The logical rationalisation of Atheism.

[Furrowed Brow]

In the thread Ask an Atheist confused posed a question.

Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

So can you?

I'm sure many of the atheists here will cite lack of evidence of God. We've done that to death. So I'd like to focus on personal convictions. I have said before I am an irrational atheist. I can rationalise why the resurrection is a fraud, or that there are no such things as miracles, or that evolution is correct. But when I stand under a clear night sky and stare up at the stars those arguments fade away. I feel awe and wonder at the immensity of the university, but my sense of the universe is one that means there is no God. God spoils the picture for me. I just like to think of the universe as self sufficient. I hanker for minimalism over chintz, and I cannot but help see theism as a preference for chintz.

So question for atheists. Place yourself under the night sky contemplating the wonders of the universe. Is you atheism rational or irrational? Is it down to cold hard logic, or does a matter of taste come into it? Are the foundations of your atheism purely rational?

[The Corinthian]

I do think it comes down to cold hard logic, at least in my case it does. My parents neither pushed nor withheld religion from me when growing up. I wasn't baptized, but if I wanted to, I could be. What I learned about religion and god, I learned in religion/Christianity class in school. And until I developed a critical sense, I just flowed with the motions. But when it did develop, I couldn't justify it logically or rationally (even at a very young age). I just couldn't make that leap of faith, especially when I easily could think of ways of how the holy books could come into existence without the guidance of the divine.

I have countless of times looked up at the night sky in awe, and my awe has only increased with my abstract thinking skills.

But if we keep to the main question

Can you logically rationalize the non-existence of God to confirm your foundation as an atheist?

This is the main dilemma. Proving/disproving a negative, if not by evidence, then by logic and reason.

From wikipedia we get (Negative proof):

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist"

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist"

Both versions are equally fallacious. So where do we go from here?
Well, I'm going to be a little self-centered and quote myself from the post where the question was originally asked, where I talk about problem with unfalsifiability:

I think your question tells a lot of the two fundamental world views Christians and atheists hold. Christians start off with God, and from there, you have to logically rationalize that he doesn't exist, i.e. prove that he doesn't exist. Atheist start off with no God, and from there, you have to prove that God does exist.
The reason why atheist don't assume anything, unless there is data to back it up, is because you could sit all day long and think of an infinite unfalsifiable notions, and it would be ridiculous to believe them all just on faith. Even if you choose to believe one of these notions, you couldn't say anything about them. Christians look at [what] is around them and surmise a God from that, i.e. everything must have come from somewhere, and at some point, everything must have come from nothing, and to explain this concept, you have to have a God. I say that even if you choose to believe this (there are other possibilities to explain the above mentioned concept, and science continues to explain more and more of the beginning of the universe), you can't say anything about the that very God. You can't say anything about his intent, motives, or wishes.

To elaborate, when you are dealing with a negative, something unfalsifiable, you wouldn't be able to say anything about it. So even if you were to invent the concept of god as a stopper to an infinite regress (though it doesn't really stop it), you wouldn't be able to state anything about this god, since he would be supernatural.

Which brings me to my second point, by quoting myself again (geez, do my self-centeredness never stop):

You [could] of course bring the Bible into the picture, but the origin of the Bible is highly dubious, and I wouldn't believe anything in it, unless I had a damn good reason, backed up by evidence. There are tons of other religious text out there, extremely similar, and why should you believe in the Bible and not the other, just because your parents told you about it. If they had raised you in another faith, you would have believed something different. This makes religion extremely relative and subjective. It's about subjective choice and indoctrination, and not about truth. Plus, people interpret the Bible differently, and differently through time.

Say, for arguments sake, that god did cause all the things in the bible, and inspired all those people to write it, wouldn't you be able to prove his interference into the natural world? Unless, by the fact that he would be supernatural could interfere in the natural world in a supernatural way that would be undetectable. But then we'd just be making shit up, if you ask me.

Edit: Lol, "xxxx", I guess I just committed a sin.

[Beto]

From wikipedia we get (Negative proof):

"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist"

"A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist"

Both versions are equally fallacious. So where do we go from here?

The only statement that makes sense is: "A supernatural force might exist, because there is no proof that it does or doesn't." I can't see why this can't be enough for indoctrinated people (or atheists that don't want to conceive the possibility) while we search for proof. 2000 years ago we didn't know better, but why should we think like they did? We haven't learned anything since?

How does one rationalize against intelligent design? The universe might be eternal, like bernee says, but I find that this approach is too easy, being beyond our human comprehension. If it's beyond my understanding, I'll dismiss it while I have things I CAN rationalize. Most scientists agree that a universe popping into existence by itself, in a way that it can sustain itself, to be infinitely small. I think purposeful intelligent design will therefore be more likely. This is a simple conclusion (wrong as it may be) that does not require indoctrination of any kind.

Someone said "The only thing supernatural in the universe is our own ignorance." I'm rather fond of this statement.

[The Corinthian]

The only statement that makes sense is: "A supernatural force might exist, because there is no proof that it does or doesn't." I can't see why this can't be enough for indoctrinated people (or atheists that don't want to conceive the possibility) while we search for proof. 2000 years ago we didn't know better, but why should we think like they did? We haven't learned anything since?

How does one rationalize against intelligent design? The universe might be eternal, like bernee says, but I find that this approach is too easy, being beyond our human comprehension. If it's beyond my understanding, I'll dismiss it while I have things I CAN rationalize. Most scientists agree that a universe popping into existence by itself, in a way that it can sustain itself, to be infinitely small. I think purposeful intelligent design will therefore be more likely. This is a simple conclusion (wrong as it may be) that does not require indoctrination of any kind.

Someone said "The only thing supernatural in the universe is our own ignorance." I'm rather fond of this statement.

Yes, when it comes to a "supernatural force", i.e. not a biblical god, I have to admit that the agnostic position is the most reasonable to take. A supernatural force can be many abstract things, and doesn't necessarily need to be a sentient being. It might just as well be a non-sentient supernatural mechanical-like force, trying to achieve some kind of balance in a system that is beyond our ability to fathom (uhm... just doing some digressive philosophizing here). But I am atheistic to all things people say that they know about any supernatural force.

But if life came into existence through "mechanical" means, why couldn't the cosmos also have been, and thus eliminating intelligent design? Of course life had something to emerge from, but then the only solution to our infinite digress problem, as I see it, is that everything always was, i.e. it had no beginning. Maybe the cosmos has always been and will always be, which in itself is a profoundly abstract concept.

[Beto]

The only statement that makes sense is: "A supernatural force might exist, because there is no proof that it does or doesn't." I can't see why this can't be enough for indoctrinated people (or atheists that don't want to conceive the possibility) while we search for proof. 2000 years ago we didn't know better, but why should we think like they did? We haven't learned anything since?

How does one rationalize against intelligent design? The universe might be eternal, like bernee says, but I find that this approach is too easy, being beyond our human comprehension. If it's beyond my understanding, I'll dismiss it while I have things I CAN rationalize. Most scientists agree that a universe popping into existence by itself, in a way that it can sustain itself, to be infinitely small. I think purposeful intelligent design will therefore be more likely. This is a simple conclusion (wrong as it may be) that does not require indoctrination of any kind.

Someone said "The only thing supernatural in the universe is our own ignorance." I'm rather fond of this statement.

Yes, when it comes to a "supernatural force", i.e. not a biblical god, I have to admit that the agnostic position is the most reasonable to take. A supernatural force can be many abstract things, and doesn't necessarily need to be a sentient being. It might just as well be a non-sentient supernatural mechanical-like force, trying to achieve some kind of balance in a system that is beyond our ability to fathom (uhm... just doing some digressive philosophizing here). But I am atheistic to all things people say that they know about any supernatural force.

But if life came into existence through "mechanical" means, why couldn't the cosmos also have been, and thus eliminating intelligent design? Of course life had something to emerge from, but then the only solution to our infinite digress problem, as I see it, is that everything always was, i.e. it had no beginning. Maybe the cosmos has always been and will always be, which in itself is a profoundly abstract concept.

As far as I know, cosmological observation contradicts an eternal (no beginning nor end) universe. Like you said, an eternal cosmos is an abstract concept, so why start rationalizing from there? As far as life coming into existence, I suppose that would be the purpose of an intelligently designed cosmos. I suspect that even at the planck scale there is an imperative towards life. I can see no better reason for designing a universe. Any guesses?

[The Corinthian]

As far as I know, cosmological observation contradicts an eternal (no beginning nor end) universe. Like you said, an eternal cosmos is an abstract concept, so why start rationalizing from there? As far as life coming into existence, I suppose that would be the purpose of an intelligently designed cosmos. I suspect that even at the planck scale there is an imperative towards life. I can see no better reason for designing a universe. Any guesses?

The theoretic physics discipline, when speaking of the cosmos, is of course largely hypothetical, but if one were to proceed from a bubble theory (I have to admit, I'm fairly ignorant on physical cosmology, and I it is highly likely I have misunderstood it), one could say that though our local universe is finite, it is only one out of an infinite local universes. (again, only philosophizing here)

I think that stating that life (which in itself is kind of an arbitrary concept) would be the purpose of an intelligently designed universe, is a highly subjective assertion. The purpose could be many things, and not necessarily life.

This is not a personal attack, but "I can see no better reason for designing a universe" is just an argument from ignorance.

And the intelligently designed part proposes more problems than it answers.

[Beto]

This is not a personal attack, but "I can see no better reason for designing a universe" is just an argument from ignorance.

And the intelligently designed part proposes more problems than it answers.

Let me rephrase it. When I said "life" I was referring to intelligent life, that can appreciate the universe provided for it to develop in. I don't take offense to having my ignorance pointed out to me politely, like you did. I'm very well aware of it. I find that "I can see no better reason for designing a universe" is an honest statement, and I have no problem in putting myself in the Creator's shoes. How about you? Given your current understanding of the universe, why would you bother to create one? And I'm sorry if trying to understand God's unfathomable ways offends anyone... or am I...?

[The Corinthian]

Let me rephrase it. When I said "life" I was referring to intelligent life, that can appreciate the universe provided for it to develop in. I don't take offense to having my ignorance pointed out to me politely, like you did. I'm very well aware of it. I find that "I can see no better reason for designing a universe" is an honest statement, and I have no problem in putting myself in the Creator's shoes. How about you? Given your current understanding of the universe, why would you bother to create one? And I'm sorry if trying to understand God's unfathomable ways offends anyone... or am I...?

And it is and honest statement, just not when used in a rhetorical way, but I can now see that you weren't doing this. So you are completely right.

To answer your question:

Well, I don't think of it from an angle of an intelligent designer, because then I would have to answer what reason his designer had to create him. But for argument sake... First of, there might not even be a reason. Second, speculating over a reason would be more or less pure guess work (of course you could think of the philosophically plausible, like intelligent life appreciating itself and the universe, but they would still only be one of many possibilities). What if life was just a side-effect of creating a universe, and the universe was only created for itself?

But I think it is more plausible that it was an unintelligent mechanical force, if any at all, working under unknown rules of balance. Infinity is an infinite abstract concept

[QED]

The superstitious notion of God(s) is as ancient as humanity. Anyone extrapolating from experience gained in human societies will almost inevitably arrive at the notion of a supreme creator/boss. I think this is where the idea originates. Prophets then busy themselves by continuing to extrapolate. In general, Theists accept the words of prophets and Atheists don't.

The modern concept of God is one which has been refined to the point of fitting almost exactly a "God shaped hole" formed by our ignorance of multiple facts. Of course we don't have to reject God just because we've watched him slowly being squeezed from existence. It could be that he's lurking in the smaller gaps that remain, but each time a gap is closed the Atheists are proved right and the Theists proved wrong. Does the fact that this trend has continued uninterrupted to-date give the Atheist a logical rationalization for his worldview? I don't think so.

It has already been mentioned that something that can explain anything really explains nothing at all. But that doesn't militate against God's existence quite as much as do some of the crazy implications of Intelligent Design (a euphemism I'm sure for God's handiwork). An infinitely knowledgeable being as the first and only eternal being is more incomprehensible to me than an unknown entity that is neither personal or knowledgeable. These embellishments can be shown to be unnecessary by theoretical physicists and while such theories may ultimately suffer the same fate as other ideas that can explain everything, they are infinitely more parsimonious and predict a world that feels just as our does.

Looking at this supposedly "intelligently Designed" world, for example, we have to ask why the designer set up so many creatures in a constant arms-race against each other. The nexus of defensive and offencive measures/countermeasures seem like an utter waste of everyone's blood sweat and tears (including the designers!) when a non-combatant ecosystem could be envisaged from the outset. The universe itself has clearly evolved in terms of it being an on-going process of galaxy formation. Even the atoms needed for biological evolution had to be processed in stars for billions of years before they were available. For me these random examples and many more seem to point strongly away from the universe being created by fiat and towards it being an unplanned accident.

[Beto]

Looking at this supposedly "intelligently Designed" world, for example, we have to ask why the designer set up so many creatures in a constant arms-race against each other.

I usually think of intelligent design of the universe in the same lines as fire-works. You set up the Bang predicting a certain outcome. Now, to someone who doesn't understand fireworks, it will seem totally random, agree? I also find active intervention robs intelligent creatures of their free will, without which true love is impossible (as I perceive love, of course), and I realize this is HIGHLY debatable. God saying "Love me!" is inconceivable to me, and a sure-fire way of not getting any.

The universe itself has clearly evolved in terms of it being an on-going process of galaxy formation. Even the atoms needed for biological evolution had to be processed in stars for billions of years before they were available. For me these random examples and many more seem to point strongly away from the universe being created by fiat and towards it being an unplanned accident.

I think only the Big Bang was intelligently designed. And only because I find it more likely. Do you agree that the chances of a self-sustaining universe appearing by chance are infinitely small?