Bertrand Russell's 'teapot' analogy to define atheism

[Omega]

It is a matter of faith though.  It absolutely is a matter of faith.

What do you mean, exactly?

Besides, there are a large number of competent arguments for the existence of God and a good amount of scientific (and other) evidence that point to the existence of a God.

[theseoafs]

I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.

I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.

Evolution works just fine without God, though.

[gmillerdrake]

I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.

I'm down with that big time. Like I tried to say earlier....I don't see how this life/our planet etc. is possible without the two.

Evolution works just fine without God, though.

You see, I say evolution doesn't work at all Without God........

[theseoafs]

It does. This is how science textbooks are able not to mention God in their chapters on evolution.

[Silver Tears]

I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.

Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them 

[Omega]

I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.

Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them 

Uh, I think you misread my post; evolution and the existence of God are NOT incompatible with each other. That is to say, God's existence is completely compatible with evolution. No rational contradiction can be implied or inferred with the existence of both.

[gmillerdrake]

It does. This is how science textbooks are able not to mention God in their chapters on evolution.

No, the reason textbooks are allowed to 'teach' without the mention of God has nothing to do with the fact that evolution works without him. It has to do with an entire other debate over how/why God is not allowed to be mentioned or taught in public schools. Just because a major equation to the process is excluded doesn't mean it's not part of the process.   

[theseoafs]

Really? You believe that scientists believe that God is responsible for evolution, but they can't talk about that essential part of the theory because of the controversy surrounding teaching religion in public schools?

EDIT: Sorry if that's hostile, but I find that hard to believe. Even materials for teaching evolution that exist outside of the public schooling system make perfect sense without God. I hate to use Wikipedia again, but there's nothing keeping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Evolution from mentioning God, so why doesn't it?

[Silver Tears]

I think it bears mentioning that God's existence and evolution are not in any way incompatible with each other.

Why is that? I have plenty of friends who study sciences and believe in evolution without a shadow of a doubt but are religious and believe in God too. Something about God being the driving hand or having masterminded it, I dunno, I'd have to ask them 

Uh, I think you misread my post; evolution and the existence of God are NOT incompatible with each other. That is to say, God's existence is completely compatible with evolution. No rational contradiction can be implied or inferred with the existence of both.

Oh cool, that makes a lot more sense. I always find it strange when some religious people vehemently deny evolution due to it being a threat to God's existence or something...

[the Catfishman]

I feel like opening a can of worms...but... where in the process of evolution do you guys see the hand of God?

[rumborak]

Inb4 theistic evolution.

rumborak

[Adami]

Just like to point out that "I called it".

[the Catfishman]

yeahhh.. feels like dtf two years ago.

[Omega]

I feel like opening a can of worms...but... where in the process of evolution do you guys see the hand of God?

It would be silly to claim "Here! Here's clearly when God intervened and caused this organism to die in order so that humans would exist!". Theists don't claim to know when or at what events God manipulated in order for evolution to ultimately produce humans. Neither do we assert that God had to have intervened in the process of evolution; it could simply be the case that God set the initial parameters that would inevitably lead to the existence of humans. Who knows? That can be left as an open question.

Any doubts that I may have with the theory of evolution are not biblical but rather scientific. What the scenario envisions is just so fantastically improbable, namely the coming of existence of humans. In their book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, (You'll have to scroll down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) John Barrow and Frank Tipler describe varioius steps necessary for the course of human evolution each of which are so improbable that before they would occur, the sun would have ceased being a main-sequence star and would have scorched Earth. It's no surprise, then, that most evolutionary biologists happen to be theists: https://ncse.com/rncse/29/2/winning-their-hearts-minds-who-should-speak-evolution

[Ħ]

Evolution is completely compatible with God, so evolution isn't a good counterargument to God. That's the main point. The specifics don't really matter.

And WTF you guys. I'd really appreciate it if people didn't hijack the thread with the actual arguments/evidences for theism or atheism.

This thread is about atheism and if the atheist stance is making a claim that needs to be backed up. I'm completely convinced it does and I haven't heard a good reason why not.

And by the way, in this thread we are treating atheism as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God", as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you want to treat atheism as some sort of neutral, claimless, 'born-this-way' belief then feel free to slap that definition onto an already-defined word, but don't be shocked if people refuse to argue with you about semantics.

[rumborak]

Evolution is completely compatible with God, so evolution isn't a good counterargument to God. That's the main point.

Depends on the flavor of God really.

Prime Mover: No problem whatsoever
Theistic Evolution kind of God: A bit of a problem because one needs to say where then God interacts
Christian God (i.e. based on OT+NT): Big problem if you're trying to keep all the mythical accounts alive.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Depends on the flavor of God really.

Prime Mover: No problem whatsoever

That's the God we're talking about in this thread. No more baiting please.

[rumborak]

If that's the case, all the better. I can not help but getting the impression that that Prime Mover god is just the bait in order to later switch it in for the Christian God.
I also have a hard time believing that that rather apathetic and impersonal god (which is really rather close to pantheism) is something you subscribe to.

EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.

rumborak

[Ħ]

If that's the case, all the better. I can not help but getting the impression that that Prime Mover god is just the bait in order to later switch it in for the Christian God.
I also have a hard time believing that that rather apathetic and impersonal god (which is really rather close to pantheism) is something you subscribe to.

rumborak

The God of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, deism, etc. fall under the umbrella of "Prime Mover". So it's not so much a 'switch' from Prime Mover to Christian God as it is a narrowing in on what God is.

But rest assured, we are not talking about Christianity in this thread. We are talking about theism.

[rumborak]

Fair enough. I just want to point out though that a lot of things that can be said about a Prime Mover will not apply to a Christian God. For example the non-clash with evolution.

rumborak

[Ħ]

EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.

rumborak

Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.

[rumborak]

Sounds all good to me. I don't think any of us agnostics here introduced those attributes.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.

rumborak

Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.

See, I don't think I could agree to the whole non-temporal and non-spatial aspect.

[Ħ]

EDIT: Maybe I need to clarify what I mean by Prime Mover: Something whose extent does not exceed the prime movement. You might say other concepts of god have that Prime Mover element to them, but my above point of "what's compatible with evolution" only applies to that pared-down, almost pantheist god.

rumborak

Okay. Well, like I said, in this thread we are talking about God as a Prime Mover. We are equating God with the non-temporal, non-spatial cause of the universe. That's all. Other characteristics that are not accessible from this line of thought (e.g., God is loving, God intervenes in such-and-such way) are not really not helpful in this discussion.

See, I don't think I could agree to the whole non-temporal and non-spatial aspect.

Really? Please explain how time and space could exist without time and space.

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." - Stephen Hawking

[rumborak]

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

[Ħ]

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in...just like math. And if logic still works, then there's no reason arguments won't work.

[El JoNNo]

We don't know what was before the Big Bang. Granted the current incarnation of matter and time in the universe is a result of the Big Bang. However, without efficient measuring techniques for before the Big Bang I don't think anyone in, good conscious, should make any assumptions about what was before it. We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.   

[Sigz]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

[Ħ]

It's absurd to try to address situations that exist outside the universe or the big bang. We simply have no basis for any beliefs in that realm. When even basic physical 'laws' like conservation of energy don't hold at a cosmological scale, trying to extend our knowledge outside of that scale is pointless.

Well, arguments in that realm are not without peril. Even logic might not be safe to work with outside of time.

rumborak

Logic is an abstract idea and is independent of what universe or situation it's applied in

And on what basis do you believe that?

On the same basis that I believe logic works in the present universe. They are both properly basic beliefs. The alternate beliefs ("Logic does not work in the universe" and "whether logic works or not is dependent on geographic location") seem unreasonable.

[Ħ]

We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.   

I need to correct you here. Particles have never come out of nothing. They've emerged as the result of energy fluxuations, yes, but energy isn't "nothing".

[rumborak]

I don't think belief is good enough.
Something as simple as

A => B

Implies causality, something that requires ordering and thus time.

rumborak

[El JoNNo]

We should especially not assume any conscious created the Big Bang. As due to the laws of physics, particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Seemingly from nothing or empty space.   

I need to correct you here. Particles have never come out of nothing. They've emerged as the result of energy fluxuations, yes, but energy isn't "nothing".

You are correct. I guess I have been reading and watching too many physics lectures/articles. They often refer to matter-less space as nothing, the vacuum of space has energy. Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.

[Omega]

Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.

In what way?

[Ħ]

I don't think belief is good enough.
Something as simple as

A => B

Implies causality, something that requires ordering and thus time.

rumborak

You're bouncing all over the place. What is this in reference to? The cause of time?

And why are we still arguing about this? This doesn't have anything to do with the OP...

[El JoNNo]

Regardless particles are still springing forth and gives less credence to an intelligent being creating the universe.

In what way?

If you are talking about the particles, I'll have refer you to Lawrence Krauss' lecture A universe from nothing. Now if you are talking about the credence of the god claim. Well when there is no evidence of what came before something but there is evidence of how it can come to be. The most realistic and logical probability would be the one we see evidence for.