More thoughts on the agnostic/atheist debate

[Magic_Man]

If only the Southpark writers had known better, they would have satirized Atheists vs. Agnostics this season, instead of Atheists vs. Atheists.

Anyway, on to some thoughts. I'd like to summarize some of the concepts I'm struggling with in classifying myself:

Many people are saying that strong atheism is a logical fallacy. Quoth Borodog on his own beliefs:
[ QUOTE ]

I'm an agnostic in the literal sense of the translation: I don't know. I feel that athiests--at least as I use the term, one who positively claims that no God exists--are making a rather simple and fundamental logical mistake. How can you possibly claim that that an unobservable positively doesn't exist? You can't; at least not without making an error.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is usually countered with the concept of an invisible pink unicorn. For Borodog and others who agree with his sentiments, is it safe to say that you would never allow yourself to make the following statement?: "I believe that invisible pink unicorns do not exist." I currently would have no problem making such a statement, but I can be swayed. (See also Carl Sagan's excellent essay, "Dragon in my Garage")

Now, on to God.
Presumably, if you feel that it is not illogical to make the above statement about Invisible Pink Unicorns, then we could simply substitute God into the thought experiment, accept strong atheism as valid, and be done with it. However, some would claim that the existence of the universe itself is evidence enough to put God into a separate class from IPU's. Why we exist at all is a compelling question, and God provides a nice answer. This is usually countered by first cause arguments:

SomeoneElse: Where did the Universe come from? There has to be a God(s).
Atheist: Where did God come from then?
SomeoneElse: God doesn't need a first cause.
Atheist: Then why does the Universe?

I've toyed with this argument myself. However, I think we all know what the point is. "God," in this context, means some sort of omnipotent or at least extremely powerful being. "Universe" means the physical reality that we experience, and can be as specific as "everything proceeding from the Big Bang onwards." I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to propose God as a first cause of the Universe, and at the same time claim that God needs no first cause. The Universe, being governed by the laws of physics, could reasonably be expected to have a first cause. God, being outside the Universe and not bound by physics, could reasonably be understood to need no first cause.

To bring it all together, the two concepts above are my main confusion. On one side, it seems pretty reasonable to hold the strong opinion that Unicorns, invisible or not, do not exist. From this I would feel that strong atheism is valid. However, if existence of the Universe can be taken as evidence of some higher power, then God's existence could be considered more probable than Unicorns'. In the latter case, I'd consider myself agnostic. In the former case, atheist.

Help me sort it out?

~M^2

[RayBornert]

the big bang is an excellent reference point if we assume that science will never be able to access knowledge before that event - and that seems like a safe assumption for now.

the whole idea of a big bang suggests that it might have been caused. so the typical end of the cause argument where the atheist says "then why does the universe need a first cause", might be countered with:
"it might not but it appears that it was caused by something preceding it or outside of it"

by some definitions, god needs no first cause. the entire debate can boil down to your preference as to whether or not you "want" the universe to have a first cause or not.

believers want the universe to be dependent on first cause because it helps their pro god view and undermines atheistic views. if science could show that the universe has an infinite age then that would weaken the believers position and strengthen the atheistic position.

atheists would prefer that the big bang didn't look like it had a beginning - but apparently it does.

ray

[vhawk01]

I am less impressed than you seem to be about the first cause argument. You seem to be glossing over the most important point: There is no reason to believe anything has a first cause. To POSIT that things must have a first cause is one thing, and those using it as a premise for their God argument do so. But then it is quickly contradicted. As far as I know, there is no necessity to accept the premise at all, and the argument quickly dissipates after that.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I am less impressed than you seem to be about the first cause argument. You seem to be glossing over the most important point: There is no reason to believe anything has a first cause. To POSIT that things must have a first cause is one thing, and those using it as a premise for their God argument do so. But then it is quickly contradicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of my points is that it doesn't seem to be clearly contradicted. Believers postulate God as the first cause, and simultaneously claim God needs no first cause. I don't think "Why not? you claim the universe needs one" necessarily contradicts the God "theory." It certainly appears that things must have a first cause, doesn't it?

~M^2

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am less impressed than you seem to be about the first cause argument. You seem to be glossing over the most important point: There is no reason to believe anything has a first cause. To POSIT that things must have a first cause is one thing, and those using it as a premise for their God argument do so. But then it is quickly contradicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one of my points is that it doesn't seem to be clearly contradicted. Believers postulate God as the first cause, and simultaneously claim God needs no first cause. I don't think "Why not? you claim the universe needs one" necessarily contradicts the God "theory." It certainly appears that things must have a first cause, doesn't it?

~M^2

[/ QUOTE ]

Some things or all things?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
For Borodog and others who agree with his sentiments, is it safe to say that you would never allow yourself to make the following statement?: "I believe that invisible pink unicorns do not exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

YES. (I could slip and say it, but I wouldn't mean it.)

[ QUOTE ]
Now, on to God.
Presumably, if you feel that it is not illogical to make the above statement about Invisible Pink Unicorns, then we could simply substitute God into the thought experiment, accept strong atheism as valid, and be done with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
However, some would claim that the existence of the universe itself is evidence enough to put God into a separate class from IPU's.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're wrong.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to propose God as a first cause of the Universe, and at the same time claim that God needs no first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is when you add any other particularies to the concept of God other than "first cause".

[ QUOTE ]
The Universe, being governed by the laws of physics, could reasonably be expected to have a first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

It could, but it's not reasonable to assume that. See, "before" the first cause, there is no causalism. Hell, there's not even time. So you have to find a new way to think of things. And you can't.

[ QUOTE ]
God, being outside the Universe and not bound by physics, could reasonably be understood to need no first cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe doesn't need a first cause either. You're trying to think of things beyond everything what we know or can think about (there's no difference really). As I said above, you can't do this and expect to be right.


[ QUOTE ]
On one side, it seems pretty reasonable to hold the strong opinion that Unicorns, invisible or not, do not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're evidently wrong. No explanation needed, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if existence of the Universe can be taken as evidence of some higher power

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't. Not in the way you think of a "higher power" anyway.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe doesn't need a first cause either. You're trying to think of things beyond everything what we know or can think about (there's no difference really). As I said above, you can't do this and expect to be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the fact that it's impossible to think about that brings about the God theory. Several times you responded that there isn't anything "before" existence, but the whole point of the "theory" is that God was before existence. God is impossible to think about also, for this reason. Why is it unreasonable to substitute "God" for "mind-boggling impossibility"?

[arahant]

I don't think the invisible pink unicorn analogy is appropriate. The properties of a putative god are generally taken to be unobservable, unknowable, and utterly different than anything we can measure.
An invisible pink unicorn, on the hand, is essentially something who's existence we have evidence about. It would, for example, be significantly less likely to exist than bigfoot.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe doesn't need a first cause either. You're trying to think of things beyond everything what we know or can think about (there's no difference really). As I said above, you can't do this and expect to be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the fact that it's impossible to think about that brings about the God theory. Several times you responded that there isn't anything "before" existence, but the whole point of the "theory" is that God was before existence. God is impossible to think about also, for this reason. Why is it unreasonable to substitute "God" for "mind-boggling impossibility"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. But there is almost no one who thinks of God this way.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Again, the universe doesn't need a first cause either. You're trying to think of things beyond everything what we know or can think about (there's no difference really). As I said above, you can't do this and expect to be right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's the fact that it's impossible to think about that brings about the God theory. Several times you responded that there isn't anything "before" existence, but the whole point of the "theory" is that God was before existence. God is impossible to think about also, for this reason. Why is it unreasonable to substitute "God" for "mind-boggling impossibility"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. But there is almost no one who thinks of God this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the only way that I can think about God. I can't make any judgments about his values, wants, powers, etc. However, I can see that the Universe appears to have had a "beginning." Thinking about anything before that is mind-boggling, and yet it would seem that there ought to be something. At times, I consider calling that "something" God. At other times, I say there was no "before." It is the mind-boggling impossibility part that leads me to postulate a God-like being. Am I the only one that thinks that way? Surely the "no first causers" must at least be a little uncomfortable with the idea.