tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post1383039830625500151..comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Comments on Atheism And The City: Why I'm An AtheistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-21270144368048157592013-12-21T22:51:19.556-05:002013-12-21T22:51:19.556-05:00God is logically compatible with the creation of g...God is logically compatible with the creation of gratuitous conscious suffering? Please explain.<br /><br />Conceivable? Yes. Actual? A lot harder to say. If a known natural process could create life instantly then that would work against the theist and support the atheist. <br /><br />When it comes to the theory of time in relation to god, I would essentially agree with William Lane Craig when he wrote, “The tenseless theory is theologically objectionable, since its claim that God and the universe co-exist tenselessly is incompatible with a robust doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.” And if a thousand years is a day for the lord, then god created the universe and waited 13.8 million years for humans to arrive.<br /><br />An eternal and static universe needs no supernatural sustainer. The existence of any such being would be redundant. <br /><br />If the A-theory is true we have other theories and arguments that attack the KCA and LCA. I outline some of them here:<a href="http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2012/09/refuting-william-lane-craig-kalam.html" rel="nofollow">Refuting William Lane Craig: The Kalam Cosmological Argument</a>. Basically, universes require no energy to be created and the idea of causality makes no sense before time. Thus it is far from certain that everything that begins to exist requires a cause. <br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-25156189420545418882013-12-21T21:29:25.421-05:002013-12-21T21:29:25.421-05:00Saying the cruelty of evolution rules out an all-l...Saying the cruelty of evolution rules out an all-loving God sounds like a version of the problem of evil. God, as Pure Act, is compatible with such things.<br /><br />Your attempt to connect naturalism to the age of the universe fails because it is conceivable that a naturalistic process could create life instantly or in a very short period of time.<br /><br />I'm not sure how you can determine what theory of time the writers of the Bible believed. I could just as easily say the writers of the Bible believed in relativity because they say a thousand years is like a day to the Lord. Either approach goes well beyond the textual evidence.<br /><br />The PSR applied to the universe merely states that a necessary entity (God) is the reason for the existence of contingent entities (like the universe). Saying God sustains the universe makes no assumption as to the truth of the A-theory or the B-theory of time. One can view the sustaining of the universe as eternal and static.<br /><br />Finally, it does seem that you heavily rely on eternalism to remain an atheist. For example, if A-theory proved correct, do you have any other refutation of the KCA or LCA? At best, you've provided reasons to be agnostic.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-67024956370560302432013-12-21T20:44:25.544-05:002013-12-21T20:44:25.544-05:001. I didn’t make the problem of evil in my post a...1. I didn’t make the problem of evil in my post against god here. So you're utterly barking up the wrong tree. Pay attention. God’s nature must be compatible with his creation and actions. Given the unnecessary cruelty of evolution, there cannot be an all-loving god. Period.<br /><br />2. Begging what question? What's your explanation of my explanation? Oh that’s right; you don’t need to provide evidence.<br /><br />3. That there is no evidence for free will and a lot of evidence for determinism rules out many versions of god. No single argument I make is designed to disprove every possible concept of god. I made that clear in my post, you need to pay better attention.<br /><br />4. I don’t think Hempel’s dilemma is anything a naturalist like me has to worry about. We’ve been able to learn enough about nature and the laws of physics where we’d clearly be able to recognize a dramatic violation of them. Immaterial minds and gods are certainly not natural. The logical connection of naturalism is simple. Given naturalism, in which there must be a natural process that manifests all things, we’d expect billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution that appear to have no objective purpose to it. And that’s exactly what we see. Given theism we certainly wouldn’t expect a haphazard multi-billion year evolutionary process that required unnecessary suffering. <br /><br />5. I didn’t mean to imply that you said they wrote the bible, I meant to say that their thoughts on the nature of time are not important because the writers of the Bible assumed an A-theory. Some Christians think homosexuality or gay marriage or abortion is in no conflict with their theism. So what? Bottom line is this: a theist can rationalize in their own mind anything they want with their religion. Theists do it all the time. <br /><br />I really don’t see how god is compatible with an eternal block universe, especially the Christian god. And by the way, my atheism doesn’t rely on eternalism being true. You must have not actually read my post because I offer several arguments why atheism is true and why theism fails. I only offered eternalism to refute to Kalam cosmological argument, not to support all of my atheism.<br /><br />6. Yes the PSR does demand that there's an objective purpose to the universe. When applied to the universe it says the universe has an explanation and that explanation is god. You say god is the explanation right? OK explain how god is the explanation of an eternal block universe that wasn’t created ontologically? Don’t tell me he sustains it. That assumes the A-theory because the B-theory states every part of spacetime is eternal and static. If god existed his mind would be a part of his metaphysics and his mind is supposed to be the most complex thing in existence. It need not be composed of physical parts. <br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-88097562936017909552013-12-21T15:06:09.712-05:002013-12-21T15:06:09.712-05:001. My first point is a rebuttal to the problem of ...1. My first point is a rebuttal to the problem of evil. It is not a defense of the moral argument. God's goodness is a result of his nature, not his actions.<br /><br />2. My second point is merely noting that claiming belief in God is a result of faulty agency detection is to beg the question.<br /><br />3. I'm agnostic in the free will debate. My point is that it does not impinge on God's existence or non-existence.<br /><br />4. Your first definition of naturalism fails to pass Hempel's dilemma. The second definition raises the question, what is natural? I make no natural/supernatural distinction so I can't provide a definition of either term. More importantly, you failed to give the logical connection between the truth of naturalism and the age of the universe (and many other of the alleged predictions of naturalism). Whether you intend to or not, these "predictions" sound like nothing more than your personal intuition.<br /><br />5. I never claimed Augustine and Aquinas wrote the Bible. I noted that pre-modern theologians could think of ideas like relativity and the block universe and saw no conflict with their theism. The Wikipedia entry on "Eternalism" briefly mentions Augustine and Aquinas (and, arguably, Anselm) in relation to your view.<br /><br />Nor did I claim God exists outside of being or that his mind is identical to our mind.<br /><br />There may be <i>some</i> evidence for B-theory but it is not definitive. Why rest your atheism on something that is so uncertain and does not rule out God's existence in the first place?<br /><br />6. The PSR does not demand that there is an objective purpose so you aren't providing an objection to the Leibnizian cosmological argument. Moreover, the block universe is also composed of parts and thus in need of explanation. This is why God is said to be metaphysically simple, not composed of parts. This is known as the doctrine of divine simplicity. By God I mean Pure Act in the tradition of Aquinas.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-21188142253214468162013-12-20T22:27:36.605-05:002013-12-20T22:27:36.605-05:001. My argument is that goodness exists independent...1. My argument is that goodness exists independent of god. So without god we still have the good. Therefore the claim that objective moral values are grounded in god is false. If god conformed to his essence that doesn’t mean he’s good at all. We all conform to our essence. In fact, any such creator would have to be either incompetent, indifferent or cruel, given our universe. God’s goodness must be therefore be compatible with our universe, but it can’t be . You don’t understand my argument. If you’re saying that god is compatible with gratuitous suffering, then you’re saying that god could torture people for fun purely for entertainment. How do you reconcile that with “the good.”<br />2. If you’re claiming that religious belief is not a product of the brain, but is a product of god, then yes you need to provide proof, or at least some evidence. Given evolution, we’d expect humans to be religious. My worldview explains why you believe in things that aren’t there.<br />3. So do you subscribe to the theory of predestination?<br />4. Metaphysical naturalism is roughly defined as “a worldview with a philosophical aspect which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences” or “the thesis that nothing besides the natural world, or nature, exists”. Perhaps you should provide a definition of what the supernatural is. It would seem to me at least that the supernatural is in principle easily verifiable. For example, something that violated all the known laws of physics in such a way that would make it obvious that there was some kind of intelligence behind it would prove the supernatural, and convince me that it is real.<br />5. Augustine and Aquinas didn’t write the Bible. Augustine as far as I know thought only the present existed. Existing outside of time and being dynamic is illogical. A timeless mind is by definition non functional. An eternal block universe needs no sustainer and you’re assuming the A-theory of time in imagining it. How can you cause an eternal universe? It always existed. What role would god play in such a universe without assuming a presentist theory on time? Check the source I gave that shows experimental evidence that the B-theory is true.<br />6. False analogy. Obviously if a machine breaks there is a reason because machines have parts, and those parts can fail. I’m talking about random occurrences that have no objective purpose. Saying there is a purpose but we don’t know is a cop out. Anyone can make that claim about anything and conveniently add that they have no burden of proof.<br />7. You have to define what you mean by “God”. I made the case that an omni-god is not logically possible. I never denied that some things have explanations, but I deny that everything does. I accept appeals to the possible from the theist if that possibility is logical and is supported by some evidence. If it is just a boldface assertion, as many religious claims are, then no I will not take it seriously.<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-28020673011536631362013-12-20T21:32:47.798-05:002013-12-20T21:32:47.798-05:001. That God is the good does not require proving t...1. That God is the good does not require proving that goodness cannot exist independently of God. God is the good because, as pure actuality, he perfectly conforms to his essence. The important point to note is that his being the good does not depend in any way on external entities. This is why suffering is not incompatible with God being the good.<br /><br />2. I don't need to provide evidence for God acting in the world to show that your argument in the "Religious Belief is a Product of the Brain" section is unsuccessful. A case-by-case argument for atheism would involve investigating alleged actions by God and providing a natural explanation for each. You don't do this (not that I expect you to in a single post).<br /><br />3. If theism does not require free will then the fact of determinism (if it is a fact) does not provide a reason for being an atheist. Free will, determinism, and compatibilism are all compatible with theism. They do not provide reasons for being an atheist.<br /><br />4. Please define naturalism while avoiding Hempel's dilemma. Then show the logical connection between the truth of naturalism and the age of the universe.<br /><br />5. Augustine and Aquinas, for example, thought of God as being outside of time and observing the universe in a block-like fashion. Assuming a block universe, God is the sustainer of the universe in existence as the first cause of an essentially ordered causal series. But the metaphysics of time involves much speculation so you are unwarranted in stating that presentism is "certainly false". Regardless, theism is an option on any view of time that I have come across. That is ultimately why this argument fails to support atheism.<br /><br />6. When things "just happen" in our lives there is still a reason, it is just that the reason is unknown to us. If my car just happens to break down I expect the mechanic to give some reason as to why it happened (even if it's speculation). If he said it's just a brute fact I'd find another mechanic.<br /><br />The PSR is inductively supported by every observation we make. Remember, you are trying to give reasons why you are an atheist. That brute facts are logically possible is not a strong argument that the universe is a brute fact. It's logically possible that God exists yet you aren't a theist. You don't seem to accept appeals to the possible from theists so it's only fair for theists not to accept appeals to the possible from an atheist.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-56038496996664076822013-12-20T20:34:04.697-05:002013-12-20T20:34:04.697-05:00I don't think you provided a singe refutation ...I don't think you provided a singe refutation in your 6 points.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-2187157442025177492013-12-20T20:33:17.219-05:002013-12-20T20:33:17.219-05:001. Prove goodness cannot exist independently of go...1. Prove goodness cannot exist independently of god. Until you can, you're all talk. And now you're saying god is compatible with gratuitous conscious suffering. Really? And god is the good too? That's unbelievably illogical and the two make no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />2. Show me one piece of evidence that clearly determines an event in our universe was caused by god since you claim we're on a case-by-case basis.<br /><br />3. I said not all theists believe in free will. If you're a Calvinist for example, you don't believe in free will. But what evidence exists that Calvinism is true? Christianity would have to be true, and its foundation is built on sand.<br /><br />4. Naturalism makes plenty of predictions. If there was no god you would expect billions of years of cosmic and biological evolution to have occurred, you wouldn't predict that under theism. And you wouldn't predict millions of years of logically unnecessary suffering given an omni-god.<br /><br />5. Name them. And tell me how god is compatible with an eternal block universe that he cannot create or influence because it is eternal? Furthermore, it does not matter what theologians thought. They routinely pull ideas out of their ass. The writers and inventors of the monotheisms were committed to a presentist view of time, so they are certainly false.<br /><br />6. Not at all, We routinely accept in our lives that things just happen by chance and have no objective purpose to them. Things just happen. Things just exist. Prove to me brute facts cannot exist.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-91698395256021675692013-12-20T14:19:17.969-05:002013-12-20T14:19:17.969-05:00I don't think you've provided a single rea...I don't think you've provided a single reason to be an atheist. Some quick thoughts:<br /><br />1. God is not merely good he is <i>the</i> good. Being the good is compatible even with gratuitous conscious suffering. The problem of evil does not get off the ground. Your comments in the moral argument section indicate you don't understand what it means for God to be the good.<br /><br />2. Any particular alleged action by God would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Merely claiming it is a false positive of agent detection is to beg the question.<br /><br />3. Determinism or compatabilism, in respect to both humans and God, are both compatible with the existence of God.<br /><br />4. Mere naturalism (a difficult to define term) does not allow you to predict much of anything about the world. For example, you merely assume conscious suffering is "predicted" by naturalism, yet naturalism would be compatible with no life existing or with unconscious life. You make this error throughout the post. You are relying on the very intuition you criticize theists for employing. Metaphysical positions are not scientific hypotheses yet you treat them as such.<br /><br />5. Pre-modern theologians actually proposed ideas similar to relativity when considering questions about God. To say that relativity is not predicted on theism is another appeal to your intuition and is historically inaccurate.<br /><br />6. Outside of discussions about God, the principle of sufficient reason is used by all of us. It is evidenced by the success of finding reasons for the things we observe. The block universe is not what we would expect to be a brute fact because its essence is not existence.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.com