Why atheism is almost certainly true.

200 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devans99's picture
A life form is made of

A life form is made of complex matter. There is no other way to construct a life form. Nearly all hypothetical universe lack complex matter. We are very fortunate to live in a universe that was probably designed for complex matter.

So in you opinion, if it was not the big crunch, what caused the big bang? I've given you a viable explanation (the big crunch), whats your alternative?

You fail to acknowledge that evidence can be submitted both for and against a proposition. I've given you evidence that the universe is designed (evidence for the proposition). I've asked several times for evidence against the proposition and it seems you have none?

So we have to conclude that the balance of probability points to a designed universe.

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

"Nearly all hypothetical universe lack complex matter."

What evidence do you have for this claim?

"So we have to conclude that the balance of probability points to a designed universe."

Another presupposed assumption. All evidence debunks this claim.

rmfr

Devans99's picture
The stability of the atom

The stability of the atom depends on the the strong force and the EMR force being just right. In addition the constituent sub-atomic particles must be present with the appropriate properties to form and atom and from then on molecules.

So there is a lot of stuff that has to be just right for complex matter to form. Make any changes to the forces or the standard model and complex matter would be very unlikely to form. This is my intuition I admit, but I suspect computer modelling would bear me out. IE a model that changed something at random and then ran for a period of time. I think you'd fine that nearly all changes made would result in no complex matter (no elements or molecules or anything functionally equivalent).

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

Dan: "The stability of the atom depends on the the strong force and the EMR force being just right. In addition the constituent sub-atomic particles must be present with the appropriate properties to form and atom and from then on molecules."

And this (above) is in answer to what?

I see one thing you have wrong. It is NOT EMR (electromagnetic radiation), it is the Electromagnetic Force. The two are completely different.

Dan: "So there is a lot of stuff that has to be just right for complex matter to form. Make any changes to the forces or the standard model and complex matter would be very unlikely to form. This is my intuition I admit, but I suspect computer modelling would bear me out. IE a model that changed something at random and then ran for a period of time. I think you'd fine that nearly all changes made would result in no complex matter (no elements or molecules or anything functionally equivalent)."

This paragraph needs piecemeal addressing.

Dan: "So there is a lot of stuff that has to be just right for complex matter to form."

Such as?

Dan: "Make any changes to the forces or the standard model and complex matter would be very unlikely to form."

You mean matter as we currently understand it. Change any or all of those Fundamental Parameters and things would just be "fundamentally" different. We have absolutely no evidence or proof that your claim is true or false. Again, the unfalsifiability fallacy. Perhaps you also need to download and study the Rhetorological Fallacies PDF I made.

Dan: "This is my intuition I admit, but I suspect computer modelling would bear me out."

Remember, in the court of science "intuition" is inadmissable as evidence. Have you created those computer models? I'd love to download them and try them out for myself.

Dan: "IE a model that changed something at random and then ran for a period of time."

Yep. That is what a model does.

Dan: "I think you'd fine that nearly all changes made would result in no complex matter (no elements or molecules or anything functionally equivalent)."

Again, unfalsifiable.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dan - strong force and the

Dan - strong force and the EMR force being just right.

Assuming you mean electro-magentic force, even that isn't correct. The strength of those forces are not constant, they very, even in relation to each other. So your notion that they have to be just right is ludicrous.

arakish's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

Just curious. Is Electromagnetic Force still hyphenated? I always learned they changed it to unhyphenated.

rmfr

Nyarlathotep's picture
I think you're right, no

I think you're right, no hyphen.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "Nearly all hypothetical

Re: "Nearly all hypothetical universe lack complex matter."

But what about my universe full of fairy dust and happy balloon animals? That seems pretty dang complex to me. Especially if the balloon animals are all different colors and the fairy dust is hypoallergenic. After all, wouldn't want all the balloon animals having skin rashes and sinus problems floating around sneezing all day.

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

I think I want to go to that universe. Might find more intelligent persons.

rmfr

Strong Atheist's picture
What does immaterial even

What does immaterial even mean? I've always thought it a meaningless nonsense word like "nothing".

algebe's picture
@Dan: We fine if we change

@Dan: We fine if we change almost anything the universe is not life supporting any more:

What would people say about god in a universe without life?

Devans99's picture
It does not matter that we

It does not matter that we require a life supporting universe for our existence, the only question that matters is why is the universe life supporting?

God would have no father or mother and would not be social animal like us, but a loner. Would he wish to have 'children'? - to create a universe for life? I think he might do so out of boredom if not loneness. So a universe without life is unlikely.

Even with multiple universes, each other universe will statistically be like our universe, fine tune for live each and all, because God created the multiverse.

algebe's picture
@Dan: Even with multiple

@Dan: Even with multiple universes, each other universe will statistically be like our universe, fine tune for live each and all, because God created the multiverse.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

Cognostic's picture
NO Dan: We do not "require"

NO Dan: We do not "require" a life supporting universe. We came from a life supporting universe. If the universe could not support life. the blue universe creating bunnies, for whom the universe was actually made, would not be here. You are assigning agency to a universe where none is evident.

Sheldon's picture
The universe isn't fine tuned

The universe isn't fine tuned for life, life has evolved to be fine tuned for the parts of the universe it inhabits. Most of the universe is entirely hostile to life.

Sheldon's picture
"the only question that

"the only question that matters is why is the universe life supporting?"

The question is leading and infers there is an overarching reason for the existence of the universe, you would need to demonstrate objective evidence for this assertion

arakish's picture
@ Dan

@ Dan

No universe is fine-tuned for life. Life tunes itself with the universe.

rmfr

Sheldon's picture
You beat me to it, but great

You beat me to it, but great minds and all that..

Grinseed's picture
@Arakish...you express in a

@Arakish...you express in a sentence what I tried to in several clumsy paragraphs. Nice. One thousand likes to Arakish House.

toto974's picture
In substance, what Dan is

In substance, what Dan is saying, regardless of his presupposition:

I am not imaginative enough, therefore god... Oh excuse me, not the traditional one but an ethereal energy field.

Cognostic's picture
STRONG ATHEIST: re: "What

STRONG ATHEIST: re: "What would you all say is the best way to convert someone to atheism as fast as possible?"

This is exactly what I am talking about. You do not seem to understand what Atheism is. There is no conversion. You do not convert to anything. There is no thing called "Atheist." There is nothing to convert to. All you do is set down your religion and walk away in non-belief.

Think about it. How do you like it when the Christians try to "Convert you?" What reaction do you imagine a Christian will have if you try to "Convert them." And to 'what' are you converting them?

You sit and talk with them. You understand that they do not know any more about the world around us than we do. Each time they make a fallacious claim, you ask them how they know that? When the claim is blatantly false , you point it out but not in a way that makes them wrong. You point it out in a way that you can not understand it because it just does not make any sense to you. (No one likes to be wrong and that will bring up their defenses.) You just have a conversation..There are NO HONEST CONVERSATIONS that lead to GOD. None. There are also no HONEST CONVERSATIONS that lead to anything called ATHEISM. The only place an honest conversation will take you is to "I DON'T KNOW." This is the place you shoot for in any conversation with a theist.

Strong Atheist's picture
Thanks, can you give me some

Thanks, can you give me some examples?

Cognostic's picture
I just invited you to begin a

I just invited you to begin a thread on what you thought "Atheism" was. You are saying some very strange things and attributing them to atheism. Perhaps if you put what you thought you were discussing into words, some of the people here would share with you how we use the term. And how it might be used in various situations.

Tin-Man's picture
@Strong Atheist

@Strong Atheist

Yeah, I have to agree with Cog here. Even though you identify yourself as atheist, you do seem to have some really strange concepts about what it means. Basically, for what i have seem, you are making it waaaaaaaaaaaay more difficult than it actually is. It is pretty dang simple, dude. We do not believe in any gods. In the exact same way we do not believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, Thor, Odin, and so on and so on. That is it. Period. Nothing else. Beyond that ONE specific point, everything else is up for grabs. In my own personal case, all the science and philosophy and cosmology stuff is fun and interesting and has always been of interest to me. However, NONE OF THAT has anything to do with my being an atheist. For others, though, it may be an entirely different matter for them. Basically, everybody has his/her own specific and unique reason(s) as to why he/she does not believe in any gods. Allow me to repeat that...... The ONLY thing atheism means is that we DO NOT BELIEVE IN GODS. How each individual got to that point, though, varies greatly from person to person. Again, not very complicated. Still amazes me as to why people try to over-think it.

Edit to add:

Sorry, almost forgot. You keep mentioning "converting" people to atheism. Hate to tell you, but that makes absolutely zero sense. Let me ask you something..... The day you finally realized Santa Claus is not real, did you "convert" to not believing in Santa? Did you "convert" to not believing in the Tooth Fairy? Did you ever believe the stork delivered you as a baby to your parents? Exactly when did you "convert" to not believing that? See what I'm getting at here?.....

Cognostic's picture
I like that. Conversion to a

I like that. Conversion to a non-Santaist. I will give you credit the first few times I use it and then it is mine.

Strong Atheist's picture
okay so this is all making

okay so this is all making more sense. I used to argue there could be a Matrix, outside of which there could be a God or Santa Claus, but I now don't believe in that either. So I guess that makes me an atheist now.

Cognostic's picture
You have yet another step to

I think you have yet another step to make. When you say "I don't believe that either." Are you actually saying you do not believe it or are you actually saying, "It isn't real." These statements are not the same. Can you see the difference? Do you know what the difference is. One of these statements requires a burden of proof and the other does not.
If you ask me about a universe beyond a universe I will just tell you that I have no idea. If you tell me there is something there, A god, Parallel universes, blue universe creating bunnies, or turtles all the way down, you must provide evidence for your assertion.

The very same thing is true if you assert there is no god there, no parallel universes, no blue universe creating bunnies, or turtles all the way down. You will need to prove any of these assertions. You can not make an assertion about something of which you know nothing about. You have to have real evidence. And the evidence must support the conclusion you are making.

arakish's picture
I think he got it. rmfr

I think he got it.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
I don't know. I think he is

I don't know. I think he is equating, "not believing" with "there is none."

Strong Atheist's picture
I got it I think ;)

I got it I think ;)

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.