Why can't atheists just be wrong?

[kritikvernunft]

Nice, bro

Ya know, flat earth theory was rife right up til the late 80's and then the books of a certain author became popular... Terry Pratchett and his DISCWORLD universe kept all those flat earth shills subdued in Terry's fantasy novels.

Then - he dies last year and BADABING BADABOOM - the web becomes infested with Flat Earth Shills. Out of containment, they hit the web with a relentless, misplaced, unscientific and a-religious zeal.

LOL

It's like they be in a car with handbrake on, revving the gas, they feel powerful but aint going nowhere

Scimi

The following is a nice video on David Hilbert's Grand Hotel. It shows a few weird behaviours of things that are infinite (while time is clearly not like that).

 

[Reminder]

You're wrong.

The Ahlul R'ay are the People of Opinion and make up the vast majority of Muslim Jurists.

Scimi

Innovation in Islam isn't allowed. Agree to disagree.

 

[kritikvernunft]

You see, with time progressing by addition, it cannot be infinite

Why not?

Time has the form and shape of a (finite) line segment. Aristotle discovered that this suggests the existence of a first cause, who is the principle of causality to everything else. Here is another video about David Hilbert's Grand Hotel, which rules out that time could progress and also be infinite:

 

[Al Sultan]

Well brother,we muslims have no permission to say "hey,you atheist,you're going to hell! LOLOLOLOL" (ik its a bit funny at the end) that's really wrong and the prophet didn't teach us to say that,but see,if you don't worship allah,but I worship allah,its your will,not mine,and I cant hate you,if allah does hate you,cuz he has authrioty and he is better than all of us,so we're not god to say this or that,your judgement or errors are only judged by allah,not us,but again if you seek knowledge and understand parts of religion you might join it,and I pray to allah to have mercy on you,and guide you

 

[greenhill]

I knew when I came here that I'd be regarded as a possible convert. It's one of the hazards of being curious about the world in which I live, although proselytizing is largely a religious hazard.

So I came here seeking information and with certain expectations. One of these expectations is that as long as I obey the laws of hospitality, then so will my hosts. All this means is that good manners will prevail and that respect will be answered with respect.

I do not recall anyone here accusing me of either bad manners or a lack of respect. It follows, then, that I have behaved myself reasonably well. What does not follow is that I would or should be receptive to or deserve a so-called "bad cop" argumentation. I do not in fact find such a presentation at all persuasive, for several reasons. And, to be sure, neither do I pay much attention to friendship in the pursuit of information.

To restate the obvious, I am an atheist. For me, personally, this means that religious belief is opinion unsupported by evidence. However, I am also a skeptic; this means that I strive to be evidence-driven, and consequently that I am open to being shown that I am wrong. If an enemy has the facts, I will adopt his position; if a friend does not have the facts, I will disagree.

To show me that I'm wrong is quite simple, but may not be easy. Show me. If you want to convert me, show me your god. Give me facts and evidence that cannot be accounted for by any other explanation than your god.

NOTE: Above, I said *your* god. Remember, from my viewpoint, I'm in a large religious shopping center where deities are a dime a dozen, and I'm deciding whether and which one to buy into. Humanity has worshiped thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of gods throughout history, and some of the oldest are still being worshipped. You have two jobs: convince me that God exists, and convince me that your god is God. Both tasks will require evidence, not interpretation; you supply the evidence and I will interpret it.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable. If you are right, I have an immortal soul whose eternal fate is in jeopardy. If you are right, following the wrong god is no different than following no god. It therefore seems reasonable to take the utmost care in committing the fate of my eternal soul to the care of any particular god. Prove to me that yours is that god.

I've been asking these questions for some time, and not just of various religious folk. I've also addressed them to the cosmos at large, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Perhaps someone should remind God that no answer is an answer.

It applies to reason.

It line is so subtle that it has been there all along. I am a born Muslim. I still had to do my own discovery or could have very easily gone off. .

For a growing up kid in the west, islam is so restrictive. I rebelled.

But as much as I was fighting it, I couldn't deny the story fits..

Allah never revealed Himself to us mortals. Only Adam got to see Him.

So Allah the Creator, not seen by anyone since became forgotten. But people know of and heard of others who believed but know not what. Some are made up and others became deified etc.. the One Creator became many.


But He continued to send prophets and messengers.

The continuity of those messages, spread in time over several thousand years, with the incremental lessons in them cannot be coincidental. The Zabur, Taurat, Injil and the Quran were all Books from the Creator with the level of message to suit the maturing mind of human.

If all are viewed separately, the hidden genius by having all Books known but still it is not pieced together because every single follower of the Books want only theirs hence the separate faiths. It is sad.

Islam is not at all like other religion. It is about submission to Allah.

Only then you can 'see'. Otherwise the pride gets in the way. Who does not have pride?

It's way past midnight and got an early morning.. got to go.


eace:

 

[Pygoscelis]

Time has the form and shape of a (finite) line segment. Aristotle discovered that this suggests the existence of a first cause, who is the principle of causality to everything else.

There are numerous problems with any argument that points to our difficulties wrapping our minds around the concept of infinity and the strange math it creates, and then concludes that because it is so odd or that we can't wrap our minds around it, it must be false. Just because we can't understand it doesn't make it untrue. Zeno's paradox (that you can't get form A to B because first you must get half way, and then halfway to that, and then halfway to that, onto infinity) is another good example. At first look it looks mind blowing, but once you figure it out it is simple. I would reject the same sort of argument from an atheist saying there can be no God for the same reason regarding infinity. Consider the old joke "Can god make a rock so massive even he can't lift it", which digs at the concept of infinite power.

Indeed arguing for first cause or for a God only becomes more troublesome when you attack the concept of infinity. If infinity can't exist, then can God? He couldn't be infinitely powerful or infinitely knowledgable or anything else infinite.

You also have to look at the alternative. If there hasn't always been something (ie, the universe or pre-universe, God, etc), then something had to come from nothing.... and I'm sure you've seen a plethora of theists insisting that something can't come from nothing. Special pleading that God can have always existed or can have come from nothing doesn't really get you anywhere, as much as you may wish it did.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Just because we can't understand it doesn't make it untrue.

It is perfectly possible to understand the various magnitudes of infinite. The problem with infinite time is that it would be contradictory. It would be inconsistent with the rules governing infinite.

Consider the old joke "Can god make a rock so massive even he can't lift it", which digs at the concept of infinite power.

The universe is not infinite. Hence, a rock inside the universe would not be of infinite size. Furthermore, within the framework of Newtonian thinking, a rock and the earth mutually attract each other. if the rock were substantially larger than the earth, it would be seen attracting the earth and not the other way around. Next, the Eddington limits impose a maximum size on celestial bodies. Beyond that size, we only have black holes. So, it would amount to lifting a black hole. And so on. The question just falls apart when reaching sizes that are beyond the tolerances involved. The earth cannot attract objects beyond a particular size. It would be attracted by it instead. For example, you cannot prevent the earth from being attracted by the sun just by lifting objects from the surface of the earth. Hence "countering this attraction" aka "lifting the object" becomes meaningless.

Indeed arguing for first cause or for a God only becomes more troublesome when you attack the concept of infinity. If infinity can't exist, then can God? He couldn't be infinitely powerful or infinitely knowledgable or anything else infinite.

The universe as it expanded out of a singularity, is finite. Hence, nothing contained inside the universe can be infinite. However, its first cause must necessarily pre-exist it. Therefore, it cannot be a part of the universe or be contained within it. Since "understanding" itself requires causality, which in turn rests on the existence of time, which did not exist before the universe and its timespace existed, we cannot truly understand anything that would have pre-existed the universe and its time. Furthermore, what infinite dimensions would this be about? Without timespace, dimensions have no meaning. You can safely assume that anything prior to the existence of time is fundamentally incomprehensible to us. All that we could truly understand from the first cause is its initial effect on the universe, because this effect is part of the universe and its initial state.

You also have to look at the alternative. If there hasn't always been something (ie, the universe or pre-universe, God, etc), then something had to come from nothing.... and I'm sure you've seen a plethora of theists insisting that something can't come from nothing.

"Nothing" routinely falls apart into a particle and its anti-particle. -1 + 1 = 0. With zero representing nothing, you can see that there is absolutely no problem with something coming from nothing, as long as it also symmetrically creates the required anti-something. The idea is that something cannot come from nothing is utterly simplistic. Theories in physics are replete with virtual particles. That is really 19th century material.

Special pleading that God can have always existed or can have come from nothing doesn't really get you anywhere, as much as you may wish it did.

The first cause of the universe can impossibly be part of what it has caused. That is certainly not "special pleading". Distinguishing between the entity causing and the entity caused is necessary. Therefore, the idea is that nothing inside the universe could possibly have caused its existence, cannot be understood as a form of "special pleading".

What's more, "special pleading" is not a sound counterargument in math. Recursion always requires at least one initial, special case. For example, the Fibonacci sequence is defined as following: for n larger than two, F=F(n-1)+F(n-2), while F(1)=1 and F(2)=1. There are two "special pleadings" in this definition, because anybody with even the slightest intuition in math can see that this is obviously a requirement. The entire "special pleading" terminology does not come from math of physics, but clearly from some other, but then rather ineffective and inferior way of thinking. We do not use that term. It is simplistically dumb. You cannot produce counterarguments against math of physics from that kind of non-methodological way of thinking. Nobody would accept that.

Not even the most atheist of scientists believes that time would be infinite. Nobody would ever propose that as a counter-argument. Your considerations are not of the same level as Aristotle's work. In fact, they rather reflect a lack of knowledge of the existing body of math and physics around. A universe expanding out of singularity could impossibly be infinite or contain infinitely large objects. Aristotle's work has been around for over 2500 years now, and if you had used existing solid counter-arguments, which certainly exist, it would be a draw, but you didn't. Why did you try to invent your own on the fly? You fail to realize that arguments invented on the fly will lack the quality necessary to attack Aristotle's work.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hi again kritikvernunft,

I am not putting forward any theory of my own here; I am trying to understand your claim. So, you are saying that something can come from nothing, and that the infinite can not exist in this universe, and you are claiming that these premises require a first cause which you say suggests a God. Is that correct?

You are right that I don't know if your premises are true or not, and I don't believe that you do either, but if they are, I don't see how that leads to your conclusion of a God.

If something can come from nothing, why do you need a cause? Both Lawrence Kraus and Steven Hawking disagree that you would. What are they missing?

If you do need a cause, then why does whatever the cause of our universe is have to be the first cause? Can't it have been caused by something before it? And that by something before that? Are you saying that outside our universe would have the same problem with infinity that you are saying is inside our universe? Wouldn't that pose some issues for the idea of a God?

If there is a first cause, why call it a "God"? Does it have to be sentient? Does it have to be intelligent and have created everything on purpose? Does it have to watch over us and do all or any of those things religions claim Gods do?

 

[kritikvernunft]

So, you are saying that something can come from nothing ...

Let's go very slowly, because seriously, it may take time to understand this kind of things. So, let's slowly investigate the concept of pair production first.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Pair production is the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, for example creating an electron and positron, a muon and antimuon, or a proton and antiproton. ... conserved quantum numbers (angular momentum, electric charge, lepton number) of the produced particles must sum to zero – thus the created particles shall have opposite values of each other. For instance, if one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1.

So, I am not particularly inventing this. I did not discover this either.

For photons at high-energy, (MeV scale and higher) pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.

I am only referring to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.
So, please, tell us what is wrong with the theory of pair production?

You fail to realize, again, that arguments invented on the fly will lack the quality necessary to attack Blackett's work.
Do you sometimes look up or at least try to validate what you claim?

So, no, I did not say this. It is Patrick Blackett who received the 1948 Nobel Prize for saying this.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You fail to realize, again, that arguments invented on the fly will lack the quality necessary to attack Blackett's work.
Do you sometimes look up or at least try to validate what you claim?

Um... read my post again maybe? I have made no "argument invented on the fly". I have made no argument at all. I haven't said that something can't come from nothing. Nor have I said that infinity can or must exist in our universe.

I have merely been trying to understand your claim and asking you to help make sense of it, and pointing out some questions and potential issues it may have.

You see, with time progressing by addition, it cannot be infinite, and if it is then finite, it has a beginning, in which you will find the first cause, which is then the principle of causality to everything else. It is Aristotle who discovered this link. Seriously, it is your environment that suggests that there must be a Creator.

This is what you said. Then you added that something can come from nothing. Ok. So? I haven't said you must be wrong about that. I don't pretend to know one way or the other. I asked you to explain how that leads you to that there must be a creator God.

Why are you running from giving that explanation? And instead trying to tell me that I am arguing something I am not?

Wrong again. I don't care. I never cared. Go find someone who actually wants to fight your strawmen. You and Kritikvernunft are killing all my interest in this thread. I think the two of you have already managed to drive off everyone else.

Oh my God! What did we do to you?

I think I see what he was saying.

 

[kritikvernunft]

I haven't said that something can't come from nothing. Nor have I said that infinity can or must exist in our universe.

* Pair production allows nothing to fall apart into something and its anti-something.
* The universe with its expanding timespace can impossibly be infinite, because then it would simply not be able to expand.

Do you still have objections to these claims?

 

[kritikvernunft]

If you do need a cause, then why does whatever the cause of our universe is have to be the first cause?

If you assume generalized causality, every consequence must have a cause. It amounts to saying that true random numbers do not exist, and that all random number generators are pseudo-random number generators.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-true-ra...r-be-created-if-the-universe-is-deterministic
If the universe is deterministic, a "true" random number generator cannot exist. Also note that we don't know if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic ...

Aristotle adopted the assumption that true random numbers do not exist. In that case, assuming that time is finite, and with causes strictly preceding their consequences, we will end up at the first cause at the beginning of times, which is then the principle of causality to everything else. Since the universe would have been a singularity at the beginning of times, there was only one distinguishable cause possible. Hence, according to Leibniz Law concerning the identity of indiscernibles, there was only one first cause possible. This is also what Aristotle claims: there could only have been one first cause that started off all causal chains in the universe.

Can't it have been caused by something before it? And that by something before that?

That would require time to be infinite. We already established that this is not possible, since time expands.

If there is a first cause, why call it a "God"?

In Arabic, they call the first cause "Allah". So, indeed, there is no requirement to call the first cause "God".

Does it have to be sentient?

The subtle clues that Aristotle used to suggest a first cause as the principle of causality to everything else, cannot lead to an answer to this question. That is obviously why Aristotle did not elaborate on this question. Deciding this question in physics would have to come from investigating another set of subtle physical clues, which someone would still have to discover first. In absence of such subtle clues, the answers to this question can only be metaphysical. Furthermore, we cannot truly understand the complete nature of the first cause, because understanding requires causality, which in turn requires the existence of time, which in turn did not exist before the beginning of times. In that sense, it is hopeless to try to fully understand the complete nature of the first cause.

Note: All of this has nothing to do at all with anything specific to humanity. Other beings elsewhere in this universe would inevitably sense that time expands, possibly discover that space also expands, and detect that their environment is governed by causality, and therefore, that there is a fundamentally religious question about the first cause. A good proportion of these beings will believe that there is indeed a first cause, and other ones will not believe it. It is the structure of the universe itself that leads to this. Other living beings would just notice it as well.

 

[Born_Believer]

I had a question for any atheist on here. I'm not sure if I asked before and didn't get an answer or what but anyway, I'll post it here:

What is the scientific basis for atheist belief?

 

[Pygoscelis]

I had a question for any atheist on here. I'm not sure if I asked before and didn't get an answer or what but anyway, I'll post it here:

What is the scientific basis for atheist belief?

The lack of evidence and self contradiction. It is the same reason you don't believe that my father gave birth to me or that I have a TARDIS that travels through space and time and is bigger on the inside or that there are faeries in the garden.

Yuu can't prove these things wrong, but you have no convincing evidence of them (other than an eye witness report and maybe some books or video). So you will tell me you don't believe I am right. It is no different for how an atheist regards theism, other than the number of believers and how important the belief is to them.

Maybe Allah has spoken to you directly and you feel you have good reason to believe. And maybe you see the the Quran as the words of Allah. I do not. That is the main fundamental difference between us.

With evidence I could be made to believe God is real, just as I could be made to believe my father gave birth to me (could be a post op transexual), that TARDIS are real ( dr who could be inspired by a real one) or faeries exist in the garden. These things are all possible, but without sufficient evidence they seem unreal and self contradictory.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The subtle clues that Aristotle used to suggest a first cause as the principle of causality to everything else, cannot lead to an answer to this question. That is obviously why Aristotle did not elaborate on this question. Deciding this question in physics would have to come from investigating another set of subtle physical clues, which someone would still have to discover first. In absence of such subtle clues, the answers to this question can only be metaphysical. Furthermore, we cannot truly understand the complete nature of the first cause, because understanding requires causality, which in turn requires the existence of time, which in turn did not exist before the beginning of times. In that sense, it is hopeless to try to fully understand the complete nature of the first cause.

... And I thought this was going somewhere somehow someway related to the topic or the text you quoted to start this derail.

Why did you respond to a comment about people believing in Gods, to say that nature around us suggests a Creator, if you really only meant a non-sentient first cause? A cosmic burp is not a God.

 

[kritikvernunft]

Why did you respond to a comment about people believing in Gods, to say that nature around us suggests a Creator, if you really only meant a non-sentient first cause? A cosmic burp is not a God.

Aristotle did not investigate the question whether God is sentient or non-sentient. This type of question is metaphysical (cannot be investigated just by looking at physical changes) and is a subject for religious scriptures.

 

[Born_Believer]

The lack of evidence and self contradiction. It is the same reason you don't believe that my father gave birth to me or that I have a TARDIS that travels through space and time and is bigger on the inside or that there are faeries in the garden.

Yuu can't prove these things wrong, but you have no convincing evidence of them (other than an eye witness report and maybe some books or video). So you will tell me you don't believe I am right. It is no different for how an atheist regards theism, other than the number of believers and how important the belief is to them.

Maybe Allah has spoken to you directly and you feel you have good reason to believe. And maybe you see the the Quran as the words of Allah. I do not. That is the main fundamental difference between us.

With evidence I could be made to believe God is real, just as I could be made to believe my father gave birth to me (could be a post op transexual), that TARDIS are real ( dr who could be inspired by a real one) or faeries exist in the garden. These things are all possible, but without sufficient evidence they seem unreal and self contradictory.

It is the stated idea of atheism, that the basis for disbelief in God and thus religion, comes through scientific understanding. Otherwise it just becomes a belief system, built on the same premise that atheists blame theist of: blind faith.

So I ask you again, what is your scientific basis/principle/pillar for atheism? I see that you did not mention anything in your previous reply.

 

[Pygoscelis]

It is the stated idea of atheism, that the basis for disbelief in God and thus religion, comes through scientific understanding. Otherwise it just becomes a belief system, built on the same premise that atheists blame theist of: blind faith.

So I ask you again, what is your scientific basis/principle/pillar for atheism? I see that you did not mention anything in your previous reply.

There is no and can be no scientific evidence against the God claim, because the God claim is ever moving and unfalsifiable, just like the faeries in the garden claim, or the claim that an invisible alien is sitting on your head. I can't prove it untrue, but that doesn't make it sensible to think it true, and I can dismiss it, as I believe you would too regarding the faeries and the alien.

Where there is no good evidence for A, and where A is a fantastic claim and appears to be self contradictory, we need no evidence against A to dismiss it. True, we can't know for certain A isn't true, but we need not consider any further that it is true, unless and until we have some actual indication that it is, beyond empty claims and stories.

That goes for a wide variety of claims, from bigfoot and the loch ness monster to alien abductions to homeopathy to Gods.

 

[jabeady]

Sorry for the delay. Wasn't feeling well.

Let's not drag this into the type of discussion that often results in these types of debates/arguments.

OK, then, let's just go with, "No, I am not sure. Is my lack of certainty sufficient reason to declare that they do in fact exist?" Especially when the stakes are so great.

You are not sure yet you describe yourself as an atheist, ok fair enough. So what exactly is your reason for being an atheist? And at what age did you become an atheist? I just like to get a better understanding of when people say, "I'm an atheist".

Since you ask:

My religious background is Christian-Protestant, specifically Wisconsin Synod Lutheran (fundamentalist evangelical). Like most, I was brought up in my parents’ church and, essentially, inherited my religion. My loss of faith began quietly, when I first read Lawrence and Lee's "Inherit the Wind," a play about the Scopes "Monkey Trial." It didn't really make an impression at the time, which was fortunate since this was during my junior year at a synod high school. It was, however, my first substantive exposure to a non-biblical view of the universe. From there, one thing led to another over the years and decades. I noticed as things went along that it was getting more difficult to have meaningful religious discussions, as my correspondents usually fell back on dogma, doctrine, and even the outright fantastic in response to my arguments and questions; questions spurred by discrepancies I noticed between what I could see and what I’d been taught to believe. I think the seminal moment came when I first saw a presentation of the PBS series "Cosmos," with Carl Sagan. It wasn't an epiphany, but it did give me a framework within which I could begin to assemble my doubts into a coherent whole, and a base from which I could begin searching for answers.

With the advent of the computer and the internet, I finally had a way to find and connect with others like myself. It didn't take long, though, to notice that most of my free-thinking friends were downright hostile to the very idea of god, any god, as well as to all religious believers. Richard Dawkins' books "The Root of All Evil" and "The God Delusion" became their bible and doctrine. I use those words on purpose; to me, there is no visible difference between the fundamentalist believer and the "fundamentalist" atheist. The rhetoric, fervor and reliance on dogma appear the same; the only major difference is that the believers' patronizing is replaced by the atheists' invective. I've always felt that it was easier to talk with a friend than with an enemy, even if only to exchange ideas with no intention of converting the other person to my point of view, so I try to reject confrontation as a matter of course.

Then I read another work by Carl Sagan: "The Varieties of Scientific Experience; Notes on the personal search for God," which is actually transcripts of Sagan's Gifford Lectures at Glasgow University in 1985. What immediately struck me was a remark in the Forward by the book's editor and Sagan's widow, Ann Druyan, regarding Sagan's treatment of his audience: "...what remains with me was his extraordinary combination of principled, crystal-clear advocacy coupled with respect and tenderness toward those who did not share his views." If I ever had an epiphany in this whole process, this was it; my immediate reaction was "Yes!" And then there was the book itself, laying out observable and testable arguments why the predominant Western notion of a personal creator deity is at least insufficient and at best unlikely. Since then, I've taken Carl Sagan as my model. He's not perfect and he has his hobby horses, but I find him so much more palatable than I do Dawkins. I believe it's possible to disagree with everything Sagan says and still enjoy the read.

Speaking of Sagan, I just re-read his preface to "Varieties" and was reminded that there are two types of religion, natural and revealed. Revealed religion is, of course, that which is derived from holy writ, to include teachings, commentaries and all other additions and supplements. Natural religion Sagan understood to mean "everything about the world not supplied by revelation." I would define it more specifically as the idea that humans have an inbred albeit vague knowledge of God and a desire to seek him out. Neither believers nor atheists spend much effort distinguishing between the two types, with the result that arguments about God and Religion often become intermingled and confused.

 

[jabeady]

That which there is no evidence to, does not exist.

Uh, no. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That is, evidence may exist, it's just that you don't see or recognize it.

There is evidences for the existence of Allah.

Show me.

I believe in the afterlife because it is mentioned in the Quran.

I don't believe in the Quran, neither do I believe that anyone has died, and lived to tell about it.

Foe one to say there is no afterlife, he needs the knowledge of the unseen. U do not have that afaik.

No, for one to say there *is* an afterlife, he needs knowledge of the unseen.