Faith and belief are not the same thing. This is a typical mistake defenders of religion make.
If by atheism you mean negative atheism. Positive atheism is a belief in what canât be proved.
That is one categorization of atheism. By that system I would be speaking of negative atheism. It doesnât change the fact that religious faith is irrational.
Right, but it does make a difference. For clarity, there are definitely different forms of atheism. The âpositiveâ one that claims to know there is no god is really no different at heart than a religion.
The same distinction about knowing or not can be made on the religious side too though. You can hold that it isnât knowable but still come down on the side of Theism. Basically an agnostic theist.
If you just simplify to god or no god you can make logical arguments either way. Thinking there is probably a first cause, as the simplest and most basic level of a âgodâ, is rational though, especially if you donât claim knowledge. For me infinite regression has always seemed on the irrational side to me. Sort of a âitâs turtles all the way downâ answer. If you are going to talk about inherent rationality youâd need to be more specific.
There is a difference. Saying that God definitely does not exist because there is no evidence is not the same as saying that there definitely is a God when there is no evidence.
Religious faith is still irrational.
I donât really see the difference. neither has proof of the claim they make. you are equating absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Those are very different things.
However, I think talking evidence for a first cause is to misunderstand a first cause. What is rationally appealing to me about a first cause is that it is an idea that a cause for the universe is outside it and therefore not bound by the rationality of it. âIf god created the universe, who created godâ, is a nonsensical question. If there is a cause outside the universe it isnât bound by the universâ rules on causation. You cannot use the rules of a computer program to question the real life operations of itâs programmer.
Itâs the strength and weakness of the argument. You canât disprove it with facts and logic because the idea that itâs outside the universe would make it outside those sorts of questions. BUT you also canât prove it or show direct evidence for it because of the same reasons. It is a little more appealing to me to think there could be an uncaused caused outside our rules of logic than infinite regression. Though I admit this is largely personal preference.
1 Like
Fwiw, the vast majority of atheists (at least in literally every experience Iâve ever had) donât subscribe to the âproof of nothingâ side because it doesnât make any sense. You canât logically prove nothing. Vast majority are simply âif you canât prove it I donât believe it.â
I like this sentence. A lot.
I see a difference between a person who refuses to believe the possibility that something can exist when there is no proof that it exists and someone who believes that something exists when there is no proof of it. This is the old argument religious people use to equate their irrationality with another supposed irrationality hoping that it makes their irrational belief not look irrational after all. Itâs the idea that brings about the notion that atheism is a âreligionâ or faith based belief.
Since they canât make their belief appear rational, since faith is by definition irrational, they want to make atheists look just as irrational. But, as pfury has pointed out, most atheists donât believe that God absolutely does not exist but that they refuse to believe in something that not only lacks evidence but by its very nature canât be proven. It should be noted that the whole positive atheism/negative atheism was invented by a religious person who may have been suffering from mental problems. Most of the well-known atheists donât even use it.
And again, none of this changes the fact that religious faith is irrational and that there is no knowledge that God exists. Those who say religious faith is rational or that there is knowledge of Godâs existence reveal an ignorance on the topic of faith that should disqualify them from talking about it. Itâs like when some Jehovahâs Witnesses told me that they had proof that God exists: the Bible. Yeah, that might work on the simple minded and less educated but not on anyone, and I include people who do believe, who has studied religion and philosophy.
But there could be another cause outside of that. God exists outside the universe so he isnât bound by the rules of causation but what if there was a cause outside of God that created him?
Sure, but the thing I hear against a god is that it would necessitate another cause. It is a possibility, but not a rational necessity. Itâs not a counter argument if itâs not a necessitated by the idea of a god.
If one believes nothing can exist without something it causing to exist (not all that farfetched of a world view imo) and you donât believe in the god existing apart from the universe, wouldnât it be perfectly rational for the only other option to be that if he does exist he was created by someone/thing?
If god doesnât âexistâ (a term that we use based on the rules of the universe, you are again using terminology that I donât believe applies) apart from the universe, It doesnât seem rational that it could be the cause of the universe. Youâd be believing part of the universe created the universe.
Why does the cause have to be a god, regardless of where it is? Why does this cause have to be intelligent and all knowing? Why does it have to have human qualities (and even human faults)?
Why does the universeâs existence need an agent to have caused it? Actually the real question is why do people need to believe there was an agent involved in the creation of the universe. Take away that need, which ironically is a product of evolution, and you start to ask different questions.
If god does exist and manipulated/created the universe, whoâs to say he didnât create said universe as an extension of his current one? Very well may have spawned the universe around him just as likely as he made us in snowglobe.
If this universe is an extension of a universe that was already there, then what you are describing isnât the beginning of the universe.
Um, never said âheâ had to.
Because something being un-caused would violate what we know of causation. But your statements after the question tell me you arenât seriously considering any answer. In your rebuttal, your argument assumes you are already right and any other side is wrong as a premise. I mean, I guess if you want to lambast curiosity and wonder as nothing but a product of evolution, our desire for scientific investigation is just silly too. As well as your need to argue and be right on a message board. Silly meaningless trait resulting from evolutionary pressures.
That devolves into semantics and defining things on behalf of a god. Could easily be argued the beginning of the universe as we know it = beginning of THE universe.
Sure it could, if you want to define it that way. I donât. That isnât what I mean when I talk about itsâ beginning. I mean the actual start, not just the part of it we know. FTR the Universe as a singularity and in the very early stages looked and was totally different than we know it today. By your reasoning, you could call the singularity or the initial super dense plasma (or whatever they call it in cosmology) the creator (and some physicists basically do). If that is satisfactory to the your inquiry for the origin, OK. Itâs just not what I mean by beginning. What I mean would require something outside the universe as far as I can reason.
1 Like
That still doesnât require an agent. Why assume the universe was created deliberately?
Thatâs because the argument is designed to prove the existence of God.