Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 256555 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174863 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Will put that down to opinion. We do not know the realm of God. We only know it is outside our realm also depicted as third heaven will evil is not tolerated.
Explanations using the unknowable are useless.
Suppose you are more open to Hawkins self created universe which is logically absurd.
Then you may want to re-learn logic.
God is by inference and by history. I have pointed out Science assumes things by inference and in order to be consistent one cannot rule out God by inference and all that has been rejected or explained away, so the problem is not with the evidence. If critics insist on empirical then they just have to wait.
Science works via *testable* inferences. There have to be specific observations that would show a scientific inference *wrong* if, in fact, it was. Your inference about a deity is not testable in any fashion, so is unworthy of being compared to a scientific hypothesis.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174864 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> God as Creator demonstrates sufficient cause and effect.
In what way? Specifically, what are the mechanisms? Anything testable at all here?
Any explanation other than God demonstrates insufficient cause to do the job.
I think you are high-jumping to conclusions here. Why would you think any other explanation is insufficient?
Self creating is logically absurd.
But being uncaused is perfectly acceptable logically.
You need to explain why God is incoherent.
1. The concept of a supernatural is incoherent: if it is testable, it is natural; if it is untestable, it is non-existent.

2. The idea of a creator is incoherent: How could causality apply from a supernatural to a natural?

3. The idea of an uncaused God is special pleading: if God can be eternal, why not matter and energy?

There's a start.
If your explanation has to do with God outside time then you are assuming this time is the only time. This dimension is the only dimension. That puts you in a box.
if you claim there are other times and other dimensions, then it is *you* responsibility to demonstrate them. You don't get to simply declare they are possible without *showing* they are factual.
We do not know everything and you are assuming no God because of an arbitrary standard which rules God out!
Wrong. I am saying there isn't any solid evidence *for* a deity, so it is reasonable to disbelieve in such. This is especially true since we would *expect* solid evidence of a deity if one does, in fact, exist. Testability isn't an arbitrary standard; it is a requirement for knowledge.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174865 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you qualified? Do you have doctorates in physics, astrophysics, or quantum physics?
A PhD in math and ABD (all but dissertation) in physics. I have passed the PhD qualifying exams and did all the coursework.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174866 Aug 18, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
You don't have to believe his conclusions regarding deities, but you are in no position to tell Hawking his physics is poor.
Show where i did. Otherwise you are arguing to a phantom.
That doesn't make any sense.
Agree. The Hawkins quote does not make any sense.
Here: why? Why does the existence of gravity demonstrate that the universe cannot create itself from nothing?
If you start with gravity then you have something, not nothing and one must assume gravity is not time dependent. Hawkins does not allow for God but allows for gravity. That is the inconsistency.

p1 Causes must precede their effects in time
p2 There is no time prior to the beginning of the universe
c. Therefore the universe cannot have a cause

If Hawkins is to be consistent then he must rule out gravity and by extension physical laws but he does not.

Theism requires that God be a Cause of the universe
The universe cannot have a cause
Therefore, Theism is false

Why is it rational to see gravity as having causal influence ''before'' time, but not rational to give God the same privilege?

Besides all that there is abstract objects such as logical laws and math principals which are not time dependent. They are discovered not created. They exist even if they are not discovered.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174867 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> So nobody can question Hawkins conclusions without advanced knowledge in Physics? Is that what you are saying? There is a logical fallacy in there somewhere. An appeal to authority. Look at what he is saying.
Nobody can criticize his conclusion that cannot follow his argument. To follow his arguemtn in detail requires advanced knowledge of physics. So, yes, look at what he is saying: he is saying something about how physics works that goes way beyond your assumptions of what is possible.
Because there is gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
More specifically, because of the laws of nature that include gravity and quantum mechanics, the universe will appear out of a vacuum.
The statement contradicts because gravity is something, not nothing.
Gravity is a curvature of spacetime. it exists whenever there is space and time. Hawking is pointing out that a vacuum (nothing) can lead to the universe via the laws of physics.
If the universe had a beginning and if causes are time dependent then where did gravity come from? What does time actually cause? If time does not cause anything then time is incidental to cause and effect. If time is incidental then it is not essential to cause effect.
More specifically, causes are limited to past light cones and effects are limited to future light cones. Space and time forms the background geometry for causes and effects.
Being does not come from non being and something cannot come from nothing.
So space and time are 'eternal'. Is there a problem?
It is Hawkins who says time began at the big bang and assumes causes must precede effects in time. If that is the case does gravity get an exception? Show us where something comes from nothing or being comes from non being. That is a logical absurdity.
In the model that Hawking was using, the Big Bang is one transition for one part of the larger universe. He assumed the laws of physics as applied to a vacuum and found that matter and energy can spontaneously appear.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174868 Aug 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Gravity is the result of mass.
Mass, energy, momentum, stresses. In other words, the stress-energy tensor.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174869 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
In what way? Specifically, what are the mechanisms? Anything testable at all here?
<quoted text>
I think you are high-jumping to conclusions here. Why would you think any other explanation is insufficient?
<quoted text>
But being uncaused is perfectly acceptable logically.

[QUOTE]1. The concept of a supernatural is incoherent: if it is testable, it is natural; if it is untestable, it is non-existent.
BS. To your if untestable, it is non existent. Like i said before God is by inference. By deduction. The same way you know gravity is there. By effects. Being untestable does not mean non existence in an objective sense. That is, once again, confirmation bias. Kick God out then claim no evidence. Show us an uncaused effect. Show us where a thing comes from nothing. You have no precedent for any of that except an appeal to sub atomic where only a handful of experts have any clue what is going on. Even then they do not know 100% of everything there is to know of what happens there. Either way, it does not effect cause and effect in the regular world.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174870 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
If you start with gravity then you have something, not nothing and one must assume gravity is not time dependent. Hawkins does not allow for God but allows for gravity. That is the inconsistency.
p1 Causes must precede their effects in time
p2 There is no time prior to the beginning of the universe
c. Therefore the universe cannot have a cause
If Hawkins is to be consistent then he must rule out gravity and by extension physical laws but he does not.
No, in the model Hawking was using, both space and time are eternal. gravity is the curvature of spacetime.
Why is it rational to see gravity as having causal influence ''before'' time, but not rational to give God the same privilege?
That isn't what Hawking was doing: he allowed for time to be eternal.
Besides all that there is abstract objects such as logical laws and math principals which are not time dependent. They are discovered not created. They exist even if they are not discovered.
Now,*that* is a whole different philosophical debate. Ultimately, I disagree: math and logic are invented as languages we use to understand things.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174871 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS. To your if untestable, it is non existent. Like i said before God is by inference. By deduction. The same way you know gravity is there. By effects. Being untestable does not mean non existence in an objective sense.
Yes, actually it does. We infer gravity from testable effects, challenged by alternative descriptions and winning out by agreeing with observations.

Simple deduction is *never* enough because all deductions about the real world use assumptions and those assumptions may be wrong. They must be tested by actual observation to be validated. And that is exactly what science does.

What testable effects lead you to infer the existence of a God that have been challenged by other explanations and have won out because of agreement with actual observations? Right, none.
That is, once again, confirmation bias. Kick God out then claim no evidence. Show us an uncaused effect.
Most radioactive decay is uncaused: nothing different happens just before the decay that makes it happen.
Show us where a thing comes from nothing.
Virtual particles. A well-established effect.
You have no precedent for any of that except an appeal to sub atomic where only a handful of experts have any clue what is going on.
Sorry, but that is how the universe actually works. If you disagree, learn some physics and show where it went wrong.
Even then they do not know 100% of everything there is to know of what happens there. Either way, it does not effect cause and effect in the regular world.
The subatomic level is what produces the ordinary level. At base, the fundamental aspect of our universe is probabilistic, not deterministic. It is acausal, not causal. You get causality at the macroscopic level because the probabilities averaged over an Avogadro's number of particles give regular patterns.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174872 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Nobody can criticize his conclusion that cannot follow his argument.
BS. All one has to do is apply rules of logic and math to his results to conclude his conclusions are absurd, his math does not work in reality. Like infinity does not work in reality. Also his inconsistency. He rules God out but his statement implies gravity and by extension physical laws are not time dependent.
To follow his arguemtn in detail requires advanced knowledge of physics. So, yes, look at what he is saying: he is saying something about how physics works that goes way beyond your assumptions of what is possible.
I only need his results and rules of logic and math.
More specifically, because of the laws of nature that include gravity and quantum mechanics, the universe will appear out of a vacuum.
Magical thinking. I can't believe you actually buy all that. It is nonsense. Big foot has more credibility.
Gravity is a curvature of spacetime. it exists whenever there is space and time. Hawking is pointing out that a vacuum (nothing) can lead to the universe via the laws of physics.
Vacuums are not nothing and it assumes laws of Physics has causal influence then they were there when time was not! That violates his first premise. There is no time for the Laws of Physics to exist! If God is time dependent why is the Laws of Physics not? Can anybody see the inconsistency?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#174873 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mass, energy, momentum, stresses. In other words, the stress-energy tensor.
Infinite gravity in Kerr space or equivalent , gravity exists but time is infinitly slow. To see the effect's of gravity and to have motion there has to be mass space and time to warp and cause motion.

That being said what tells us is happening in the infinite gravity/density and infinitely curved space/time

Only the gravity exists, time is dilated and space is infinitesimal
energy is bound.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174874 Aug 18, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No Poly it wasn't copied and pasted from William Craig.
If not, then I apologize. I thought I regognized the specific wording and pattern of argument as Craig's as opposed to, say, Aquinas'.
Now in reply, what good is a law if it's only statistical as you say?
This seems to be just a little too convenient. It again appears to be an intellectual escape hatch of poor design. If by your own understanding, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only statistical, why is it considered a Law and not a hypothesis?
Physicists have gotten away from calling things 'laws' over the course of the 20th century. The second law was formulated in the middle 19th century and uses the old terminology. Today, it would be called a theory.

To answer your more basic question, you have to realize that macroscopic objects are made from a *huge* number of atoms. Avogadro's number is much larger than most people can imagine easily. Because of this, statistical analysis is not only useful, it is also necessary for understanding.

For example, no particular atom has a 'pressure' or a 'temperature'. Both of those properties of macroscopic objects are *averages* of microscopic properties (momentum and kinetic energy, respectively). But the averages are taken over so many atoms that temperature and pressure do not deviate from their averages to any measurable degree, even for things of the size of bacteria (which are still huge from an atomic perspective). At the macroscopic level, the probabilities at the atomic level are averaged out to give regularities and causality. In a similar way, properties like the conductivity of a metal are averages of what happens at the atomic level and so are predictable to high accuracy (causal).

But, if you get to collections of only a few tens or hundreds of atoms, the averaging does not smooth out the individual probabilities as well, so violations of statistical laws, like the second law of thermodynamics, can be produced. Once again, a single atom does not have an entropy. Entropy is an averaged property of many, many atoms.

It turns out that at the atomic and subatomic levels, it is almost never possible to predict exactly what any given observation will produce. Instead, we get probabilities for the various possible results. We also get predictions of more detailed statistical properties like the standard deviation, etc. So, when a sufficient number of observations are made, we can compare our predicted probabilities to the actual results and thereby test our theories.

The natural question is whether the probabilities we see are actually the result of a deeper causality that we don't yet see. Such ideas are called 'hidden variable theories'. it turns out that all such theories, merely by being causal, have certain measurable properties (correlations between observations) that are in contradiction with quantum mechanics (which is an acausal theory). The experiments have been done and agree with QM, and not with causality.

At a deep level, the universe is acausal.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#174875 Aug 18, 2013
Vacuum is space that is empty of matter.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS. All one has to do is apply rules of logic and math to his results to conclude his conclusions are absurd, his math does not work in reality. Like infinity does not work in reality. Also his inconsistency. He rules God out but his statement implies gravity and by extension physical laws are not time dependent. <quoted text> I only need his results and rules of logic and math.
<quoted text> Magical thinking. I can't believe you actually buy all that. It is nonsense. Big foot has more credibility.
<quoted text> Vacuums are not nothing and it assumes laws of Physics has causal influence then they were there when time was not! That violates his first premise. There is no time for the Laws of Physics to exist! If God is time dependent why is the Laws of Physics not? Can anybody see the inconsistency?

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#174876 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mass, energy, momentum, stresses. In other words, the stress-energy tensor.
Or compression of the difference in density of a medium caused by the rapid displacement arising from motion.

Depends which direction you are looking from.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174877 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Show where i did. Otherwise you are arguing to a phantom.
If you're not claiming his physics is wrong, then no worries.
Agree. The Hawkins quote does not make any sense.
Oops! My bad - I thought you wrote "cannot" as in, the universe cannot make itself, but you didn't. So we're not in agreement. Sorry, my mistake. I don't necessarily agree with the statement that the universe can make itself, nor disagree with it, but I cannot negate that myself.
If you start with gravity then you have something, not nothing and one must assume gravity is not time dependent.
So Hawking is claiming that gravity preceded time? I didn't understand that he was making that statement.
Hawkins does not allow for God but allows for gravity. That is the inconsistency.
p1 Causes must precede their effects in time
p2 There is no time prior to the beginning of the universe
c. Therefore the universe cannot have a cause
If Hawkins is to be consistent then he must rule out gravity and by extension physical laws but he does not.
Hawking, his name is Hawking. You're confusing it with Dawkins, also an atheist.

Hawking would also add:

- not all events have causes (like quantum events. If I'm not mistaken, he's arguing that the universe came into existence b/c of a quantum event).
Theism requires that God be a Cause of the universe
The universe cannot have a cause
Therefore, Theism is false
Why is it rational to see gravity as having causal influence ''before'' time, but not rational to give God the same privilege?
Because all of our scientific theories describe phenomena with absolutely no deities. Now, I cannot say to you "therefore God does not exist" but the way that science describes reality is exactly as if no deities existed.

We have no reason to suspect any special cases that exist where deities must be part of the theoretical framework. Further, if we add them, we lose explanatory power.

Please keep in mind that alone does not disprove deities exist. You remain welcome to that inference.
Besides all that there is abstract objects such as logical laws and math principals which are not time dependent. They are discovered not created. They exist even if they are not discovered.
I don't really follow you here.

Uhm...you didn't explain why the universe requires a creator, or why it's absurd to think the universe could be something from nothing. I've asked around 3 times now (more if you count w/in the same post).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#174878 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS. All one has to do is apply rules of logic and math to his results to conclude his conclusions are absurd, his math does not work in reality.
His math was based in observational physics: quantum mechanics and general relativity. His conclusions follow logically, even if you don't like that fact.
Like infinity does not work in reality. Also his inconsistency. He rules God out but his statement implies gravity and by extension physical laws are not time dependent.
how is that an inconsistency?
I only need his results and rules of logic and math.
The problem is that you assume logic says more than it really does. All logic as applied to the real world has assumptions. Those assumptions must be tested to verify their correctness.
Magical thinking. I can't believe you actually buy all that. It is nonsense. Big foot has more credibility.
Actually, these are measured phenomena that have been verified repeatedly over the last 50-75 years. it is not magical thinking. it is how the universe actually works.
Vacuums are not nothing and it assumes laws of Physics has causal influence then they were there when time was not! That violates his first premise. There is no time for the Laws of Physics to exist! If God is time dependent why is the Laws of Physics not? Can anybody see the inconsistency?
Once again, in the model Hawking was using, time is eternal: there is a multiverse from which the current universe is produced via a Big Bang internal to the multiverse. In this model, there is no start to time, only a transition of part of the multiverse via the BB.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174879 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS. To your if untestable, it is non existent. Like i said before God is by inference.
If you infer God because or despite science's evidence, then you and I have no argument. We just infer different things.
By deduction.
Deduction isn't really inference.
The same way you know gravity is there. By effects.
Uh...gravity is measurable. What about your deity is measurable?
Being untestable does not mean non existence in an objective sense. That is, once again, confirmation bias.
How? Uhm, can you provide an example of a non-testable but existent phenomena?
Kick God out then claim no evidence. Show us an uncaused effect.
Radioactive decay. Quarks and things coming into existence and then popping out - oh, I really shouldn't answer here. I got all my knowledge about these things from Poly.

:)
Show us where a thing comes from nothing.
Complexity arises from simple chemical interactions; order from chaos.
You have no precedent for any of that except an appeal to sub atomic where only a handful of experts have any clue what is going on. Even then they do not know 100% of everything there is to know of what happens there. Either way, it does not effect cause and effect in the regular world.
I'm pretty sure more than a handful of experts get quantum physics - I mean, it affects your computer.

Even so, if they understand it, and sub atomic particles are popping into existence from non-existence, why are you denying that as evidence of uncaused events?

They are, after all, uncaused. Is it because you just don't like small things? Guess what - the universe started out as a very, very small thing, perhaps even massless. Just like those quantum events you are writing off.

:)

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#174880 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Most radioactive decay is uncaused: nothing different happens just before the decay that makes it happen.
Oh yeah?!? Well, what made the material radioactive in the first place? Huh? Isn't that the cause???

Huh?!?

:)

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#174881 Aug 18, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
What testable effects lead you to infer the existence of a God that have been challenged by other explanations and have won out because of agreement with actual observations? Right, none.
None that you would accept because you rule out God from the get go in spite of the evidence. Your impious claims to truth seeking stops dead cold at the door of God. It is at that point you forfeit truth in favor of bias.
Most radioactive decay is uncaused: nothing different happens just before the decay that makes it happen.
Nobody gives a rats as# about radioactive decay so they don't bother to look into it. That is why they are skeptical when atheists with stated agenda claim it is uncaused. They are looking for uncaused events to rule God out. They are hopelessly biased.
Virtual particles. A well-established effect.
Like we haven't heard that before.
The subatomic level is what produces the ordinary level. At base, the fundamental aspect of our universe is probabilistic, not deterministic. It is acausal, not causal. You get causality at the macroscopic level because the probabilities averaged over an Avogadro's number of particles give regular patterns.
I would say no known cause is different from no cause. You are not a credible source since your bias is obvious. Why should the majority public believe what only a handful of so called experts purport to understand when by their own admission they know only a fraction of what is going on. It all sounds impressive but con jobs usually do.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#174882 Aug 18, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> BS. All one has to do is apply rules of logic and math to his results to conclude his conclusions are absurd, his math does not work in reality. Like infinity does not work in reality. Also his inconsistency. He rules God out but his statement implies gravity and by extension physical laws are not time dependent. <quoted text> I only need his results and rules of logic and math.
<quoted text> Magical thinking. I can't believe you actually buy all that. It is nonsense. Big foot has more credibility.
<quoted text> Vacuums are not nothing and it assumes laws of Physics has causal influence then they were there when time was not! That violates his first premise. There is no time for the Laws of Physics to exist! If God is time dependent why is the Laws of Physics not? Can anybody see the inconsistency?
The rules of logic and math do not apply to a singularity
of infinite or near infinite gravity *time does not move,
so causality has no meaning, but quantum effects are not bound by time. So The universe can create itself with gravity alone.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Good arguments against Christianity 28 min superwilly 209
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Mikko 533
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr replaytime 18,534
News Why I quit atheism 2 hr Ronnie Pickering 707
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr Into The Night 43,197
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 6 hr Thinking 5,696
Atheism is a mental illness 6 hr Eagle 12 11
More from around the web