Atheism - The Default Position

[theleftone]

It is often claimed by some atheists that atheism is the default position for human beings to take. With all the reasoning I can muster, I have attempted to solve this riddle over the past five years of my life. I have done so to no avail. So, I am curious if anyone here can help me solve this riddle. For debate...

Is atheism the default position? If so, why? If not, why?

[harvey1]

...atheism is the only theology that truly cannot be proven to be true...

It all depends on what you mean by "proven." For example, I could imagine someone coming up with a cellular automata program based on some very simple rules that were somehow overlooked which suddenly describe a de Sitter FRW open universe that obeys quantum mechanical rules, etc.. Such a simulation would be proof as far as I'm concerned.

[OccamsRazor]

Such a simulation would be proof as far as I'm concerned.

This does not provide conclusive proof. It may be the proof that you need but many will propose that the creator implemented the rules and the starting conditions.
The problem is that because a deity is by its very nature supernatural then it cannot be proven to not exist.

[harvey1]

does not provide conclusive proof. It may be the proof that you need but many will propose that the creator implemented the rules and the starting conditions. The problem is that because a deity is by its very nature supernatural then it cannot be proven to not exist.

Then I would contend that no belief can be proved in that strong sense of the word. Even mathematical proofs are in doubt since it is always possible that some new axiom could destablize that proof to the degree that many don't hold it universally true anymore.

[OccamsRazor]

Then I would contend that no belief can be proved in that strong sense of the word. Even mathematical proofs are in doubt since it is always possible that some new axiom could destablize that proof to the degree that many don't hold it universally true anymore.

This is, of course, the basis of skepticism.
Mathematical truths are a different story because mathematics is a purely abstract field and does enforce truths upon the physical (nor even metaphysical) world.

My original point however is that most forms of theism could be confirmed if they were true. For example a William Blake style god could erupt from the clouds point down to the Vatican in front of the world's media and say "You guys got it right". Such an event could never happen in atheism.
A great example is that I could say "There is life on other planets" to prove me right you only have to find one example, to prove me wrong would be much more difficult.

[harvey1]

My original point however is that most forms of theism could be confirmed if they were true.

My point was that atheism does not give us good reason to believe that theism is probably false. And, therefore, the burden of proof does not pass to the theist. That is, we need evidence to say that it is "probably false." On the other hand, I think certain theistic arguments should convince us that an atheistic universe is not a rational possibility, and therefore should be ruled out. Therefore, the burden of proof passes to the atheist.

A great example is that I could say "There is life on other planets" to prove me right you only have to find one example, to prove me wrong would be much more difficult.

What position do you hold with regard to life existing on other planets? Do you think we are justified in thinking there is life on other planets despite the fact that we don't have this solid evidence? I think we are justified in believing it. I for sure do not think we are justified in saying that life does not exist on other planets. However, this is exactly what weak atheism suggests, the lack of evidence is reason to believe that life probably does not exist. How is that position defendable?

[OccamsRazor]

That is, we need evidence to say that it is "probably false."

This brings me back to my comment that atheism is not proveable. One cannot provide evidence that a non-corporeal entity does not exist.
I feel that the definition of god has varied over the years and that theology has somewhat "moved the goalposts". That is to say that each time a tenet of formal religion has been shown to be false then the religion changes to meet this. This can be argued to be purely a liberal attitude to the religion but my point is that it cannot be proven to be false.

On the other hand, I think certain theistic arguments should convince us that an atheistic universe is not a rational possibility, and therefore should be ruled out.

I have not heard a convincing argument of this. Could you give me one?

What position do you hold with regard to life existing on other planets? Do you think we are justified in thinking there is life on other planets despite the fact that we don't have this solid evidence? I think we are justified in believing it. I for sure do not think we are justified in saying that life does not exist on other planets. However, this is exactly what weak atheism suggests, the lack of evidence is reason to believe that life probably does not exist. How is that position defendable?

I believe that life probably does exist on other planets. But this can be described by purely statistical reasoning, i.e. there are countless millions of planets in the cosmos it seems improbable by pure statistical logic that it was only this one where a form of life emerged.
The does not hold for weak-atheism. The arguments that I have seen imply a creator in the complex structure the world around us or in the creation of the original cosmic bubble which expanded into the universe. This (again) brings me to my user-namesake, I feel that I cannot rationally add a creator simply because there is a high level of complexity emergent from a simple starting position (CA shows us this) nor can I add one because there is something about the universe that I do not understand.
Life on other planets does not require the addition of a previously unimagined entity to explain its existence.

[harvey1]

This brings me back to my comment that atheism is not proveable. One cannot provide evidence that a non-corporeal entity does not exist. I feel that the definition of god has varied over the years and that theology has somewhat "moved the goalposts". That is to say that each time a tenet of formal religion has been shown to be false then the religion changes to meet this. This can be argued to be purely a liberal attitude to the religion but my point is that it cannot be proven to be false.

I see that we're starting to bring up the same topics in two threads...

Living in the Matrix is not provable either, but that doesn't mean that we should consider it probable that we are in the Matrix.

On the other hand, I think certain theistic arguments should convince us that an atheistic universe is not a rational possibility, and therefore should be ruled out.

I have not heard a convincing argument of this. Could you give me one?

Why don't we start here?

The does not hold for weak-atheism. The arguments that I have seen imply a creator in the complex structure the world around us or in the creation of the original cosmic bubble which expanded into the universe. This (again) brings me to my user-namesake, I feel that I cannot rationally add a creator simply because there is a high level of complexity emergent from a simple starting position (CA shows us this) nor can I add one because there is something about the universe that I do not understand. Life on other planets does not require the addition of a previously unimagined entity to explain its existence.

On the other hand, atheism says more than what the universe is probably not, it entails what the universe probably is. However, how do you know that? For example, why can't this quote be enough to settle the issue:

Scriptwriters willingly violate the laws of physics in making Hollywood blockbusters. But in the physics community, such paradoxes are taken very seriously. Any solution to these paradoxes must be compatible with relativity and the quantum theory... Currently, physicists are congregating around two possible solutions to these time paradoxes. First, Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov believes that we are forced to act in a way so that no paradoxes occur. His approach is called the self-consistency school. If the river of time smoothly bends back on itself and creates a whirlpool, he suggests than an "invisible hand" of some sort would intervene if we were to jump back into the past and were about to create a time paradox.... Novikov believes that an undiscovered law of physics prevents any action that will change the future (such as killing your parents or preventing your birth)... A second way to resolve the time paradox is if the river of time smoothly folds into two rivers, or branches, forming two distinct universes... This second hypothesis is called the "many worlds theory"--the idea that all possible quantum worlds might exist... [P]hysicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watches over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes. (Michio Kaku, "Parallel Worlds": A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, 2005, pp. 143-145).

Why doesn't this position immediately require that all weak atheists acknowledge that they do not have the default position?

[Cephus]

You would acknowledge, though, that there are many, many situations where this simply is not the case. For example, strings and branes as outlined in the various string theories may or may not exist. However, I think you might agree that the burden of proof is not on string theorists to show that they exist lest we say they probably do not exist.

No, as with the case for God, if there is no good evidence either way, one does not say that something does exist or does not exist, one simply does not take a position, awaiting further evidence.

I would say that atheists actively do not believe the possibility favors God's existence until there is a very good reason for at least an agnostic stance. So, for example, you might agree that strings have enough reason to think that one ought to hold an agnostic stance on their theoretical existence, but you don't think that the proposed existence of God has nearly that kind of evidence (such as mathematical equations that naturally produce Einstein's equations, etc.).

Weak atheists do not actively disbelieve the existence of God period. That is the difference between a strong atheist and a weak atheist. Strong atheists actively disbelieve, weak atheists passively lack belief.

[Cephus]

Yes, I agree. Philosophically speaking, Cephus is an agnostic based on this statement. (Although I really think he is an atheist because when I asked him if he thinks the atheist is wrong he refused to answer the question. An agnostic would have no problem saying that the atheist is wrong in their response.)

Then like everything else, you'd be wrong, but that's hardly a surprise. Agnostics think that the whole question is largely moot because the existence of God is beyond human comprehension, hence it's ridiculous to even worry about it. I think that not only should there be evidence for the existence of any deity, but that in order for me to believe in it, there *MUST* be.

But so far, I haven't seen a shred of evidence, hence I remain a weak atheist, no matter what your philosophy says.

[harvey1]

No, as with the case for God, if there is no good evidence either way, one does not say that something does exist or does not exist, one simply does not take a position, awaiting further evidence.

That's an entirely subjective statement. Some string theorists believe strings must exist, others are content with them being reasonable possibilities, and other theorists outside of string theory might say that they definitely do not exist.

Weak atheists do not actively disbelieve the existence of God period. That is the difference between a strong atheist and a weak atheist. Strong atheists actively disbelieve, weak atheists passively lack belief.

I'm sorry, Cephus, I disagree with you and I've quoted to you many references that show what atheism means. Even O.Razor has tried to dispell some of these myths, but yet you persist to believe what you read on a message board somewhere.