Ask the Atheist

I've answered this argument a lot on this site, but I think it deserves a summary question. My aim is make this a reference for any subsequent "origin" questions.

The Cosmological Argument or Argument from First Cause is the proper form of the common argument that the universe must have been deliberately created, and you can't get "something from nothing". It predates Christianity, as Plato and Aristotle had their own versions.

That's the first issue with the argument: it only attempts to prove the existence of a Creator. It is therefore a deist argument, so when a theist uses it to prove a specific god with no further logic it's a step too far. Keep an eye out for this.

The basic premise that everything finite requires a cause is the least controversial part, but even this isn't rock solid. Possible exceptions are found in quantum mechanics, where particles move about in a probabilistic fashion. Until observed, a particle may be anywhere in a small area, and in a sense is everywhere in the area. When you observe it, it picks one spot and stays there. This is of course a gross oversimplification, but the point is that there's no known force moving the particles around. There may actually be no cause as such, and the universe may be far more spontaneous than we think.

Even "something from nothing" is plausible according to a related theory that "nothing" is really a quantum foam from which matter may emerge. This is purely theoretical at the moment (it makes mathematical sense, but there's not much physical evidence), but it's worth remembering that science is actually considering ways like this in which matter could just pop out of "nothing". It can't be dismissed entirely.

Causality may also be irrelevant if time wasn't linear at the beginning, if it had a beginning. An effect must follow its cause, but this is meaningless if chronological order hasn't settled down yet.

The universe is widely regarded by lay people (who aren't young-earth creationists) to have begun with the Big Bang. This may seem counterintuitive - how can something be created by an explosion instead of destroyed? - but it was no ordinary explosion. All the matter and energy in the universe was compressed into a singularity, a point so small it had no volume at all. (Absurd as this sounds, it happens today with large amounts of matter in the centres of black holes.) Then it expanded outwards, and it's still expanding to this day. Once the matter was in that singularity, nothing was created or destroyed, only distrubuted.

How did the matter get in there? Was the Big Bang the true beginning, or a continuation of something else? We haven't a clue. A god is one hypothesis. Other universes, with their own separate systems of time and space, are another. The quantum foam is an outside chance. Who knows what else we haven't thought of.

I like the idea of a multiverse, an eternal group or series of universes setting each other off. It's got one up on gods because it's multiple instances of a known object. We know there's at least one universe (this one), while we don't have a single example of an established god. If you see a huge cabbage patch where the whole crop's been eaten, and you find one fat little rabbit in the corner, do you assume that Bigfoot must have done most of the damage? No, you wonder where all the other rabbits are hiding.

The theory of expansion and contraction, of many Big Bangs and Big Crunches, has fallen apart recently with the discovery that the expansion of the universe is apparently accelerating. That means it will never return to the singularity, and it is not cyclical in the way we thought. That doesn't stop it from being cyclical in other ways, for example stretching until it tears a hole and then draining out to somewhere else.

The point is that if you do accept that everything finite must have a cause, something must be eternal. Either it's the universe/multiverse, or it's a god. There are many theories, and potentially many more, which allow for an eternal universe which needs no cause. Therefore an eternal god is not the only option, and anything which says so is a poor attempted proof of its existence.

- SmartLX

Note: The argument that a god created the universe based on the universe's nature, order, awesomeness, etc. is not related to causality. It's the Argument from Design, which is next on the GBA hitlist.

The Ontological Argument strikes me as the equivalent of trying to win a lawsuit on a technicality. It's a full-blown a priori attempted proof which assumes only that a perfect being is conceivable. I won't argue this point, because although definitions may differ everyone gets some image in mind upon hearing the phrase "perfect being".

The thrust of the argument is that it's greater and more perfect to exist than not to exist. Since God in theory is the greatest and most perfect thing ever, He must exist.

The most obvious problem is that the argument is not the least bit specific about which God exists. Even if the argument were unassailable and the existence of a god were proven, we would still know absolutely nothing about the god's identity or nature. Jumping immediately from the existence of a god to the existence of your god is an unsupported assertion.

If you really wanted to be annoying, you could argue that since the argument can be used to prove the existence of multiple mutually exclusive gods (say, the God of Abraham and Ahura Mazda of the Zoroastrian faith) it's obviously a flawed argument. The theist reply is of course the above point that the argument makes no comment on the god's identity and most religions just have the wrong guy, but it's a good way to make people think.

The real problem is the premise that to exist in reality is greater and/or more perfect than to exist only in the mind. Something which doesn't exist isn't more perfect than something which does, but it isn't less perfect either. It has no qualities by which this can be judged. An apple which doesn't exist isn't red, but neither is it purple. Therefore it can't be redder or less red than a real red apple.

Existence isn't a property as such either. Even if it were, it wouldn't necessarily be a positive property, or something a perfect being must have. Something destructive like an earthquake might be better if it didn't exist.

There are plenty of objections along these lines by a great many people, the most famous being Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant. As stated in the question, there are also a great many rephrasings of the argument which try to circumvent these objections.

The net result is that major apologetic organisations have advised that the Ontological Argument in its current forms does not stand up to scrutiny, and other arguments like the Transcendental and Cosmological Arguments (the favourites) should be used instead.

That doesn't stop a lot of YouTubers from reciting obscure forms of the Ontological Argument and expecting them to be invincible. Look it up, and enjoy the logical knots both sides get themselves into when discussing it.

I always worry when someone uses this argument, because it may mean a few things. Maybe they don't think people have the intelligence to fully comprehend such a complex-sounding argument and will accept it by default. Maybe they haven't read the objections and don't expect anyone to look them up. From a big-picture perspective, they're using a less well known argument thinking it will take people by surprise, not considering that it's less well known for a reason. It just plain doesn't work.

- SmartLX

Good question. After reading up on this I reckon I've stuffed it up at least once. I think I need to bring in yet another division to make good sense of it all: implicit and explicit atheism.

An implicit atheist is what I previously thought of as a weak atheist (my main mistake): someone who has not even thought about belief in gods. Very young children, some mentally challenged people and possibly some remote tribespeople would be implicit atheists.

An explicit atheist has thought about it, and has taken a position. That makes every self-identified atheist of any kind an explicit atheist (obvious also from the basic definition of "explicit").

A strong atheist is one who positively believes that there are no gods. A weak atheist is any atheist who is not a strong atheist, including implicit atheists. That means anyone who leaves room for the possibility of gods is a weak atheist.

A gnostic atheist believes it's possible to know whether gods exist, and obviously has decided that none do. Every gnostic atheist is plainly a strong atheist. However, not every strong atheist is a gnostic atheist.

An agnostic atheist accepts that we do not know, and possibly can never know, whether gods exist, but does not believe that they do. By contrast an agnostic theist or agnostic spiritualist does believe in something supernatural but accepts that it is unproven and unidentified. "Agnostic strong atheist" is not necessarily an oxymoron, because you can believe there are no gods despite accepting that you can never know for sure. This is no worse than believing in God in the absence of decent evidence. Congratulations, your preferred label is valid.

(To show you how confusing this can get, I'll admit that the last two paragraphs are a second draft. First time around, I came to the opposite conclusion! It was because I wrongly assumed that all strongs are gnostic just because all gnostics are strong.)

Take me for another example. While you are explicit, agnostic and strong, I'm explicit, agnostic and weak. I don't think it's impossible to know whether gods exist, but I don't think we currently do know. I'm not prepared to believe that there are no gods, although that's my opinion, but I certainly won't believe in any until substantive evidence becomes available. I'm open to God, gods or no gods, but I know which seems most likely.

So when a theist asks me, "How can you believe absolutely that there is no God without any evidence?" I can truthfully say, "I don't." (You, Goodnight, might have to think a bit more if asked the same question. As an exercise, would you please tell us how you would answer? I'm curious now.)

I call myself an agnostic atheist. I don't add "weak", frankly because nobody wants to be a weak anything. I find "agnostic" captures most of the same meaning anyway. Near enough is good enough.

- SmartLX

Here's the Wikipedia page on the King James Version of the Bible.

Here's a very quick version: Henry VIII of England had the Bible translated into English for the first time (before that, it was in Latin) while establishing himself as the head of what would become the Church of England. James VI of Scotland (also James I of England; same guy, different numbers for each country he ruled) later commissioned his own English version which was as non-controversial as he could manage but did have a few bits geared to support his own divine right to rule. (Charles I later relied unsuccessfully on this divine right when on trial for high treason, and was beheaded.)

The KJV (for short) is special because there are those who believe it's the only accurate and reliable translation, over and above even the original texts in Hebrew and Greek. (Remember that the people in the New Testament would have spoken Aramaic.) There appears to be no solid basis for this belief except for the fact that the KJV is really very well-written.

Pointing out the human origins of the Bible and its different versions is always a good way to make Christians think and examine the sources of their beliefs. It's hardly a skeptic's Holy Grail, however, because many Christians simply declare that God guided everyone even remotely involved in the writing, editing, translation, publication and distribution of the particular Bible they use. Same goes for any holy text before or since. It's never just a bunch of stuff some person wrote, it's always divinely inspired if not actually written by gods.

Quick comment on the questioner's handle: it's not necessarily Hell for you if you're wrong, only if you're wrong and some religion with a Hell is right. Even then you might get off in some cases.

- SmartLX

For reference and example, folks, here's part of the blurb for Weinland's book 2008 - God's Final Witness:

"From now until the latter part of 2008, many prophecies are going to begin to be fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording."

This really is straight from Revelations 10. John hears seven "thunders" say something, but as he's about to write it down an angel tells him not to; they'll be revealed instead when the world ends.

Revelations 10 is a really dangerous passage because it leaves a hole in the prophecy. Doomsayers like Weinland can predict or declare anything and then claim that it goes in the hole. It's satisfying in the same way as fitting a middle piece into a jigsaw puzzle, and so it's more readily acceptable to some. It makes narrative sense that an "end-time prophet" would be given some new information which was withheld 2000 years out from doomsday. It's a nice story.

Debunking Weinland isn't like debunking predictions by Nostradamus. Much of what Nostradamus said has come true because he said things which were so vague you could interpret any modern event as matching one of them. Weinland is easier to nail down than that, given the short time frame of his predictions.

He's said for instance that the United States will collapse before the end of 2009. Therefore all you have to do to call his bluff is wait 22 months. You don't really have to wait that long though, because he's made a great many interim predictions for this year. That's what 2008 - God's Final Witness is all about.

As for arguing with a believer right now, just ask what Weinland has successfully predicted so far. If he does claim a correct prediction, is there any evidence that he actually predicted it ahead of time or is it possible that he's taking credit after the fact? What reason or precedent does your co-worker give for believing this guy? If it's just a matter of faith, then it really is blind faith.

I recommend you read up on a few other doomsday predictions, especially the famous case of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They went through half a dozen Tribulation dates before they stopped setting new ones as the old ones passed. Each time some reason was "found" why the previous date was a misinterpretation of scripture and prophecy.

Encourage your co-worker to make a list of things he expects to have happened by the end of 2008, and give you a copy. As the year wears on, offer to compare notes. Keep score; every time he pushes a prediction off to 2009 or later (for any reason) is a point for you, and every prediction that he can convince you has come true since he made the list is 10 points for him.

If he goes for it, chances are he'll concede a few points to you at first, expecting the first fulfilled prophecy to put him ahead. Later on he'll be less and less likely to mention the list at all. Don't rub his face in it, just let him learn that no amount of human religious authority guarantees the accuracy of a prediction.

- SmartLX

Firstly, "teaching the controversy" or "critical analysis of evolution" is literally teaching Intelligent Design.

There is no fully developed theory, as Philip E. Johnson has admitted:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

ID really only consists of a series of arguments against evolution, the default conclusion of which is a designer. Teaching the controversy allows all of these arguments to be aired. Only the designer's identity is left out, but it's pretty darn obvious.

The world won't fall apart if a generation of people, and even scientists, dismiss or never learn evolution. Even in cases like flu vaccine updates, doctors would keep doing what they're doing because it works. They'd just come up with different reasons why it does, as in, "God works it like this." Nothing supports a theory like evidence which the theory itself was changed to match.

The true consequence is that we would lose our insight. We can apply proven techniques and technologies and rationalise however we want, but if we don't understand the true reasons why they work then we can't refine them or make any new ones except by trial and error. We stagnate.

As Ken Miller has suggested, a country which sacrifices scientific understanding to maintain its beliefs falls behind the rest of the world. He's terrified that this will happen to America. I worry too, but I do think some hard data showing the country's slipping technological superiority would spur some patriots to give science a shot in the arm. I hope it isn't needed of course. Anyway, I'm Australian.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total entropy in a closed system must increase. The Earth by itself isn't a closed system; the Sun provides it with energy by increasing its own entropy by huge amounts via fusion reactions. That means that entropy in another part of the system can decrease without breaking the Second Law.

I've explained it more thoroughly here, but just think about it for a second. If order and complexity could never increase anywhere, you couldn't build anything, arrange anything or form a coherent thought. There must be a way.

It's unlikely that what exploded in the Big Bang was a total void. It was the entire current universe squashed into one tiny dot. We don't know how it got there; maybe it came from another universe, maybe something compressed the universe into a dot, or maybe it really did pop out of "nothing". That last one isn't quite as silly as it sounds, because some quantum theories actually do allow for it by positing that "nothing" is really a sort of quantum foam of potentiality.

We don't really know that the Big Bang was what created everything; we're just mostly sure that everything there is was in the Big Bang. It might have all existed forever, and just spent a bit of time squashed into the dot.

Thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion is a bit too simple. An explosion destroys things around it; since everything was in the Bang itself, there was nothing around it to destroy. Once all the debris was floating free, gravity brought some of it back together to form rocks and stars. Stars create vast amounts of entropy, so any rock receiving energy from a star is part of its closed system and a certain amount of order and complexity is free to emerge there. This is how microbes were able to come about (though it's not exactly how they came about; that's a bit more complicated).

Plants actually evolved from seagoing creatures. Once the oceans were teeming with ultra-primitive life, masses of it was bound to wash up on the shores of Pangaea (the single pre-drift continent). Most of that organic matter would have died, but a tiny fraction of organisms would have been able to use their existing abilities to sink safely into the sand or soil, and stick one piece up to get some sunlight. It was natural selection in all its glory; if you throw enough different kinds of crap at the wall, something is bound to stick.

Go ahead and reply with your objections if something still doesn't seem feasible. Don't worry about ticking us off. That's what we're here for.

- SmartLX