Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Lion IRC]

Going back to the actual topic, this thread was supposed to be about atheistic myths. Did anyone list any yet?

Yes.

The myth that a universe can spontaneously pop into (or out of) existence without a cause.

Or that an uncaused universe can exist eternally and we have been here forever, doing stuff over and over and over again, (Groundhog Day trial and error,) yet we still haven't seen any time machines showing up to save Sarah Connor from the Terminator, or visitors arriving from other parts of the universe that's been here forever.

Or the myth that there are an infinite number of multiverses all competing to be the most finely tuned.

Nobody is claiming that there must necessarily be a multiverse, or that the universe necessarily popped out of nothing without a cause.

Some people DO claim exactly that - multiverse(s) is necessary in order to obtain the resultant plausibility of there being at least one UNIverse where (finely tuned) life can spontaneously arise. (Nobody believes 10,000 monkeys randomly typing stuff will accidentally type a Shakespeare Sonnet. But 100 trillion monkeys in 100 trillion different universes after 100 trillion years of typing might have a better chance...assuming they don't run out of paper.)

There is nothing to prevent the universe from being eternal but cyclic, always present in some stage of existence.

Well it doesn't even need to be "cyclic" to be past-eternal. It could just sit there unchanging forever. A brute fact. Motionless by its own nature. Or cyclic by its own nature. By it's own nature, here means...it has no choice but to be what it is and what it has always been.

God, on the other hand is not compelled to 'be' anything. His created universe didn't have to come into existence.
But if this observed universe WAS past-eternal and uncaused, we are entitled to ask why everything that could possibly have happened, hasn't ALREADY happened - an infinite number of times.

Where's Marty McFly and the time machine. Why don't we have hover boards yet.

[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eOH15_pqWZ4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[DBT]

Nobody is claiming that there must necessarily be a multiverse, or that the universe necessarily popped out of nothing without a cause.

Some people DO claim exactly that - multiverse(s) is necessary in order to obtain the resultant plausibility of there being at least one UNIverse where (finely tuned) life can spontaneously arise. (Nobody believes 10,000 monkeys randomly typing stuff will accidentally type a Shakespeare Sonnet. But 100 trillion monkeys in 100 trillion different universes after 100 trillion years of typing might have a better chance...assuming they don't run out of paper.)

There is nothing to prevent the universe from being eternal but cyclic, always present in some stage of existence.

Well it doesn't even need to be "cyclic" to be past-eternal. It could just sit there unchanging forever. A brute fact. Motionless by its own nature. Or cyclic by its own nature. By it's own nature, here means...it has no choice but to be what it is and what it has always been.

God, on the other hand is not compelled to 'be' anything. His created universe didn't have to come into existence.
But if this observed universe WAS past-eternal and uncaused, we are entitled to ask why everything that could possibly have happened, hasn't ALREADY happened - an infinite number of times.

Where's Marty McFly and the time machine. Why don't we have hover boards yet.

[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eOH15_pqWZ4[/YOUTUBE]

Who exactly is saying that there must necessarily be a multiverse, that this is somehow established or that there are no other possibilities or propositions on the table?

Example please.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I did say "spontaneously".

That is a needless differentiation. You are arguing that one thing can't exist without cause while another can.

No I'm not.
A past eternal 'thing' doesn't need a cause. God is past-eternal. Is the universe?

As I said, you are arguing one thing can exist without cause while another can't. Trying to invent a term to justify the inconsistency doesn't remove the inconsistency of your 'argument'.

 

[bilby]

I did say "spontaneously".

That is a needless differentiation. You are arguing that one thing can't exist without cause while another can.

No I'm not.
A past eternal 'thing' doesn't need a cause. God is past-eternal. Is the universe?

God is imaginary. The universe might be past-eternal, or it might not - but at least we have evidence that it exists, so either it is eternal, or it began to exist. If any gods existed, the same would be true of them, so the explanation "The universe either always existed, or began to exist without cause" is better than the explanation "the universe is a consequence of the unevidenced actions of an unevidenced entity which either always existed, or began to exist without cause".

Adding creators just gives us more things to explain the existence of. That makes the philosophical question of how it all began (if it's not, at least in part, eternal) more difficult, not less - and apart from increasing the difficulty of the question, it changes nothing else.

Proposing a god as an explanation for the existence of the things we can observe is like trying to make a rope that's a bit too short do the job you want it for by cutting a piece off. No matter how much you cut off, it still won't reach.

 

[abaddon]

God is past-eternal.

Is God past-eternal?
If "yes" then why?
I mean, aside from some folk defining him to be eternal, how is it known he exists and exists eternally?

The only reason God seems to theists to be the entity that fits the alleged necessity that some thing is eternal is his definition.

"We think we can plug this gap in our knowledge with an eternal something here".
"Well, there's a thing called 'gawd' that some people have defined to be eternal".
"There it is! Problem solved, we defined something to be our answer".

 

[Rhea]

Nobody is claiming that there must necessarily be a multiverse, or that the universe necessarily popped out of nothing without a cause.

Some people DO claim exactly that - multiverse(s) is necessary in order to obtain the resultant plausibility of there being at least one UNIverse where (finely tuned) life can spontaneously arise.

Folks, I believe Lion has just agreed to answer for every single Christian opinion that has ever been published and to defend it.

Where's Marty McFly and the time machine. Why don't we have hover boards yet.

Inlcuding the ability to literally move mountains with a single person’s prayer.


This will be fun.

 

[James Brown]

God is past-eternal.

Is God past-eternal?
If "yes" then why?
I mean, aside from some folk defining him to be eternal, how is it known he exists and exists eternally?

The only reason God seems to theists to be the entity that fits the alleged necessity that some thing is eternal is his definition.

"We think we can plug this gap in our knowledge with an eternal something here".
"Well, there's a thing called 'gawd' that some people have defined to be eternal".
"There it is! Problem solved, we defined something to be our answer".

"Santa Claus is jolly" is not evidence that Santa Claus exists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God is past-eternal.

Is God past-eternal?
If "yes" then why?
I mean, aside from some folk defining him to be eternal, how is it known he exists and exists eternally?

The only reason God seems to theists to be the entity that fits the alleged necessity that some thing is eternal is his definition.

"We think we can plug this gap in our knowledge with an eternal something here".
"Well, there's a thing called 'gawd' that some people have defined to be eternal".
"There it is! Problem solved, we defined something to be our answer".

"Santa Claus is jolly" is not evidence that Santa Claus exists.

You got presents on Christmas... did you not? I rest my case.

 

[Lion IRC]

No I'm not.
A past eternal 'thing' doesn't need a cause. God is past-eternal. Is the universe?

As I said, you are arguing one thing can exist without cause while another can't. Trying to invent a term to justify the inconsistency doesn't remove the inconsistency of your 'argument'.

This is gonna get boring really fast if I keep saying something CAN exist without a cause and you keep claiming that I hold the opposite view.

If atheists want to refute the cosmological argument from First Cause all they have to do is negate its premises.

- that things which come into existence have a cause.
- that the 13.7 billion year old universe came into existence.

To negate those premises you have a more plausible counter-premise.
Cue atheist myths.

- things like the uni/multi/megaverse magically pop into existence spontaneously for no reason and without a cause.

- the uni/multi/megaverse didnt come into existence, it's always existed
...and therefore every Groundhog Day thing that can possibly happen has already happened an infinite number of times.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where's Marty McFly and the time machine. Why don't we have hover boards yet.

Inlcuding the ability to literally move mountains with a single person’s prayer.
This will be fun.

i believe it was a Larry Niven story where he postulated that in any universe where time travel is possible, time travelers will eventually fuckit up so badly that time travel becomes impossible. We may be living in that resultant universe.

That or a terribly well-funded time travel agency whose mandate is to stop all other time travel exactly to prevent this universe from collapsing in on itself, shouting 'You're why we cannot hunt dinosaurs!' as they interdict each traveller. I don't remember who wrote that.

But there was also a story where someone invented a time-travel jammer. One pulse thru the time quality of reality preventing any travel past that barrier. One second after the device was turned on, hundreds of travellers and their machines just littered the landscape.

Odd how easily oen-minded analysis of the lack of time travellers can find explanations other than 'i guess the universe isn't eternal.'

 

[abaddon]

If atheists want to refute the cosmological argument from First Cause all they have to do is negate its premises.

- that things which come into existence have a cause.
- that the 13.7 billion year old universe came into existence.

To negate those premises you have a more plausible counter-premise.
Cue atheist myths.

- things like the uni/multi/megaverse magically pop into existence spontaneously for no reason and without a cause.

- the uni/multi/megaverse didnt come into existence, it's always existed
...and therefore every Groundhog Day thing that can possibly happen has already happened an infinite number of times.

"God" is never a reasonable answer to anything because it's answering a mystery with yet another mystery. So actually no answer is given by saying God made all of existence (other than himself) begin to exist.

The only reason God seems like a contender for answering "big questions" is a long tradition of people using the concept to make up for all they don't know about everything.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think God is a much more reasonable explanation. It's not answering a mystery with a mystery unless you agree that there is a mystery to start with.
If that's the case, you're admitting that the existence of the universe does demand answers.

 

[abaddon]

I think God is a much more reasonable explanation. It's not answering a mystery with a mystery unless you agree that there is a mystery to start with.
If that's the case, you're admitting that the existence of the universe does demand answers.

God's an easy, intuitive-seeming answer, because he's the ready-made answer that's been on offer in religious traditions for centuries.

Yes there's a mystery to start with. Why not wonder about it rather than rush to fill in an easy, intuitive-seeming answer?

Did you think the existence of the universe isn't an interesting question to atheists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

If atheists want to refute the cosmological argument from First Cause all they have to do is negate its premises.

- that things which come into existence have a cause.
- that the 13.7 billion year old universe came into existence.

To negate those premises you have a more plausible counter-premise.
Cue atheist myths.

- things like the uni/multi/megaverse magically pop into existence spontaneously for no reason and without a cause.

- the uni/multi/megaverse didnt come into existence, it's always existed
...and therefore every Groundhog Day thing that can possibly happen has already happened an infinite number of times.

"God" is never a reasonable answer to anything because it's answering a mystery with yet another mystery. So actually no answer is given by saying God made all of existence (other than himself) begin to exist.

The only reason God seems like a contender for answering "big questions" is a long tradition of people using the concept to make up for all they don't know about everything.

And again, whatvexperience do we have with things coming into existance?

Things that already exist, energy and matter, reconfigure all the time. Dirt and sunlight, water and seed become a tree, some of which become a fruit, which become a blintz, which becomes flesh which dies and becomes soil....

I mean, everything in my hand was once in my blood which was once in my or my mother's stomach, which was in a field, pasture, orchard, ocean, maybe a lake, all the way down the food chain to cycle back up again, and again, and again,.... until before there was a food chain, then before life there were elements, stellar actions, interstellar actions.... but all just different arrangements of what was already there.

So we have things to point to and say 'things which reconfigure share the following properties,' but not much in the way of examples of things beginning to existify.

Frankly, the more we observe about the reality around us, if that has ANY bearing on the source of the reality around us,, it seems likely that everything is eternal, just cycling thru various stages.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think God is a much more reasonable explanation.

No, it isn't, and pretty for the exact reason I keep hitting you over the head with. The universe couldn't have sprung naturally into existence... but god can, the uncaused cause exception of theists. Everything needs a creator except for the guy I pray to.

It's not answering a mystery with a mystery unless you agree that there is a mystery to start with.

Who says it isn't a mystery? You are the one saying it can't happen... except for the thing you want to say is the great creator.

If that's the case, you're admitting that the existence of the universe does demand answers.

Everything demands answers. Just saying it was a god isn't an actual search for an answer. It is baseless presumption.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think God is a much more reasonable explanation. It's not answering a mystery with a mystery unless you agree that there is a mystery to start with.
If that's the case, you're admitting that the existence of the universe does demand answers.

God's an easy, intuitive-seeming answer, because he's the ready-made answer that's been on offer in religious traditions for centuries.

What is a god without its magic powers? Where did those powers come from? That's the real mystery, if one sees any mystery at all.

The universe is everywhere all of the time. Magic and magical gods are nowhere any of the time. Where's the mystery?

 

[Half-Life]

Everyone goes for the low-hanging fruit instead of trying to refute immaterialism. So far, no one has been able to do it. And they still claim they are atheists!

Can't make this stuff up!

 

[skepticalbip]

What is a god without its magic powers? Where did those powers come from? That's the real mystery, if one sees any mystery at all.

The universe is everywhere all of the time. Magic and magical gods are nowhere any of the time. Where's the mystery?

Scientists who can not (yet) answer some questions openly admit that they do not know.

The religious claim to KNOW that goddidit is the answer to any question.

One of these responses require a hell of a lot of inane (often self-contradictory) hand waving.

 

[Lion IRC]

Everyone goes for the low-hanging fruit instead of trying to refute immaterialism. So far, no one has been able to do it. And they still claim they are atheists!

Can't make this stuff up!

Yep.
Atheist holy grail. Matter which has its own free-will volition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality

 

[skepticalbip]

Everyone goes for the low-hanging fruit instead of trying to refute immaterialism. So far, no one has been able to do it. And they still claim they are atheists!

Can't make this stuff up!

So you are still claiming that your consciousness is the only thing that exists? That is an interesting way of denying that there is a god... that is unless you are claiming that you are god and you haven't yet created the universe.