[Lucky Dog]

Can you (the atheist) explain existence?

Yes!

The question was an invitation to do so, not merely a inquiry as to your opinion as to whether you think you can or not.

Can you (the atheist) explain where existence came from?

It didn't "come form" anywhere. There is no basis for the assumption it did. Existence always is.

You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it. This widely accepted theory maintains that there was a beginning for existence. Therefore, other than your assertion, what is your proof that this theory is wrong?

We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.
We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.


You have not addressed existence only a perception thereof.

How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there.


Therefore, you admit that we cannot know. If we cannot know, then any position about the origin of existence is based upon faith. The atheist who asserts there is no God is doing so only on faith as is the theist or deist who asserts that there is, in deed, a God.

Can you (the atheist) explain existence in relation to the law of entropy?

There is no such relationship. Perhaps your thinking about energy in a limited system.

The law of entropy operates throughout the universe, not just a closed system. The universe exists. Therefore, the law of entropy operates throughout the universe… By definition, that is a relationship.

In relation to the law of entropy? Entropy always wins, OVERALL. It’s chaos.

If your assertion is correct, then the universe started from a more organized state than it is currently in or than it will eventually wind up in. Working backward with this concept, the implication is that something or Someone created the universe as chaos cannot work in reverse.

It does not increase all the time everywhere, it only need to grow overall.
While life runs counter to entropy, it produces entropy outside of it.


Your assertion demands an origin for life and an explanation of why it “runs counter to entropy.” As for your assertion that [life] produces entropy outside of it[self], your assertion is unsupported.

Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence.

This method of argument is called “begging the question.” You have not attempted to explain existence nor where it came from.

Just for fun though. Does God exist? Then he is part of any existence you seem to have trouble understanding. If God does not exist, well then, what's the problem?

The creator can exist independent of the creation. Even within our limited understanding of the universe, you must admit that a parent exists independently of a child. Therefore, it is not a giant leap of logic to assert that the Creator of the universe can exist independent of His creation. Just as a parent can influence a child or, even, direct it, the Creator of the universe could influence the universe or even direct it.

Can you (the atheist) explain the origin of the phenomenon known as cosmic background radiation?

Well, no, because I'm not certain what is called cosmic background radiation is what current theory believes.

Cosmic Background radiation? Easy one. Ask anyone with undergrad physics. It appeared extremely early in the universe, radiation emitted while matter was being formed.


According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God.

Can you (the atheist) prove there is no God?

Why would I? I have no interest in discouraging those who believe in God from their belief.

The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations.

If you (the atheist) cannot prove that there is no God, then is not the position that there is none, based upon faith?

Can an atheist prove there is no God? Traditionally the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.


Isn’t atheism based on faith? Weak atheism is consistent, simple lack of faith: I see a lack of evidence for the existence of God, so I don’t believe.


Can you see existence? If you cannot explain existence, then there is evidence of something beyond the “faith of atheism.”

I've never tried to prove it, so I wouldn't know. Who knows, I might believe in God if anyone ever shows me evidence for a God, or the description of one is plausible to me.

As I noted earlier, your assertion that existence “always has been” is unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, a point of creation (the “Big Bang”) is supported by evidence (cosmic background radiation). A point of creation is, prima fascia, evidence of a Creator.

How is the faith there is no God any different from any other faith? (lacking moral codes, holidays, rituals, obligations to one's fellowman, etc., excepted)

I wouldn't know. You'll have to ask someone who has such faith. Everything I believe and know is based on reason which I fully understand. I will not believe anything else, and accept no contradictions.

If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why should not the "law of the jungle" be the governing moral code of humanity?

Strong atheism (There CAN’T be a God) IS based on faith.


How is lack of faith different from any other faith? Weak atheism is simple lack of any religious belief. Skepticism. Strong atheism is another animal altogether.


That's your belief, not mine. You believe moral principles are arbitrary, dictated by someone.

I have not asserted any such fact or belief. I have merely asked a question.

I believe moral principles are absolute and eternal, based on reality, the nature of existence and the nature of man.

There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc.

Reality cannot be defied, and never forgives wrong. God does forgive wrong. Morality is not absolute for the religious.

You have confused an argument about the “nature of God” with one about the “existence of God.” A deist would argue that God is not forgiving in the slightest. Additionally, you have confused man’s belief system based upon faith (a religion) with reality.

Why not the law of the jungle? We evolved as social and tribal animals. Tribes have their rules, that’s why we’re not complete chaos. Moreover, ethics can be grounded in logical principles.

The only logic that seems universally operable in human moral behavior is “if you can get away with it, you can do it.” I am not sure there is anyone who call that axiom a “moral” or “ethical” principle.

Not to mention most atheists believe in the social contract theory.




What part of the social contract was Hitler fulfilling? Or, Stalin? Or, Vlad Dracula? Or, the Marquis de Sade? Or, a suicide bomber?

If there is no God, as you (the atheist) maintain, why do you object to others claiming there is one, since such a claim would not matter by your position?

I've already said I have no such objection. I do not need the idea of a God to understand the world I live in, but I think a lot of people do, and since that belief is the source of their principles and values, I really do not want to see them loose their faith. I do not want to live in a world filled with people without values and principles.

The question was not directed to you, in particular, but to atheists in general. For example, why would an atheist file a lawsuit about the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto on coins? If there is no God (by the atheistic assertion), then what difference does it make to have “…one nation under God…” or In God We Trust?

I'd be interested in the answers your atheist friends have for these questions

You got 'em.

I don't believe in your God, but certainly do not care that you do.

I have said nothing about my personal beliefs. However, your concession that I may believe as I choose is welcome, nonetheless.

Except when someone who does believe in God asks me, or uses that concept in some argument, I never give it a thought. I certainly do not "maintain" there is no God, I just have no reason to believe in one, but it only one of many things I do not believe in, and to me, of little or no significance.

You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist.

[Hank Kerchief]

Mr. Lucky Dog,

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but mine was only to answer your questions, only to show you what I believe and why. I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything.

Now this is very interesting:

"You, sir, are not an atheist. By definition of the very word, an atheist maintains that there is no God. You may be classed as an agnostic, perhaps, but given your statement, never an atheist."

I never claimed to be. I frequently point out I never call myself an atheist, because I think it is stupid to identify oneself in terms of what one does not believe. I do not believe there is a deity of any kind, and am absolutely certain of it. It's not a belief, it's a lack of one. Quite frankly, the word "deity" or "God" does not identify any meaningful concept that I could even consider believing. That's all.

"You must then tackle the “Big Bang Theory” and refute it."

I find it interesting the people keep telling me what I "must" do. Whatever they call it, the so-called "big bang" is a hypothesis, not a theory. Just a guess, like evolution. I do not have to refute, I just don't accept other people's guesses about anything.

Now I have no idea where any of this comes from. I never wrote them, and certainly do not accept any of it. It's all physicalist evolutionary garbage I've never held:

"We perceive stimuly through our (material) sensory organs, and process it in a physical brain through electro-chemical reactions.
 We are that way because we have evolved to have those organs.
 ... How did the universe come into being? At one point, a singularity happened, and physical laws started working. While we can’t measure the singularity because we ARE bound by the laws of physics, everything can smoothly happen through material means from there.
"

"Your assertion demands an origin for life"

What assertion would that be. I do not know that life had a beginning. Neither do you, nor anyone else, but most people just assume it did.

You quoted me: "Existence, to me, means everything that is, that is, everything that exists is part of existence."

Then wrote: "This method of argument is called 'begging the question.'"

Sigh! No son, it's called defining one's terms. I wasn't making an argument for anything, only telling you what I mean when I use the term, "existence."

"According to currently accepted theory, background radiation is the result of the “Big Bang.” The “Big Bang” is a point of creation. A point of creation logically implies a Creator, i.e., a God."

I do not care if you want to believe that. I don't.

"The point is that there is no proof making atheism a faith. In deed, it is a faith that cannot explain existence among a lot of other things. Theism and Deism, at least, offers such explanations."

I have no idea what that means. No proof of what? Faith in what? I do not believe their a fairies at the bottom of the garden. Why would that have to be proved? Do you call that "faith?" Is English your first language? Do you believe in a literal Phoenix? So, is that your "faith?" You can't prove there is not a Phoenix.

"There is apparently no voluntary human behavior that is not malleable or optional. Therefore, human behavior based upon moral precepts is not based upon the nature of existence. If moral principles are absolute and eternal, please explain Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Genghis Kahn, versus Jesus or Buddha, etc."

What are you talking about? Moral principles are just absolute as the principles of Chemistry. Does everyone just automatically know the principles of Chemistry? Why would you think people just automatically know moral principles? Most people don't, that is the explanation for the evil in the world. Good grief!

"We evolved as social and tribal animals."

Really!? And you know this how? Believe it if you like, but I know it's bunk.

I hope you find my answers interesting, else I'm sorry I wasted your time. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, only expressing my views, for your, or anyone else's consideration.

Hank