Why exactly does Atheism not have burden of proof?

[SteveII]

Well...no, there was something, and then more something of a different variety. There was never nothing from which something came.

I've been answering your questions in good faith. Resist the temptation to end it in what you think is a clever put-down.

So the creator was never alone with no thing\nothing?

Thought you said different earlier?


Are you now saying the creator and things/stuff also coexisted for ever?

The creator never had a very first thing to create?

I was trying to be clever and it was confusing. I apologize. According to the common conception of God, there was the creator (God) and nothing else. Then he created the physical part of reality and there was something else besides God. He created something physical from nothing physical. It has a handy Latin name creation ex nihilo (from nothing). Thousands of years ago when Genesis was written, the very first verse affirms that conception. As far as I know it was entirely unique of all the ancient culture creation accounts. Interestingly enough, it is logically impossible to have past eternally existing physical stuff so those ancient Hebrews were ahead in their metaphysics.

[DrewPaul]

@brewerb



Evidently you're not okay with claiming you don't know how the universe or life came about because you immediately criticize my position by claiming its a made up story. If you don't know how the universe came about how do you know I'm making a story and and not revealing the truth?

I would suggest you don't know for sure...but you certainly suspect it wasn't the result of a Creator. You just don't have the courage to support that position.

I don't seek validation I just enjoy a good debate.

I believe it's a story because you've provided nothing concrete to back it up, all you have are abstractions, mostly wish fulfillment.

A creator that just IS, how convenient.

Tell me what story atheists give that explains why a universe with exacting laws and properties that causes life to exist came about? Then we can compare stories and find out why despite saying you don't know, you think one explanation is better than another. Or just hide behind claims of ignorance. 

Once upon a time a universe burst into existence and without plan or intent caused a host of conditions and properties so that lifeless mindless forces accidentally forced all the conditions for human to exist. The end.

That's not an explanation its a bed time story.

[SteveII]

I think you are making a category mistake. There are physical and metaphysical claims. God's existence falls completely in the metaphysical department because if he exists, he transcends the physical world. Metaphysics is a deeper and more fundamental layer of reality than the physical.

My description should make that clear (every single category is completely nonphysical):

A necessary being, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and capable of causing and sustaining the universe would be definitionally, ultimate reality. What could be more foundational than having an explanation that is ultimate reality? Literally the most foundational explanation possible.

If you deny there is a deeper layer than the physical, that's just question-begging because you are defining reality to be something that cannot contain God.

met·a·phys·ics
/ˈmedəˌfiziks/
noun
noun: metaphysics
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

We are talking about evidence for gods. Any evidence for gods will be found in the physical world. Philosophical arguments aren't evidence.

Are you actually arguing that gods cannot exist in the material world?

Why must there be physical evidence? I'm not saying there isn't any, just why must there be?

There are several reasons why God cannot be physical with the biggest one being that he created all of physical reality--the stuff, matter and energy in what seems like a closed system. If he transcends that, he is definitionally not physical.

If God spoke to you tonight in a dream, would that be evidence to you?

[Rhythmcs]

Tell me what story atheists give

That's just it Drew.  We don't.  We're atheists because we don't believe in gods.  Atheism doesn't make the demands on us that your belief in some particular god with defeating attributes (as you see it) makes on you.

[DrewPaul]

Tell me what story atheists give

That's just it Drew.  We don't.  We're atheists because we don't believe in gods.  Atheism doesn't make the demands on us that your belief in some particular god with defeating attributes (as you see it) makes on you.

That's exactly why there are so few atheists. We don't believe in Gods is a silly slogan. All that says is your an atheist, everyone knows atheists don't believe in Gods. What people want to know is why you disbelieve in the explanation we owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

Or just repeat your slogan no one is listening to. 

We're atheists because we don't believe in gods

[brewerb]

I believe it's a story because you've provided nothing concrete to back it up, all you have are abstractions, mostly wish fulfillment.

A creator that just IS, how convenient.

Tell me what story atheists give that explains why a universe with exacting laws and properties that causes life to exist came about? Then we can compare stories and find out why despite saying you don't know, you think one explanation is better than another. Or just hide behind claims of ignorance. 

Once upon a time a universe burst into existence and without plan or intent caused a host of conditions and properties so that lifeless mindless forces accidentally forced all the conditions for human to exist. The end.

That's not an explanation its a bed time story.

bold 1: I don't have one, no story is needed. I'll listen to the cosmologists, they tend to be more reliable/verifiable.

bold 2: substitute came for burst and I agree. 

I know that it makes you comfortable to have a plan (i.e. watchmaker) but no plan is needed. In time we may have a more knowledgeable explanation of how things began and evolved but I'm OK with 'things began' as explained by cosmology excluding any myths.

Interesting that you don't want to be offended but have no problem with 'Or just hide behind claims of ignorance.'. Hypocrite often?

edit: maybe I should throw a hissy and threaten to block you.

[KingEric]

I believe it's a story because you've provided nothing concrete to back it up, all you have are abstractions, mostly wish fulfillment.

A creator that just IS, how convenient.

Tell me what story atheists give that explains why a universe with exacting laws and properties that causes life to exist came about? Then we can compare stories and find out why despite saying you don't know, you think one explanation is better than another. Or just hide behind claims of ignorance. 

Once upon a time a universe burst into existence and without plan or intent caused a host of conditions and properties so that lifeless mindless forces accidentally forced all the conditions for human to exist. The end.

That's not an explanation its a bed time story.

Yes and T-Rex was very grateful for the conditions that allowed for it's existence.

[Rhythmcs]

That's just it Drew.  We don't.  We're atheists because we don't believe in gods.  Atheism doesn't make the demands on us that your belief in some particular god with defeating attributes (as you see it) makes on you.

That's exactly why there are so few atheists. We don't believe in Gods is a silly slogan. 

.....and?  

All that says is your an atheist, everyone knows atheists don't believe in Gods. What people want to know is why you disbelieve in the explanation we owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator

I appreciate that you're not still talking evidence, but I don't think you have an explanation any more than you had evidence.  We're all still waiting to hear it, after all.

Personally...I suspect I'm just not wired to believe in gods.  That's probably an unsatisfying explanation to you.  Maybe it sounds silly.  It does have the benefit of being true, though.  

If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

I don't think the universe was rigged to cause life...but what you're doing again with this is employing a stolen concept fallacy.  You, Me, God or The Housecat can only set some specific conditions for life to arise naturally if there is such a thing as those conditions for life to arise naturally in the first place.  You're using the concept of those conditions while denying the validity of the ideas upon which it depends. What we see is an evidently natural world, and even according to you. Gods have to rig something, and there must be something to rig, to achieve their desired outcomes. FWIW, I think that's often the case with us so it's intuitive to believe as much about gods if you believe in gods. The projection of personality being central to a beliefs accurate classification as theistic.

There's an alternative. OFC. God didn't "rig the universe for life". Gods don't have to do that, and in fact there is no such thing as any particular conditions for life. Life is actively sustained by gods. This has the benefit of not invoking any concepts the argument intends for us to reject.

Or perhaps a hybrid case. That it's not actually remarkable to see life where life could naturally arise...and thus the best examples to suggest some additional hidden variable (you, me, god, a housecat) are those which explicitly do not involve finding life exactly where you'd expect to find it..where things have ben "rigged" for it, rather...in finding it exactly where you suspect it could not be. The apparent hostility of the universe as a natural environment is flipped from a conceptual defeater to a conceptual supporter.

There are plenty of ways to communicate a deities personal and intervening nature without trying to plug bad facts into invalid arguments.

Or just repeat your slogan no one is listening to. 

We're atheists because we don't believe in gods

Well, you'll notice this isn't creationist forums dot com. I don't know how the universe began. I do know that life is a product of organic chemistry. It seems to me that you know that too.

[Astreja]

What people want to know is why you disbelieve in the explanation we owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

No evidence for the alleged creator-being itself.  If adequate evidence is ever found for such a being, I'll reconsider my position.

[Minimalist]

If anyone wishes to get off my ignore list please send me a PM stating you'll do your utmost to engage in a civil debate.

You can send an email to my junk mail box...

drew1957x@gmail.com

Way too much trouble for such a limited payoff!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why must there be physical evidence? I'm not saying there isn't any, just why must there be?

There are several reasons why God cannot be physical with the biggest one being that he created all of physical reality--the stuff, matter and energy in what seems like a closed system. If he transcends that, he is definitionally not physical.

If God spoke to you tonight in a dream, would that be evidence to you?

Wait, you're capitalizing "god", are you now talking about your personal god? Why the change now?

If your god cannot interact with physical reality, how can he speak to me in a dream? Neural activity is electrochemical which is physical.

The claim that a god created all reality is actually what is at contention right now, which means you are begging the question. You don't know who or what created reality; you only have faith, which I don't share. Can you evidence that claim? No, of course not. I will therefore ignore that point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Worse is how many people think that having any explanation - even a bad one - is superior to "I don't know."

A lot of people who say they don't know how the universe or our existence came to be, are just virtue signaling because in the next sentence they'll indicate they don't believe it was intentionally caused to exist. Which suggests they do know something. 

Secondly the explanation it was intentionally caused to exist or it was unintentionally caused to exist are excellent theories because one or the other is true.

Since you feel the need to make personal attacks, you don't really deserve the courtesy you demand.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between knowledge and belief says more about you than about anyone else.

[DrewPaul]

I appreciate that you're not still talking evidence, but I don't think you have an explanation any more than you had evidence.  We're all still waiting to hear it, after all.

The existence of the universe and life is evidence the universe was intentionally caused to produce intelligent life. Its the two conditions absolutely necessary for theism to be true. The universe and life didn't have to exist did it? The reason the universe developed the ingredients necessary for life to exist is because the universe came with laws of physics that forced stars to create them from scratch. The universe came with more dark matter to keep galaxies from flying apart and keep the ingredients stars made available to make planets. My explanation is the universe was 'born' with laws of physics that produced the ingredients because it was by design.

Intelligent beings such as scientists have been able to extract laws of physics from our universe. Make no mistake, they extracted them because they existed. They exist because the universe was born with the laws of physics. These are Newtons laws of physics 

F=m1⋅V1–m0⋅V0t1–t0

F=m⋅(V1–V0)t1–t0

F=m⋅a

Most famous E=MC^2

Einstein is considered a genius because he extracted this formula from 'mother nature'. It was mother nature that used this formula to cause the universe to exist. Whatever or whoever caused the universe to exist must be a genius.

You maybe wired to ignore these facts and not consider their ramifications, I've thought about them for years. About the only thing that would make me reconsider we owe our existence to a creator, would be if multiverse theory is confirmed with direct evidence. Its about the only credible mechanism for our universe to be result of chance. Oddly most atheists reject multiverse too.

 
[/quote]
Well, you'll notice this isn't creationist forums dot com.
[/quote]

I noticed.

[mordant]

That's just it Drew.  We don't.  We're atheists because we don't believe in gods.  Atheism doesn't make the demands on us that your belief in some particular god with defeating attributes (as you see it) makes on you.

That's exactly why there are so few atheists. We don't believe in Gods is a silly slogan. All that says is your an atheist, everyone knows atheists don't believe in Gods. What people want to know is why you disbelieve in the explanation we owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator.

You are (probably deliberately) missing the point. Atheists don't have a pope or other leader, or a holy book. We're not an ideology. We are, definitionally, just unbelievers in even one god -- even in a god different from yours. Beyond that we don't have anything to say AS atheists, so ...

... the WHY depends on the individual atheist, although it's usually some variation of "I don't see any good reason / supporting evidence to believe in any god, including yours". I don't think this is hard at all. Seems pretty simple to me.

If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

You're begging the question with this "rigged to cause life" business. The universe exists. It is mostly very hostile to life, so not at all biased toward it. Life manages to exist anyway, at least here and probably widely scattered other locations in the universe that we can't reach yet. Mostly, though, the universe produces chaotic environments hostile to life, much less to its development. Even if the universe somehow proves to be like the imagined universe of Star Trek, and is just teeming with sentient beings, those beings will die instantly in 99.99999% of the universe (outside the biosphere they evolved in), absent very sophisticated technology.

We aren't in a position to have a full and satisfying explanation for every question, and probably won't be for some time, even assuming we survive as a technologically advanced species. But fanciful explanations involving the supernatural are guaranteed to point us away from, rather than toward, actual knowledge. 100% of everything we understand has naturalistic explanations. It is a safe bet that everything else we come to understand will also have naturalistic explanations.

And in fact, there'd be no way to verify non-naturalistic explanations, which definitionally are only asserted and never evidenced. The supernatural can never be produced for examination and study.

[DrewPaul]

What people want to know is why you disbelieve in the explanation we owe the existence of the universe and life to a Creator If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

No evidence for the alleged creator-being itself.  If adequate evidence is ever found for such a being, I'll reconsider my position.

Fair enough. There is circumstantial evidence for the claim it was intentionally caused but no direct evidence of a Creator-Being. Is there adequate evidence to convince you we owe our existence to unintended natural forces? Or are you totally undecided?

[Rhythmcs]

I appreciate that you're not still talking evidence, but I don't think you have an explanation any more than you had evidence.  We're all still waiting to hear it, after all.

The existence of the universe and life is evidence the universe was intentionally caused to produce intelligent life. Its the two conditions absolutely necessary for theism to be true. 

Good lord, we're stuck on a loop.  You are making an argument, not presenting evidence.  Your argument is itself defective.  Additionally, your conditions for theism to be true (or false, as it were) are not representative of all theistic propositions and possibilities.  

That may need to be true for whatever theistic god you believe in to be true...and if so you have a problem.  It's simply not necessary for theism to be true.  There may be some other personal and intervening god or gods, which don't require such conditions.  The theistic god you believe in may actually exist..but not have done what you think it did - and thus would leave you in the strange position of insisting that theism were false even though the god you believed in existed.

The universe and life didn't have to exist did it?

IDK.

The reason the universe developed the ingredients necessary for life to exist is because the universe came with laws of physics that forced stars to create them from scratch. The universe came with more dark matter to keep galaxies from flying apart and keep the ingredients stars made available to make planets. My explanation is the universe was 'born' with laws of physics that produced the ingredients because it was by design.

"Ingredients necessary for life" is the same stolen concept fallacy applied again at the level of physics - having retreated from biology.  If there is such a thing.......and if you invoke such a thing in your premise...you cannot logically deny as much down the road.

[mordant]

The reason the universe developed the ingredients necessary for life to exist is because the universe came with laws of physics that forced stars to create them from scratch.

These are not "laws" in the sense of "authored legal documents". They are observed patterns describable via mathematics. There are less strictly reproducible patterns that are still observable, such as typical characteristics of human thought processes and responses to stimuli. That we find ourselves in an environment that is (somewhat) predictable and controllable doesn't in itself "mean" anything.

You seem to be pursuing a variant of the fine-tuning argument, which makes no more sense than a puddle exulting that the hole it's in is perfectly suited to its shape and so must have been dug specifically for it.

[Astreja]

No evidence for the alleged creator-being itself.  If adequate evidence is ever found for such a being, I'll reconsider my position.

Fair enough. There is circumstantial evidence for the claim it was intentionally caused but no direct evidence of a Creator-Being. Is there adequate evidence to convince you we owe our existence to unintended natural forces? Or are you totally undecided?

No, not undecided - Your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't come anywhere near my evidentiary standard.  It has to be direct, testable evidence of the creator-being itself.  As there is no such evidence available, a fall-back to "unintended natural forces" is the only reasonable position to take because we know such forces exist.

[Minimalist]

Primarily I was attempting to disabuse atheists of their favorite claim, that there is no evidence

Then produce such evidence as opposed to pages of gibberish.  Your beliefs are meaningless.

[DrewPaul]

If you reject that claim how do you explain the existence of a universe rigged to cause life?

You're begging the question with this "rigged to cause life" business. The universe exists. It is mostly very hostile to life, so not at all biased toward it. Life manages to exist anyway, at least here and probably widely scattered other locations in the universe that we can't reach yet. Mostly, though, the universe produces chaotic environments hostile to life, much less to its development. Even if the universe somehow proves to be like the imagined universe of Star Trek, and is just teeming with sentient beings, those beings will die instantly in 99.99999% of the universe (outside the biosphere they evolved in), absent very sophisticated technology.

Your statement its mostly hostile to life begs the question why should there be any life? For that matter why should there be a universe? There is nothing about naturalism that demands those two things exist. Why would we expect mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent by an act of sheer serendipity cause both life and mind to exist? The explanation it just happened to happen and we got lucky is the extraordinary explanation.

Can we mere humans create a universe and populate it with life? Not quite yet we have a virtual universe some day we maybe able to populate them with virtual people who experience life just as we do. The possibility our universe was designed isn't outrageous.  Its up in the air about life outside of earth. The so-called Fermi paradox. The discovery of the sheer number of exo-planets in our galaxy alone gave rise to belief in alien life. The fact the galaxy is loaded with the ingredients known to be essential to the only life we know of.

The fine tuning of the universe for life isn't some theist fairy-tale. Scientists have a virtual universe and even in a virtual universe to duplicate what we see in the real universe, requires fine-tuning. This is exactly why so many scientists of different fields of study subscribe to the belief we live in a multiverse. All that does is tell us how ridiculously fine-tuned the universe is that it requires an infinitude of universes to obtain a life causing universe by chance!
   

 But fanciful explanations involving the supernatural are guaranteed to point us away from, rather than toward, actual knowledge. 100% of everything we understand has naturalistic explanations. It is a safe bet that everything else we come to understand will also have naturalistic explanations.

Except the existence of the universe itself because until the universe came into existence...there was no nature as we observe it today. There was no spacetime, no laws of physics. Our best theory of the universe is a phenomenon known as the singularity which existed outside of time and the laws of physics burst into existence by another force outside of spacetime and the laws of physics (cosmic inflation) and caused it to expand faster than the speed of light. Don't you consider these explanations to be supernatural?

And you're right we may not even be able to observe or examine them.

[DrewPaul]

No evidence for the alleged creator-being itself.  If adequate evidence is ever found for such a being, I'll reconsider my position.

Fair enough. There is circumstantial evidence for the claim it was intentionally caused but no direct evidence of a Creator-Being. Is there adequate evidence to convince you we owe our existence to unintended natural forces? Or are you totally undecided?

No, not undecided - Your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't come anywhere near my evidentiary standard.  It has to be direct, testable evidence of the creator-being itself.  As there is no such evidence available, a fall-back to "unintended natural forces" is the only reasonable position to take because we know such forces exist.

We do know natural forces exist. We also know the natural forces we are familiar with didn't cause there own existence. I assume the notion the universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing doesn't pass your evidentiary standard.

[Astreja]

No, not undecided - Your "circumstantial evidence" doesn't come anywhere near my evidentiary standard.  It has to be direct, testable evidence of the creator-being itself.  As there is no such evidence available, a fall-back to "unintended natural forces" is the only reasonable position to take because we know such forces exist.

We do know natural forces exist. We also know the natural forces we are familiar with didn't cause there own existence. I assume the notion the universe popped into existence uncaused out of nothing doesn't pass your evidentiary standard.

Who says they ever needed to be caused?  I believe that the basic subatomic substance of existence is itself eternal, and insentient.  Vastly more believable, IMO, then an eternal sentient being.

And the properties of the basic "stuff" of existence could easily explain the forces.  No gods required.

[Paleophyte]

Point of Order. Goddunnit has no explanatory power. Invoking the Divine doesn't actually explain anything. It's an epistemological dead end.


Invoking an infinitely infinite Deity that's Beyond Mortal Comprehension isn't simpler.


Will you forgive me if I simply fall over laughing at this point? Nothing that has anything to do with Christian theology should ever use the words coherence or consistency except by way of begging forgiveness for high crimes against both.


I eagerly await the first faith-based space program.

Your style of breaking up a post and answering with your typical dismissive assertions (the rhetorical version of being a bully) is irritating and isn't really productive because it doesn't contain much content. Plus you often end up not addressing the overall context of the post you are responding to and thereby developing any semblance of a conversation. Case in point, your response above amounts to: "uh-uh".

While I can guess at your objections and do have thoughts on them, I'll wait until you explain your points better to respond. But then again, perhaps your goal is to be a rhetorical bully and you don't want a response. We'll see.

You made several different points. I addressed each one separately. If that's bullying then you have a very odd sense of oppression. I'm sorry that the format chafed your ass cheeks.

[Paleophyte]

What exactly don't you understand about the "God of the Philosophers with is generally characterized as a necessary being, timeless, changeless, immaterial, and the ultimate cause and sustaining force behind the universe?"

The bit where you define your deity with inherently contradictory attributes that are violations of reason. We observe precisely zero entities that are timeless, changeless, or immaterial and if they were they'd be incapable of being a cause or sustaining force of any kind, rather by definition. And then you call this kludge of reason the "God of Philosophers"? I'm pretty sure it's the other dude.

[Paleophyte]

OT question…

If you’ve put a person on ignore, doesn’t that also mean you don’t have the PM button or is that only for the ignoree. IOW, you’d have to un ignore them to get a PM from them.

Good point. My junk mail box is Drew1957X@gmail.com

Hello Drew Paul,

My name is Obrudoni Mgasandri and I am the Prince of Nigeria...