The Unreasonableness of Atheism

[Guest]

asbestosman,

Read back the thread. I'm not claiming that the multi-verse is scientifically proven. I very specifically said that I don't think this.

This is what I am claiming:

* Relativity and QM (at least) both provide 'evidence' that have pointed towards the notion of the multi-verse. Einstein himself talked about parallel universes!
* It is NOT an atheistic concoction - constructed simply to 'explain away' cosmological constants.

...do you disagree with either of the above asb? Once we've settled that, I'll move on to the other points...


dartagnan,
You aren't even addressing the points I've made now. The points I've made address your appeals to 'apparent design'.
...until you do, there is no point continuing...

[_guy sajer]

What difference do you see between a universe that was specifically created for human life and one that is only that way due to happenstance?

This is a problem some atheist philosophers encountered so they came up with the theory of the multiverse. Meaning, we are in only one of a multiplicity of universes. Given enough in number, the chances that this would would produce laws accomodating our existence would be more likely.

But the multiverse theory is supported by nothing scientific.

What we know is that this universe is governed by numerous laws. This suggests these laws were written by something intelligent. WHy? Because these laws seem to work together for the same exact purpose.

I recommend John Leslie's book "Universes," to further understand the various laws that appear to have been written for the single purpose of human life.

Why is it so important for humans to believe that there is some kind of transcendental meaning to existence? Other than, say, the belief that a 'purpose' of life is simply to try to be happy, forge your own meaning, etc.

Or, why does their necessarily need to be some kind of transcendental meaning to existence?

As I understand it, some theists seem to have an intense need for some kind to believe that there is some kind of transcendental meaning and see God as a necessary condition to create this meaning.

I (as an atheist), and other atheists I've read, are perfectly comfortable to accept that there's no transcendental meaning but that their can be significant meaning to life that we as humans grant to is.

Agree or disagree? (Notice I am careful to say "some," and not to generalize to all theists.)

Human existence is a kind of 'fortuitous accident' as is my own existence. I have no problem with this, and I am able to find meaning in life regardless.

[_asbestosman]

How would a universe look that wasn't designed for the purpose of human life?

This is like asking what would a house look like if it were not designed for human habitat.

It could look like anything other than what a normal house looks like.

What would a car look like if it were not designed for travel?

In the case of the universe, I suspect there would be no stars burning, no gravity, no light, etc.

That's still not an answer to my question. I'm not asking what such a universe would look like. I'm asking about the philosophical implications. Imagine for a moment that that existence B contains infinite multiverses and that one of them by happenstance is suitable for life and is inhabited by life (and by chance has a perfectly formed house and car sitting out on a deserted moon in the middle of nowhere which nobody has ever seen).

[Guest]

Imagine for a second you are playing poker with someone. They get four royal flushes in a row. Would you be warranted in suspecting cheating? In other words, would you be warranted in suspecting that someone made sure he got those hands? I think the answer here is obviously yes.

Now consider that the odds of getting four royal flushes in a row in the sequence you received them are the same as getting any other sequence of deals. All hands are equally improbable, no matter what they are. No matter what hands you get it is insanely unlikely you would've ended up with that sequence. Yet you wouldn't accuse the dealer of cheating no matter the hands you get. It is only because we consider royal flushes special per the rules of the game that cheating is suspected. And why is it reasonable for us suspect it? I'll let Kevin field that one. Then I'll come back to the point.

[_dartagnan]

No, it was not an atheistic "concoction," but atheists have certainly grasped onto it for atheistic purposes ever since the anthropic principle.

You even said you don't believe it, it isn't scientifically proved and it hasn't even reached the status of "theory." Yet, you'll entertain this before the existence of a divine creator. And even if there are parallel universes, their numbers would have to be astronomical before this would give any coherence or plausibility to the argument used to rebut the philosophical approach to the anthropic principle. And none of this really deals with the problem adequately. Atheists require too much chance and coincidence that only an LDS apologist could appreciate.

But my main point is atheists generally don't entertain philosophy. The only time they get riled up is when they smell a theist in the vicinity.

When I see the multiple universe theory I see John Gee arguing for the missing 600 foot scroll.

I mean hell, technically it is possible right?

[_asbestosman]

* Relativity and QM (at least) both provide 'evidence' that have pointed towards the notion of the multi-verse. Einstein himself talked about parallel universes!
* It is NOT an atheistic concoction - constructed simply to 'explain away' cosmological constants.

...do you disagree with either of the above asb? Once we've settled that, I'll move on to the other points...

No.

Some interpretations of QM seem to work well with multiple universes, but I'm not sure if that's anything more than a convenience for modeling the behavior. My understanding of relativity is that it only pointed to the potential of parallel universes, but nothing more.

I don't think it was concocted by atheists for the purpose of explaining away cosmological constants, but I think it is their favorite candidate and I don't think it's a particularly good one.

[_Ren]

As far as I know, multiverses are only supported by mathematical models, not by any actual observations of what consequences thos multiverses would have on us. I would think that without observations to back it up, it is only in the realm of possibilities.

Asb,

You take relativity mathematics, and 'extend' it. It naturally points towards such notions as parallel universes.
Look at QM. Look at the dual-slit experiment with single photons...

Heh - someone should get Pirate in here. I think she'd appreciate the sight of me defending the notion of parallel universes... ;)

I'm not saying the multi-verse is a scientific theory - yet. We've been over all the kinds of reasons it can't be called such when talking about ID...
...but that doesn't mean there is no 'scientific evidence' for such a proposal...

[_Ren]

I don't think it was concocted by atheists for the purpose of explaining away cosmological constants, but I think it is their favorite candidate and I don't think it's a particularly good one.

*shrug* That's OK. I don't mind if you're not convinced by it. I just mind that you accept the reality of the situation.
...again - it's a good job you post here ;)

[Analytics]

Human existence is a kind of 'fortuitous accident' as is my own existence. I have no problem with this, and I am able to find meaning in life regardless.

Human existence is fortuitous for us. We aren't starving orphans in a war-torn country being tortured by the enemy and sold as slaves.

[_dartagnan]

Why is it so important for humans to believe that there is some kind of transcendental meaning to existence?

It isn't. But what is important, is that die-hard atheists reject it. This is being demonstrated as we speak. My belief in the existence of God has everything to do with the evidence and nothing to do with a "need to believe", which is the too common straw man presented by atheists. Is this really how you deal with the fact that most people accept the evidence and conclude something differently? They simply "need" to believe it? Give me a break.

Or, why does their necessarily need to be some kind of transcendental meaning to existence?

Necessarily? Nobody said that. But it makes sense given the evidence. Again nobody here has dealt with the fact that our universe is governed by numerous laws whose only common value is that they are geared to accomodate human life. This is just dumb luck?

As I understand it, some theists seem to have an intense need for some kind to believe that there is some kind of transcendental meaning and see God as a necessary condition to create this meaning.

That's anti-theistic tripe along the lines of the Mormon apologetic claim that anti-Mormons have an inner need to see the Church destroyed.

I (as an atheist), and other atheists I've read, are perfectly comfortable to accept that there's no transcendental meaning but that their can be significant meaning to life that we as humans grant to is.

Agree or disagree? (Notice I am careful to say "some," and not to generalize to all theists.)

Agree. That was never an issue, as far as I can tell.

Human existence is a kind of 'fortuitous accident' as is my own existence.

Thanks for coming out and just saying it.

I have no problem with this, and I am able to find meaning in life regardless.

Whether humans are capable of creating meaning outside of religion, has never been the issue; at least not for me.

Imagine for a second you are playing poker with someone. They get four royal flushes in a row. Would you be warranted in suspecting cheating? In other words, would you be warranted in suspecting that someone made sure he got those hands? I think the answer here is obviously yes.

Agreed. This wasn't by chance, although it is possible, it is highly unlikely.

Now consider that the odds of getting four royal flushes in a row in the sequence you received them are the same as getting any other sequence of deals. All hands are equally improbable, no matter what they are. It is only because we consider royal flushes special that cheating is suspected. And why is it reasonable for us suspect it? I'll let Kevin field that one. Then I'll come back to the point.

How does this change the fact that the universe is governed by laws that would otherwise make no sense if it were not for their common value of supporting human life? If it is beyond reason to say four flushes in a row was not by design, then likewise, it is beyond reason to say all of these laws were just coincidentally geared to serve the same purpose.