc., are nonsense...

 

[variant]

If I called it ridiculous, I was mistaken, but I don't think I did (citation?). Before we can call it ridiculous, we have to know what it's supposed to be, what it does or doesn't do, etc.

I'm paraphrasing, you called it ridiculous about five differn't ways.

The problem of interaction is based on the application of the (philosophical) concept of dualism - especially substance dualism. Of course, if it is undefined it's effectively meaningless, but I've heard the religious give it various attributes in the categories of spirit, soul, etc., involving physical interaction, organization, behaviour, information transfer, persistence, etc. These do have meaning and can be addressed in physical terms, which is why I take issue with the descriptions 'non-physical' or 'immaterial'. It may be that those suggesting these attributes don't understand their implications, but that's why it's important to question and to explain.

Dualism suffers from all the same problems as the issues we are speaking of and, again, we can't know what we don't know until we have a definite entity to study with real characteristics that we can grasp. So, there can't be a problem of interaction without some sort of definite object to interact with.

Yeah, but serious philosophical discussion is all about clarifying at great length why certain positions, concepts, ideas, etc., are nonsense...

I'm saying the issue isn't all that complicated.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

1. atheism isn't the belief that there is "no god".

2. burden of proof shift... it's theists that make the positive claim (ie: god exists). Upto them to support said claim.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Because, again, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the people making the POSITIVE claim.

And also, off course, because atheism is NOT the claim that no gods exist.

Thoughts and thanks

Here's a thought: can you provide a logical argument that supports the non-existance of unicorns or extra-dimensional aliens?

I'll go ahead and guess that your answer is "no". Now, does that mean that you believe that these things exist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Romans 1:17-23

Atheists may consider it a fallacy by claiming it an Appeal to Grandiosity or some such. But they will have no excuse in the end, as the verse above proves.

17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness; 19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, [even] his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse: 21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Romans 1:23 seems to be talking about Evolution specifically.

Verses in a 2000 year old religious text, "prove" absolutely nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's almost like people believe the belief in God requires a complete understanding of "His" nature/will to go along with it.

The "belief" (=accepting as correct/true) of anything, requires logical reasoning and reasonable evidence. Otherwise, it is just gullibility.

That which is "true" or "correct" or "accurate", are those things that are in accordance with actual reality. To accept a thing as "true/correct/accurate" one thus needs a way to establish its truth value with respect to actual observable reality.

I am an atheist, because I see no way to marry theistic claims with observable reality.

Atheist in my opinion from all the discussions I've had seem to be more determined to disprove the religious God's..(especially the Christian God).. then they are with disproving the existence of God in general.

I wonder who you've been talking to.
I have yet to meet an atheist who thinks to be capable of "disproving" unfalsifiable entities.

With that being said.. I have not heard a logical argument from atheist that supports their belief that there is no God..not that there is no Religious God.

Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods.
It's merely disbelief of the claim that there IS a god.

Why do so many theists fail to understand the difference?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything in the physical universe is subject to time.. so it logically appears created. So if this universe has an age that isn't eternal then an outer force that isn't subject to time appears to have created our universe.

Great hypothetical.
Now, why would that "force" have to be a sentient intelligent being?

Why do you assume it is, other then that that is what you already happen to believe religiously?

This is why that argument doesn't seem logical.

Only because of your unjustified assumptions.
You are pretending to know and understand the nature of "reality" that (maybe) exists "beyond the universe".

You don't know any of this. You only have your religious beliefs. So in essence, you are stuck in a vicious circle of mere "beliefs" and you are assuming your conclusion because of it.

Unless you can provide a logical argument as to how the universe sprung from nothing and started itself.

No. Meet your own burden of proof.
And false dichotomies won't win your case either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you don't know.. then the proper stance is you don't know... not "No/Atheism".

That's essentialy the stance of the vast majority of atheists on this planet.
An atheist is someone who doesn't answer "yes" to the question "do you believe in god(s)?"

Answering "i don't know", is the same as answering "no": because at that point you have no positive beliefs in the existance of gods.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But that would imply "something from nothing". Which I think isn't a logical approach.

You don't know what is "logical" in advance.

Before Einstein, the idea that time wasn't a constant wasn't "logical" either.
Before Quantum physics, the idea that a particle could be measured "here" while at the same time, the same particle shows up "there", wasn't logical either.

Just about every discovery, especially in advanced physics (which the actual nature of the big bang would CERTAINLY fall under), was completely counter-intuitive. It defied everything we regarded as "logical" and "common sense".

If history has taught us anything, it most certainly is that what we see as "logical" or "common sense", means absolutely nothing when it comes to uncovering reality.

Because, surprise surprise, you do NOT know the answers before actually answering and investigating the questions.

In fact, in this particular case, I'ld dare to sugges that it's quite likely that we haven't even figured out what the proper questions to ask really are............

How can you not see that your entire case here is build on nothing more then speculation and assumption with some religious sauce on top?

Literally every time in human history where science came around to tackling subjects that had such "explanations", the speculative religious assumptions turned out to be completely incorrect.

In other words, take a hint from history.

 

[Larniavc]

Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?

Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.

I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).

Thoughts and thanks

That's not how it works.

If one makes the claim that something is real, one has to supply evidence.

Absent evidence, is it any surprise that many people simply don't believe in a creator?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence would you expect there to be, assuming that when Christ rose again, He would continue to work and move within the same epistemic and social contexts that He did before during his earthly ministry?

It sounds to me that you don't give Paul the benefit of the doubt because you've pretty much already laid out your own epistemological framework, with all of the assumptions that go along with whatever that framework is.

The resurected Michael Jackson appeared in my living room last night and sang the chorus of Billy Jean. Then he said in his trademark high pitched voice "a-hi-hiiiiiiii" and then disappeared again.

Do you believe me?
Do you give me the benefit of the doubt?