What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[spetey]

Hi folks! It's glorious spring here. There are violets everywhere. It almost makes winter worthwhile.

Harvey, I'm so disappointed in your response. I'm grateful you made an attempt to answer my questions. But I'm disappointed because almost every one of your answers to my questions is a transparent and unmotivated evasion. Time and again, you want to have your cake and eat it too.

There is an exception: you do commit outright to the claim that the mere fact the universe had a beginning is enough to deduce that there is a God--you claim that it is inconsistent (an "oxymoron") to think the universe had a beginning and that there is no intelligent God. I do thank you for this straightforward answer--though of course I think it's the wrong answer! (It is strange of you to appeal to such an a priori claim after your extensive polemic against them in the latter stages of this thread.) But we'll have to save my discussion of that point for later.

Given your other evasions, it looks we'll have to go very slowly. I'm still interested in each of my questions above, but today I'll focus on the first one, about intelligence and gods. It's an important one.

Sometimes you seem to suggest to be a god requires intelligence (as when your own standards say that to be a god requires a literal motive), and other times you say this is merely a crazy ad hoc claim of mine. So I ask as clearly as I can: is any intelligence at all required, according to you, in order for something to be a god?

For pantheism, all that is required for there to be a God is that God must act like an intelligent-like "force" in the world that moves the world to a particular type of order that favors structures such as galaxies, planets, life, etc.

Uh-huh. It needs to be "intelligent-like". And what does this mean? Does it mean "intelligent when discussing whether Harvey should worship it, and unintelligent when it seems Harvey has to demonstrate the existence of such intelligence?" Because frankly that's what it looks like this means. It looks like you don't want to be nailed down on this point. Please commit: does a god have to have any degree of intelligence, or not?

If yes, how much intelligence? Is any literal motive enough, of the type that bacteria have for getting food? Or would the god have to be at least as smart as a typical human? Or somewhere in between--a bee or dog?

It's not how much intelligence is needed, what is needed is that the principles needed to drive the universe to some sophisticated order must be sophisticated enough to rule out a random beginning to the universe.

This is again evasive. Look: I know you and I agree that natural selection is a principle that drives the universe into increasing complexity and order. Do you think this is enough to demonstrate that natural selection, the principle, is intelligent? Is natural selection a god, according to you?

If no, then are totally unintelligent gods worthy of worship, according to you? If yes, why? If not, then what on earth makes it a god?

Unintelligent gods are not worthy of worship, unless the intelligent-like entity is far beyond our concept of intelligence, in which case we would be guilty of anthropomorphizing God when we should be worshipping such a God.

Another evasion. What is it to be "beyond our concept of intelligence", and how is it different from being simply unintelligent? In many cases, "beyond X" roughly means not-X. "Beyond saving", for example, means can't be saved. In other cases, "beyond X" just means "very X", like "beyond cool". I assume you mean the latter--something very intelligent, so intelligent we can't fathom it. This is surely how God is traditionally depicted. But in this sense to say God is "beyond intelligent" is to say that God is in fact intelligent, indeed very much so. I asked: if it's totally unintelligent, can it be worthy of worship? I'd like a straightforward answer on this.

Oh, Spetey, who are you fooling? You have no intention of ever believing in a God. If we were talking about something unrelated to this theist issue, you would have long ago said it was possible. We are going through this waste of time exercise because I don't have enough sense not to (i.e., I know that you never have an intention to be open-minded about this issue), and you just want to make people into unbelievers. My motive is just to learn more about God (i.e., the reason I'm here), and your's apparently is to start a trend away from theism.

Harvey, again: I resent your claim that I am close-minded. We already discussed the irony of this suggestion in this post. Just because I don't believe as you do does not mean I'm the one close-minded. We're here to try to give reasons to each other. Mere rhetorical accusations of close-mindedness do not count as such reasons. And my resentment comes from the fact that you have been, historically, at least as "close-minded" as I have been. I have made concessions on some points, and even presented a few good arguments for your positions when I've encountered them. But when I charitably tried to think of examples of positions on which you changed your mind slightly, you denied that you had budged even on those. So I wouldn't recommend accusations of "close-mindedness" as a useful move for you at this stage.


spetey

[harvey1]

Hello again, Spetey.

There is an exception: you do commit outright to the claim that the mere fact the universe had a beginning is enough to deduce that there is a God--you claim that it is inconsistent (an "oxymoron") to think the universe had a beginning and that there is no intelligent God. I do thank you for this straightforward answer--though of course I think it's the wrong answer! (It is strange of you to appeal to such an a priori claim after your extensive polemic against them in the latter stages of this thread.) But we'll have to save my discussion of that point for later.

A priori knowledge is knowledge that we possess prior to claiming knowledge on something. I believe all knowledge comes to us causally, either through our ancestors, through culture, through all sorts of ways. But, I don't think it is magically put there in our heads.

Given your other evasions, it looks we'll have to go very slowly. I'm still interested in each of my questions above, but today I'll focus on the first one, about intelligence and gods. It's an important one.

What you call evasions I call answers that respect the complexities of the questions. I always get the impression that you want reality to be simple, and if it is not, you complain about it.

Uh-huh. It needs to be "intelligent-like". And what does this mean? Does it mean "intelligent when discussing whether Harvey should worship it, and unintelligent when it seems Harvey has to demonstrate the existence of such intelligence?"

Funny! But, no. It means that something can be unintelligent, but it behaves intelligently. A good example is Searle's Chinese Room. The person in the room seems as though they know Chinese, but they don't. Likewise, a pantheist God need not speak Chinese (i.e., be intelligent), but could only act like they speak Chinese (act intelligently). The minimum for a pantheist God, I think, is that God act intelligently. No need to actually be intelligent. Equations can be intelligent-like if they actively bring about a universe and life in a manner that life is actually part of the equation. Also, the equations don't have to exist prior to the universe, they could be deterministic equations that happen as God "realizes" more and more. (Again, I'm speaking only from what the pantheist perspective would require for God to exist--and hence atheism to be unreasonable.)

It's not how much intelligence is needed, what is needed is that the principles needed to drive the universe to some sophisticated order must be sophisticated enough to rule out a random beginning to the universe.

This is again evasive. Look: I know you and I agree that natural selection is a principle that drives the universe into increasing complexity and order. Do you think this is enough to demonstrate that natural selection, the principle, is intelligent? Is natural selection a god, according to you?

Natural selection is part of how the Laws pursue the divine will, but natural selection itself is not intelligent. Natural selection is a dumb "algorithm" happening in a random manner. If natural selection were the basis for all structures in the Universe, then the world would be consistent with atheism. However, if there are laws that exist, and if those laws require natural selection in order to produce other structures, then this is a pantheist universe (at minimum). Natural selection cannot look ahead and say figuratively, "hey, I need the physical constants to be such and such so that I can have galaxies and planets and stuff." If there is any "looking ahead" embedded in the laws such that the universe moves in particular directions that favor complex structures in order to meet a particular requirement, then this cannot seriously be considered an atheist explanation for the world.

Unintelligent gods are not worthy of worship, unless the intelligent-like entity is far beyond our concept of intelligence, in which case we would be guilty of anthropomorphizing God when we should be worshipping such a God.

Another evasion. What is it to be "beyond our concept of intelligence", and how is it different from being simply unintelligent? In many cases, "beyond X" roughly means not-X. "Beyond saving", for example, means can't be saved. In other cases, "beyond X" just means "very X", like "beyond cool". I assume you mean the latter--something very intelligent, so intelligent we can't fathom it. This is surely how God is traditionally depicted. But in this sense to say God is "beyond intelligent" is to say that God is in fact intelligent, indeed very much so. I asked: if it's totally unintelligent, can it be worthy of worship? I'd like a straightforward answer on this.

To be beyond intelligence is to say intelligence is a primitive characterization and that we cannot apply that primitive characterization to God. For example, if an ancient Egyptian philosopher travelled through time to our time period, they might look at our world and go back believing that humans have mastered the art of magic. They might even step up efforts to learn more magic to get to where we are today. We are "beyond magic" in that magic doesn't apply, but the reason they would use that word is because that's the closest phenomena that they could reckon would explain the "magic" that they see in our world.

Similarly, we might look at God and try to think that God has a certain level of intelligence, or that God thinks out a problem like we do, etc.. However, all of that may not apply. Maybe God is an equation (like the pantheists might conceive of God), and yet God is also super-intelligent as an equation because ultimately intelligence may be shown to be an equation. Or, a hundred of other possibilities that we simply cannot imagine. Rather than get bogged down on what our limited minds try to conceive, I just call it "beyond intelligence." However, for the sake of our argument, we can consider the pantheist view which might have God as the guy who can't speak Chinese who only appears as though can speak Chinese.

Harvey, again: I resent your claim that I am close-minded. We already discussed the irony of this suggestion in this post. Just because I don't believe as you do does not mean I'm the one close-minded. We're here to try to give reasons to each other. Mere rhetorical accusations of close-mindedness do not count as such reasons. And my resentment comes from the fact that you have been, historically, at least as "close-minded" as I have been. I have made concessions on some points, and even presented a few good arguments for your positions when I've encountered them. But when I charitably tried to think of examples of positions on which you changed your mind slightly, you denied that you had budged even on those. So I wouldn't recommend accusations of "close-mindedness" as a useful move for you at this stage.

Spetey, close-mindedness has very little to do with how we change our minds during arguments here. Afterall, you could be 100% right, and I could be 100% wrong, and the fact that you don't change your mind isn't a reflection of you being close-minded, it is a reflection that you have your wits about yourself since you've stuck to what you know to be true. I could say the same thing for my perspective.

The issue of being close-minded is about what ideas what one is willing to consider as explanations about the world in a manner that doesn't cut off any reasonable ones from being considered. You've spent a lot of time going after the theist thesis, but it appears to me that you are definitely close-minded since the universe is a very unique place, and looking at explanations for why it happens to be so complex enough to produce galaxies, stars, planets, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc., requires someone who is open-minded enough to consider all possibilities.

I don't think you really consider all possibilities. Not at all. I think you are lock-set against some possibilities that, in particular, favor a type of order in the world that brings life about for a particular reason. It didn't just happen, it was directed to happen by the same order of the world that brought about galaxies, stars, and planets.

Now, I'm not being close-minded since I do consider a random origin to the world, but it is a meaningless picture since it means that our human civilization will soon be extinguished, and the universe will move on to some kind of slow and cold death (or hot death if Omega values are seen differently in the future). So, why believe that when there is good reason to believe in the other version that provides so much more meaning to life?

Nonetheless, you shouldn't be close-minded about the possibility, regardless how delightful it is for the majority of the people on the planet. If you don't find it convincing enough to believe, that's fine, but that's not your position (i.e., agnosticism). You want to be close-minded to even the pantheist idea (or at least try to redefine the pantheist view to something that it is not). So, why shouldn't I call an ace an ace? Are we supposed to walk around and say the emperor has clothes when he is stark naked? What purpose does that serve? You've already made it clear that you want to help rid the world of theism, I don't see why we cannot discuss this.

[spetey]

Hi again! Another lovely day. Even we crazy cynical atheists who can find no meaning in life--yes even we--think spring is beautiful.

A priori knowledge is knowledge that we possess prior to claiming knowledge on something.

I don't think this is a definition you would stand by. According to it, if you look out the window and see that daffodils are blooming, and thereby come to know daffodils are blooming outside my window, you know it a priori as long as you don't claim to know (to anyone else?) that daffodils are blooming outside your window. But then once one opens one's big mouth, it's no longer a priori any more, on this definition--right?!

But we'll get back later to your claim that "a universe began without an intelligent God" is self-contradictory (the way "he's a married bachelor" is?). We still have to talk about that first of my list of important questions: about gods, intelligence, and worship.

What you call evasions I call answers that respect the complexities of the questions. I always get the impression that you want reality to be simple, and if it is not, you complain about it.

I don't think I'm asking for an overly simplistic categorization. I'm asking for consistency. It looks like you're saying that your god is both intelligent and not-intelligent. But this is self-contradictory. I want you to commit to its being one or the other, or else I would need to hear the third option between intelligent and not-intelligent. I claim there is no middle ground between having no intelligence and having some intelligence.

Uh-huh. It needs to be "intelligent-like". And what does this mean? Does it mean "intelligent when discussing whether Harvey should worship it, and unintelligent when it seems Harvey has to demonstrate the existence of such intelligence?"

Funny! But, no. It means that something can be unintelligent, but it behaves intelligently.

Ah, okay, a more straightforward answer. But let me make sure I have it right. So a god can be utterly unintelligent, according to you, as long as it manages to fool some people into thinking it's intelligent (like Searle claims about the Chinese room)? Can a toaster count as a god as long as it looks smart about how well it times the toast and stuff? Just to be clear: you think it makes sense to call something totally unintelligent a god, right?

Look: I know you and I agree that natural selection is a principle that drives the universe into increasing complexity and order. Do you think this is enough to demonstrate that natural selection, the principle, is intelligent? Is natural selection a god, according to you?

Natural selection is part of how the Laws pursue the divine will, but natural selection itself is not intelligent.

Okay. So just directing material toward greater organization does not thereby make something intelligent, right?

Natural selection is a dumb "algorithm" happening in a random manner. ... Natural selection cannot look ahead and say figuratively, "hey, I need the physical constants to be such and such so that I can have galaxies and planets and stuff." If there is any "looking ahead" embedded in the laws such that the universe moves in particular directions that favor complex structures in order to meet a particular requirement, then this cannot seriously be considered an atheist explanation for the world.

Two responses here:

1. Yes such an explanation can be atheist, as long as there are no gods doing this directing (just as you grant for evolution). That's what we're debating.
2. On what grounds do you say that natural selection is a dumb process that happens to direct things toward complexity, but the laws of physics are intelligent because they direct things (according to you) in a certain way?

Unintelligent gods are not worthy of worship, unless the intelligent-like entity is far beyond our concept of intelligence, in which case we would be guilty of anthropomorphizing God when we should be worshipping such a God.

Another evasion. What is it to be "beyond our concept of intelligence", and how is it different from being simply unintelligent? In many cases, "beyond X" roughly means not-X. "Beyond saving", for example, means can't be saved. In other cases, "beyond X" just means "very X", like "beyond cool". I assume you mean the latter--something very intelligent, so intelligent we can't fathom it. This is surely how God is traditionally depicted. But in this sense to say God is "beyond intelligent" is to say that God is in fact intelligent, indeed very much so. I asked: if it's totally unintelligent, can it be worthy of worship? I'd like a straightforward answer on this.

To be beyond intelligence is to say intelligence is a primitive characterization and that we cannot apply that primitive characterization to God. For example, if an ancient Egyptian philosopher travelled through time to our time period, they might look at our world and go back believing that humans have mastered the art of magic. They might even step up efforts to learn more magic to get to where we are today. We are "beyond magic" in that magic doesn't apply, but the reason they would use that word is because that's the closest phenomena that they could reckon would explain the "magic" that they see in our world.

Okay, now in your Egyptian example, the Egyptian would be wrong to attribute magic to us. I'm asking: is God, according to you, "beyond intelligence" in the same way--in that it would be wrong for us to attribute any intelligence to God? A separate but related question on which I still need a straightforward answer: according to you does it make sense to worship something totally unintelligent?

Maybe God is an equation (like the pantheists might conceive of God), and yet God is also super-intelligent as an equation because ultimately intelligence may be shown to be an equation.

Okay. This is a case where God is intelligent--God is "the equation" and this equation is intelligent. My key and related questions we're concentrating on at the moment are:

1. Can something totally unintelligent be a god?
2. Does it make sense to worship something totally unintelligent?

Or, a hundred of other possibilities that we simply cannot imagine. Rather than get bogged down on what our limited minds try to conceive, I just call it "beyond intelligence."

Okay. So are you saying that you have no idea whether God is intelligent or not? In that case, the second question above is more relevant: why worship something that you have no reason to think in any sense intelligent? Why worship the laws of physics if you have no idea whether they are in any sense cognizant of such worship?

Harvey, again: I resent your claim that I am close-minded. We already discussed the irony of this suggestion in this post...

Spetey, close-mindedness has very little to do with how we change our minds during arguments here. Afterall, you could be 100% right, and I could be 100% wrong, and the fact that you don't change your mind isn't a reflection of you being close-minded, it is a reflection that you have your wits about yourself since you've stuck to what you know to be true. I could say the same thing for my perspective.

Quite right. We are on roughly equal ground on this criterion. That's why I'm suggesting it's unfair for you to accuse me when I have symmetric reasons for accusing you similarly, if not actually better ones (on grounds that you've never budged on any issue).

The issue of being close-minded is about what ideas what one is willing to consider as explanations about the world in a manner that doesn't cut off any reasonable ones from being considered. You've spent a lot of time going after the theist thesis, but it appears to me that you are definitely close-minded since the universe is a very unique place, and looking at explanations for why it happens to be so complex enough to produce galaxies, stars, planets, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc., requires someone who is open-minded enough to consider all possibilities.

I quite agree. For example, one should be open to the possiblity that the universe began without any intelligence or god. One should not rule out such a case as self-contradictory.

I don't think you really consider all possibilities. Not at all. I think you are lock-set against some possibilities that, in particular, favor a type of order in the world that brings life about for a particular reason.

Why do you say this? It seems to me I considered your version of the world and rejected it for the IBE reasons I've been giving all along. From where I'm standing, it's you who won't even consider the possibility that there's no god, since you think the existence of an intelligent god follows analytically from the fact that the universe began.

Now, I'm not being close-minded since I do consider a random origin to the world, but it is a meaningless picture since it means that our human civilization will soon be extinguished, and the universe will move on to some kind of slow and cold death (or hot death if Omega values are seen differently in the future).

Ah, now you must know how I'm going to respond to this by now, Harvey. I don't think you should reject an option because you don't like it. If you want to defend such wishful thinking, it should be done on this thread, where I have a careful argument against the position you espouse here.

(And, as you know, I know from experience you can have a plenty meaningful life and not believe in a god. I also don't think atheism implies the heat death of the universe--instead I think facts about dark matter and the shape of the universe are what will determine that. I don't think it depends on whether enough of us believe in God and clap hard.)

You've already made it clear that you want to help rid the world of theism, I don't see why we cannot discuss this.

First, I'm not eager to rid the world of theism--I'm eager to have the world think carefully about important views and consider their reasons (and I include myself in "the world"). As it happens I also think that if people consider their reasons carefully, they will not be theists. But I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong on this score, and so asking people like you to give me reasons I haven't considered.

Second, I'm eager to discuss this very issue of meaning and God, as that thread demonstrates. The activity seems to have died out there, though. No one seems to be able to defend the idea that God gives meaning to life, or that even if God did give meaning to life, that this would be reason to believe.


spetey

[MagusYanam]

Hello, spetey and harvey1! If I may interrupt this dialogue for a few paragraphs, I have some things to add...

I'm eager to have the world think carefully about important views and consider their reasons (and I include myself in "the world"). As it happens I also think that if people consider their reasons carefully, they will not be theists. But I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong on this score, and so asking people like you to give me reasons I haven't considered.

I consider myself to be both reasonable and a theist, but ultimately I think the conclusions to which a person will come about the existence of God are dependent not upon the person's rational faculties so much as their disposition and temperament. People just don't think the same way on a lot of different things (as I am fast discovering). A theist and an atheist can both reason out their positions and be completely correct to their objective reasoning, even though the objective conclusions are contradictory (even if they are not testable in a scientific sense). All the same, I think it is worthwhile for people to get together and try to piece together some kind of worldview that is profitable to and accessible by all parties.

The issue of being close-minded is about what ideas what one is willing to consider as explanations about the world in a manner that doesn't cut off any reasonable ones from being considered.

Agreed, but again, allowances have to be made for how people came to their criteria for judging explanations to be logically satisfactory or unsatisfactory, or what those criteria are in the first place. You should not dismiss someone as 'close-minded [sic]' before trying to ascertain and evaluate these criteria.

I don't think I'm asking for an overly simplistic categorization. I'm asking forconsistency. It looks like you're saying that your god is both intelligent and not-intelligent. But this is self-contradictory. I want you to commit to its being one or the other, or else I would need to hear the third option between intelligent and not-intelligent. I claim there is no middle ground between having no intelligence and having some intelligence.

Is this related to the 'personhood of God' issue being discussed earlier? If so, allow me to examine this from a classical theist standpoint. I find the specification of 'God as a person' or even 'God as a being' problematic, since for God to be a person or a being would mean that there has to be some classification and therefore some thing (even a theoretical thing) which is greater than God, namely reality. If I may borrow the Thomist assertion, God is being itself, or reality itself. That is the classical theist position. (To be perfectly frank, I think classical theism has some flaws, but its inherent panentheism is not one of them.) A substantial part of scripture tends often to anthropomorphise God, to describe Him as a(n intelligent) person because that's what we can best relate to. Other parts tend to be more appropriate in their metaphysical descriptions of God, for example 'I am'.

As to whether the criterion of intelligence applies to God, being being itself, it could be speculated either way (or, in harvey1's case, both ways at once). Intelligence is something critical to the way we define our reality, but then again not everything that is real is intelligent.

This is really just an interjection, since I find myself a bit unwilling to invest the time to catch up and explore every aspect of this conversation (the parts I have read have been interesting, however), and I hope that it's germane to the last.

MagusYanam

[harvey1]

Hello MY,

The issue of being close-minded is about what ideas what one is willing to consider as explanations about the world in a manner that doesn't cut off any reasonable ones from being considered.

Agreed, but again, allowances have to be made for how people came to their criteria for judging explanations to be logically satisfactory or unsatisfactory, or what those criteria are in the first place. You should not dismiss someone as 'close-minded [sic]' before trying to ascertain and evaluate these criteria.

Out of curiosity, why did I get a sic? In any case, my comment was not meant as an insult. Close-mindedness in this case describes Spetey's unwillingness to consider the existence of God as a reasonable possibility. I do not accept a random beginning as being an unreasonable possibility (of course! how could I?), but I reject that possibility for a couple of reasons:

• 1) The logic of making sense of a random beginning (i.e., non-theistic) does not make sense to me, whereas a belief in God does (see this post as one example argument)
  
  2) Whenever presented with two arguments of approximately equal merit in which there is sufficient reason to believe, one should not commit to either belief unless one belief holds pragmatic value, and if so, they can commit to the belief having pragmatic value over the one not holding such value
  
  3) The cosmological evidence for the existence of God is stronger on the side of theism than for a random beginning argument

Based on those 3 reasons, I feel justified in accepting theism as the most reasonable belief over a random beginning (which I don't see as being unreasonable). However, most atheists say that God is an unreasonable belief, even though they do not have own version of #2 to appeal to, and rarely will they appeal to their own version #3, and therefore all that is left is an appeal to their own version #1 (which usually comes in the form of the problem of evil). To say that the contrary argument is unreasonable given only a #1 argument (which I have seen very few of) is a close-minded position. The same position could be taken on just about any other issue which is recognizably close-minded (e.g., YEC's depiction of dog fossils as disproving evolutionary transitional evidence in the fossil record), and it should be acceptable to present it as an issue of discussion.

[MagusYanam]

Out of curiosity, why did I get a sic?

Sorry about that, bad habit from a spelling-and-grammar stickler. You just made a typographical error - you meant to say 'closed-minded', right?

my comment was not meant as an insult. Close-mindedness in this case describes Spetey's unwillingness to consider the existence of God as a reasonable possibility. I accept a random beginning as a reasonable possibility (of course! how could I not), but I reject that possibility for a couple of reasons:

1) The logic of making sense of a random beginning (i.e., non-theistic) does not make sense to me, whereas a belief in God does (see this post as one example argument)

2) Whenever presented with two arguments of approximately equal merit in which there is sufficient reason to believe, one should not commit to either belief unless one belief holds pragmatic value, and if so, they can commit to the belief having pragmatic value over the one not holding such value

3) The cosmological evidence for the existence of God is stronger on the side of theism than for a random beginning argument

I can believe that you meant no insult, but spetey has never particularly struck me as being closed-minded. S / he definitely has a different way of looking at the world than I do, but s / he has never dismissed anything I said concerning the existence of God out-of-hand.

Also, not to be overly critical, but your first point sounds a bit self-defeating. The logic of a random beginning should make sense, otherwise it wouldn't be logic as such.

I think we can agree on the second point. The third point, however, I have a bit of a quibble with. As you are using the term here, cosmology is not something evidential but series of rational steps in combination with a certain set of metaphysical assumptions.

Based on those 3 reasons, I feel justified in accepting one reasonable belief over another. However, most atheists will not accept that God is a reasonable belief, nor do they have own version of #2 to appeal to, and rarely will they appeal to their own version #3, and therefore all that is left is an appeal to their own version #1 (which usually comes in the form of the problem of evil). To say that the contrary argument is unreasonable given only a #1 argument (which I have seen very few of) is aclose-minded position. The same position could be taken on just about any other issue which is recognizably close-minded (e.g., YEC's depiction of dog fossils as disproving evolutionary transitional evidence in the fossil record), and it should be acceptable to present it as an issue of discussion.

Some atheists do start from the assumption that belief in God is reasonable before deciding that none is just as reasonable if not more. I have gone the other way on this, but I do acknowledge that the atheist position does have a degree of rational merit.

As to the pragmatic value of atheism, you'll have to ask an atheist. I am not an atheist, so I'm not really qualified to answer on the topic.

The Problem of Evil is one of a few atheist arguments I've heard, but in my experience it hasn't been the most prevalent or convincing one. Even the God of classical theism has His limits - pretty much the only ones who don't acknowledge this are those who insist that God is both all-good and all-powerful.

[harvey1]

Out of curiosity, why did I get a sic?

Sorry about that, bad habit from a spelling-and-grammar stickler. You just made a typographical error - you meant to say 'closed-minded', right?

I use dictionary.com, not the best resource I suppose. But, it says "close-minded" is okay.

I can believe that you meant no insult, but spetey has never particularly struck me as being closed-minded. S / he definitely has a different way of looking at the world than I do, but s / he has never dismissed anything I said concerning the existence of God out-of-hand.

I guess I'm really turned off by a link that he provided a month ago where he posted on the message board and gave disappointing comments about his impression of debating with religious people. His quotes really changed my view of Spetey. Now, all I think he wants to do is convert people to atheism.

Also, not to be overly critical, but your first point sounds a bit self-defeating. The logic of a random beginning should make sense, otherwise it wouldn't be logic as such.

I don't follow your argument here. I don't think a random beginning defines a logical argument. What do you mean?

The third point, however, I have a bit of a quibble with. As you are using the term here, cosmology is not something evidential but series of rational steps in combination with a certain set of metaphysical assumptions.

No, I'm talking in terms of pure cosmological coincidences seen in the values of the physical constants. These coincidences require a multiverse to effectively explain the universe in which we see, but that only increases the burden on the atheist from explaining one universe to explaining many, many others. It becomes a little unbelievable.

Some atheists do start from the assumption that belief in God is reasonable before deciding that none is just as reasonable if not more. I have gone the other way on this, but I do acknowledge that the atheist position does have a degree of rational merit.

The problem with atheism is not that it isn't irrational, the main problem with it is that it doesn't make sense to hold that as a belief. For example, if I'm at a horse race as an unknowledgeable-about-horse-races visitor, I would not claim to know who the winner is unless I had a reason to make that claim (my points 1-3). However, for me to walk into a race that is about to begin and make a strong claim that one horse will not win, doesn't make any sense. Why would I do that? And, to walk up to the gamblers who are betting on their horse and say their reasons are all wrong and try and discourage them in their belief of the winner is even worse! At worse, they should just watch and pick a horse whose winning holds some kind of significance for them (#2 reason), but atheists have no reason to pick a horse for any pragmatic reason since their horse is just a meaningless scenario for life. Hence, atheism doesn't make any sense.

[MagusYanam]

I use dictionary.com, not the best resource I suppose. But, it says "close-minded" is okay.

Ah. Again, sorry about that - I habitually use Merriam-Webster, though, and it doesn't have an entry for 'close-minded'.

Also, not to be overly critical, but your first point sounds a bit self-defeating. The logic of a random beginning should make sense, otherwise it wouldn't be logic as such.

I don't follow your argument here. I don't think a random beginning defines a logical argument. What do you mean?

I wasn't quibbling with the random beginning part, I was pointing out that logic of any kind should make sense (with some exceptions) in order to be logic. There shouldn't be any way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. A conclusion whose truth value follows logically from its premises must 'make sense'. There are some exceptions, but the current question at hand (the origin of the universe) is not going to be one of those if a convincing argument is being made.

It's another matter if you don't hold the premises. That just means the logic isn't very convincing, but it should still make sense.

No, I'm talking in terms of pure cosmological coincidences seen in the values of the physical constants. These coincidences require a multiverse to effectively explain the universe in which we see, but that only increases the burden on the atheist from explaining one universe to explaining many, many others. It becomes a little unbelievable.

I see. Theoretical physics is not my area of expertise, unfortunately. I guess I just assumed what you meant by 'cosmology' was the philosophical definition.

[harvey1]

I wasn't quibbling with the random beginning part, I was pointing out that logic of any kind should make sense (with some exceptions) in order to be logic. There shouldn't be any way for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. A conclusion whose truth value follows logically from its premises must 'make sense'. There are some exceptions, but the current question at hand (the origin of the universe) is not going to be one of those if a convincing argument is being made.

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, I meant the term "logic" in the looser sense of the word (e.g., definition #4).

[QED]

No, I'm talking in terms of pure cosmological coincidences seen in the values of the physical constants. These coincidences require a multiverse to effectively explain the universe in which we see, but that only increases the burden on the atheist from explaining one universe to explaining many, many others. It becomes a little unbelievable.

I have to take issue with this, it's obviously an important part of your motive towards theism. There is no shortage of 'unbelievable' facts before us, right here on our tiny little planet let alone the entire cosmos. I suggest that the human perspective is too poorly equipped to make assessments of the sort you make. When we look at the natural world at every scale we see things that are 'unbelievable'. I find it 'unbelievable' that the shark has changed little in getting on for half a billion years, even though I can hardly appreciate what half a billion years means.

I think it is highly erroneous to dismiss 'cosmic' numbers as you do. Particularly when, like the shark, you know the subject to be 'real' -- you are familiar with cosmic evolution, so you are rejecting a linear extrapolation of something 'real' in favour of a leap into something 'imaginary' (like a jump into hyperspace). This makes no sense to me and would feel like I was taking an impatient short-cut to an easy solution -- particularly when it would only shift the questions of origin to a new subject.

This non-linear move might be a good way to define theism and I personally prefer to "stick to the path" of atheism. I would argue that we are all born as atheists, after all, to be agnostic at birth would be impossible as the concept of god would not be present in our minds. Unlike you it would seem, I am not intimidated by the prospect of finding myself to be mistaken in this, but nothing you have come up with so far has provided a compelling reason to make the transition. I do find your logical challenges difficult to navigate at times, and it requires more vigilance than I can muster to ensure that you are always following valid logical pathways so I admit I may be missing important issues, but that is my loss.