Question For The Atheist.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

[SilverKnight]

I think an Atheist would tell you they cannot yet answer exactly how the universe came into being.

But the Atheist would probably also tell you a universe that was created using natural laws, accepted physics, proven scientific principles and measurable/observable cosmological processes has more evidence than a universe created by the whim of a powerful supernatural being.

[ELF1024]

I think an Atheist would tell you they cannot yet answer exactly how the universe came into being.

But the Atheist would probably also tell you a universe that was created using natural laws, accepted physics, proven scientific principles and measurable/observable cosmological processes has more evidence than a universe created by the whim of a powerful supernatural being.

Hmm... I say the same thing, and I'm not a Atheist. I just see no reason why God couldn't have caused the Big Bang.

Religion says it was done; Science says how...

[AIT]

I think it is inaccurate to try "sum up atheist's beliefs". The reason is that the only common thread among all atheist is that they do not believe in a God/Deity/Supreme Being.

Some atheists believe in life-after-death, karma, the existence of souls, and other supernatural claims. Others are scientific naturalists who say that the universe is just matter and energy which seem to follow common sets of physical laws that have been observed and that there is no reason to appeal to the supernatural until there is evidence of the supernatural.

[Mordecai]

The Big Bang, in itself, can have a simple cause. It's just an explosion. The existence of simple causes isn't a stretch, I don't think. Something has to have always existed. If you say the universe always existed in some form, starting out as a singularity, that's not a stretch either. But if you say the universal constants, which are complex and functional, were caused by something simple and unintelligent, that's a stretch.

Atheists need simple, unintelligent causes, because the existence of simple things for eternity is plausible, I guess. But the complexity of the universal constants combined with their functionality appears to be intelligently caused. The question is, which came first, the universal constants/Big Bang or the intelligence? Why not the intelligence? It solves the problem of the complexity and functionality of the universal constants and the cause of the Big Bang as well.

Of course, the intelligence would have to be simple, too, in order for that to have plausibly existed without a cause. So the intelligence would have to be something more primal than a human form (although the human form could come later); also, without space or time, could a human form exist? Not physically.

[Mordecai]

I think it is inaccurate to try "sum up atheist's beliefs". The reason is that the only common thread among all atheist is that they do not believe in a God/Deity/Supreme Being.

An agnostic could also not believe in God. They just don't know. Atheists believe there is no God nor gods. It's not just a lack of belief. But you're right that atheists may believe in something else that could cause the Big Bang/universal constants. I take more issue with materialists than atheists. Materialism in itself is the more dangerous belief, in my opinion.

...a universe created by the whim of a powerful supernatural being...

The Big Bang theory was called "supernatural" initially. Now it's just natural. Supernatural strongly implies magic or something that can't be arrived at via reason. But intellectual theists do not believe in magic and embrace reason. We just believe God can perform miracles, because He is beyond what we are.

[ELF1024]

It is possible that the Lord isn't as lazy as I am... but because I am lazy, I would want to make the natural laws to be in such a manner where it required very little intervention if ANY intervention on my part to keep things working on a day to day basis. If it couldn't survive long enough for me to take a long (say 500 year) nap, then it wouldn't be worth creating.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think it is inaccurate to try "sum up atheist's beliefs". The reason is that the only common thread among all atheist is that they do not believe in a God/Deity/Supreme Being.

Some atheists believe in life-after-death, karma, the existence of souls, and other supernatural claims. Others are scientific naturalists who say that the universe is just matter and energy which seem to follow common sets of physical laws that have been observed and that there is no reason to appeal to the supernatural until there is evidence of the supernatural.

I know, there are a wide range of beliefs. I should also note that I am not a fan of telling what others beliefs are, such as what this radio host did to the atheist. I thought that if I worded it in a question form that would be more interesting. Mainly, does that train of thought have any merit.

I thought the board seemed a little bored and what better way to get things happening then have a debate about everyone's favorite topic. "Atheism".

Oh I guess we could talk about Utah's new fire works law. Hurray for that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Big Bang, in itself, can have a simple cause. It's just an explosion. The existence of simple causes isn't a stretch, I don't think. Something has to have always existed. If you say the universe always existed in some form, starting out as a singularity, that's not a stretch either. But if you say the universal constants, which are complex and functional, were caused by something simple and unintelligent, that's a stretch.

Atheists need simple, unintelligent causes, because the existence of simple things for eternity is plausible, I guess. But the complexity of the universal constants combined with their functionality appears to be intelligently caused. The question is, which came first, the universal constants/Big Bang or the intelligence. Why not the intelligence? It solves the problem of the complexity and functionality of the universal constants and the cause of the Big Bang as well.

Of course, the intelligence would have to be simple, too, in order for that to have plausibly exited for eternity. So the intelligence would have to be something more primal than a human form (although the human form could come later).

Interesting.

[AIT]

An agnostic could also not believe in God. They just don't know. Atheists believe there is no God nor gods. It's not just a lack of belief. But you're right that atheists may believe in something else that could cause the Big Bang/universal constants.

I agree that people will generally make the distinction between agnosticism/atheism as a person who does not believe there is a god vs someone who believes there is no God. However, many atheists you ask do not actually make that positive assertion. When you pin them down they de-assert a belief in god instead of asserting a belief that there is no god. That may sound like a distinction without difference; and in colloquial usage there isn't one, but there really is. Some atheists use the term "anti-theist" to describe someone who asserts that there is no god. I believe Richard Dawkins calls them "Type 7" atheists.

It also depends on the God in question. An atheist believes a "God" exists if a theist can demonstrate the existence of that "God". An idol worshipped by someone can be demonstrated to exist and an atheist would agree that "God" actually exists as it clearly exists in an objective, physical sense irrespective of whether or not that "God" actually has any supernatural efficacy or not.

[AIT]

Another thing that crossed my mind was that one distinction that seems to exist between "Agnostics" and "Atheists" is that many agnostics might say: "You probably can't know if there is a god or not." and they don't concern themselves with it either way.

Self-described atheists, as frequently do care, involve themselves in or follow the discussion to some degree, frequently know more that the "Average Joe" about religion in general, and are unconvinced by what they see.

[Walden]

I think an Atheist would tell you they cannot yet answer exactly how the universe came into being.

But the Atheist would probably also tell you a universe that was created using natural laws, accepted physics, proven scientific principles and measurable/observable cosmological processes has more evidence than a universe created by the whim of a powerful supernatural being.

I am an atheist who generally agrees with the statement above.

The fact is that nobody knows how the universe came into being. Believers think that it was an act of god, I tend to think that it was an act of natural forces. And before the "first cause" proponents start their arguments, I would like them to answer for me what was the first cause that brought god into existence (or in LDS theology, god's god, etc.) The "first cause" argument, IMO, is as problematic for believers as it is for non-believers.

[Brian 2.0]

I'm a big believer in Richard Dawkin's belief scale and his distinction that you fall on this scale in regards to something specific (i.e.God, or life after death, etc) and not fall into is as a whole person. For example someone could be a Strong Atheist about God but a Weak Theist about live after death. (i know I'm using theist incorrect there, btw). He also says that someone who believes 100% there is NO God is just delusional as the person who believes 100% that there IS a God.

http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-new-theism.html

Interesting take on belief and I tend to believe it (pun intended)

Personally, my belief "scales with the evidence" and that evidence can come from a variety of sources from science to philosophy.

[Walden]

I'm a big believer in Richard Dawkin's belief scale and his distinction that you fall on this scale in regards to something specific (i.e.God, or life after death, etc) and not fall into is as a whole person. For example someone could be a Strong Atheist about God but a Weak Theist about live after death. (i know I'm using theist incorrect there, btw). He also says that someone who believes 100% there is NO God is just delusional as the person who believes 100% that there IS a God.

http://ichthus77.blo...new-theism.html

Interesting take on belief and I tend to believe it (pun intended)

Personally, my belief "scales with the evidence" and that evidence can come from a variety of sources from science to philosophy.

An interesting thought, particulalry the statement that "someone who believes 100% there is NO God is just delusional as the person who believes 100% that there IS a God."

I am an atheist, but as I've said before, I have no qualms stating that I could very much be wrong about the whole thing....I haven't cornered teh market on absolute truth just yet.

In the end, I think it just comes down to what makes the most sense given our individual perspectives.

[Brian 2.0]

In the end, I think it just comes down to what makes the most sense given our individual perspectives.

I'm with you Walden. I like to believe as much as the evidence says. If there is no evidence for God, then it's hard to believe firmly in it, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't gladly accept evidence for a God.

I know it's just label, but if an atheist would believe in a God if sufficient evidence is made for one, does that make him NOT an atheist?

[bookofmormontruth]

I agree, I have enjoyed my conversations with so called "atheists". And with more discussion with them, they end up being "agnostic".

If you don't mind me adding a question for self professed "atheists". What does it take to overcome the Santa Claus Syndrome?

[Cherubbish]

I actually admire the "faith" that atheists have because they have to have much more than me because all things to me denote that there is a God (Alma 30:44).

[One Clear Voice]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

I'm going to carefully avoid the conversation about the definition of atheism. Or the question that doesn't seem to understand evolution (or that evoution isn't an "atheist" thing).

But I will say...the question from the opening post presumes that the universe originated. However, there are several physical models that account for the universe as a cycle of crunches and bangs.

However, I am not a physicist. I just wanted to put that out there.

[Cherubbish]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

I actually posed that question to a gentleman on my mission after he proudly proclaimed he only believed in evolution. The look on his face and his gaping mouth was priceless as he was obviously stumped.

(I'm not sure, but I've heard from others that have actually read Darwin, that he actually addresses this "loop hole" or tries to explain it, but this guy obviously didn't know anything about evolution and just wanted us off his doorstep. It was still priceless though.)

[WalkerW]

I am an atheist who generally agrees with the statement above.

The fact is that nobody knows how the universe came into being. Believers think that it was an act of god, I tend to think that it was an act of natural forces. And before the "first cause" proponents start their arguments, I would like them to answer for me what was the first cause that brought god into existence (or in LDS theology, god's god, etc.) The "first cause" argument, IMO, is as problematic for believers as it is for non-believers.

Thus, the New Atheists’ favorite argument turns out to be just a version of the old argument from infinite regress: If you try to explain the existence of the universe by asserting God created it, you have solved nothing because then you are obliged to say where God came from, and so on ad infinitum, one turtle after another, all the way down. This is a line of attack with a long pedigree, admittedly. John Stuart Mill learned it at his father’s knee. Bertrand Russell thought it more than sufficient to put paid to the whole God issue once and for all. Dennett thinks it as unanswerable today as when Hume first advanced it—although, as a professed admirer of Hume, he might have noticed that Hume quite explicitly treats it as a formidable objection only to the God of Deism, not to the God of “traditional metaphysics.” In truth, though, there could hardly be a weaker argument. To use a feeble analogy, it is rather like asserting that it is inadequate to say that light is the cause of illumination because one is then obliged to say what it is that illuminates the light, and so on ad infinitum.

The most venerable metaphysical claims about God do not simply shift priority from one kind of thing (say, a teacup or the universe) to another thing that just happens to be much bigger and come much earlier (some discrete, very large gentleman who preexists teacups and universes alike). These claims start, rather, from the fairly elementary observation that nothing contingent, composite, finite, temporal, complex, and mutable can account for its own existence, and that even an infinite series of such things can never be the source or ground of its own being, but must depend on some source of actuality beyond itself. Thus, abstracting from the universal conditions of contingency, one very well may (and perhaps must) conclude that all things are sustained in being by an absolute plenitude of actuality, whose very essence is being as such: not a “supreme being,” not another thing within or alongside the universe, but the infinite act of being itself, the one eternal and transcendent source of all existence and knowledge, in which all finite being participates. (David Bentley Hart, "Believe It or Not," First Things, May 2010).

It is the difference between a being and Being itself. But this doesn't work for the LDS concept of God as far as I understand it. Though it might work for the mysterious concept of "intelligence" found in LDS theology.

[WalkerW]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

They'd probably say something like this:

Then the theists would finish it off with this:

[WalkerW]

I actually posed that question to a gentleman on my mission after he proudly proclaimed he only believed in evolution. The look on his face and his gaping mouth was priceless as he was obviously stumped.

(I'm not sure, but I've heard from others that have actually read Darwin, that he actually addresses this "loop hole" or tries to explain it, but this guy obviously didn't know anything about evolution and just wanted us off his doorstep. It was still priceless though.)

The problem is assuming that we "came from apes" rather than share a common ancestor with apes.

I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys...Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys...The essential idea of common ancestry is that ultimately all living things on this planet share common ancestors if we go far enough back into the past...We share a common ancestor with all primate species. This means that we're related, by having a single ancestor somewhere in the past, to monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. But the idea of common ancestry goes way deeper than simply saying we're related to monkeys. We're in fact related to all mammals. You go farther back, we are related to all vertebrates. And, ultimately, we are related, if you go far enough back, to every living thing on this planet. The almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time. (Ken Miller, "In Defense of Evolution," NOVA, Interview by Joe McMaster, April 19, 2007)

Speaking of Ardi, Donald Johanson (founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University; discoverer of Lucy) stated, "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes." (Carolyn Johnson, "Scientists Announce Discovery of Earliest Prehuman Skeleton," The Boston Globe, Oct. 1, 2009; emphasis mine)

"Once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys...No animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work." (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2009: )

[Brian 2.0]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

I would recommend not using that question anymore. It's inaccurate and shows a ignorance to what the theory of evolution is. Evolution does NOT claim that we came from apes that exist now. It's not a straight line evolution. Evolution is a tree, the theory would state that Humans and Apes share a similar ancestor (which looks very little like modern apes or human). Then that from that ancestor branched a line that eventually became modern apes and another branch that eventually became human.

That is a simplistic explanation for sure, but your question is not only over simplistic, it is just completely inaccurate.

[WalkerW]

I would recommend not using that question anymore. It's inaccurate and shows a ignorance to what the theory of evolution is. Evolution does NOT claim that we came from apes that exist now. It's not a straight line evolution. Evolution is a tree, the theory would state that Humans and Apes share a similar ancestor (which looks very little like modern apes or human). Then that from that ancestor branched a line that eventually became modern apes and another branch that eventually became human.

That is a simplistic explanation for sure, but your question is not only over simplistic, it is just completely inaccurate.

As a faithful and active Mormon, I agree with this 100%.