Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

The Burden Pro defines Strong Atheism as: The belief that there is no god(s) Belief is to accept a statement as true. So a Strong Atheism accepts "there are no god(s)" as true. For String Atheism to be a reasonable philosophical view, then the position will be supported by sound arguments. Even if these arguments do not conclude in a 100% certainty the will conclude in "God does not exist". The statement, "God most likely does not exist" is not the same semantically or logically equivalent to the definition pro gave. And I feel is moving the goal post, because most discussion on defining strong atheism state it is the affirmative claim "God does not exist". Inference to Best Explanation The roots of Science are in the Methodological Naturalism forwarded by Theist. Newton, Kepler, Bishops and Popes all spoke of explaining the world around us in natural terms. To what purpose you may ask? To discern the Creator's mind. It is a false dichotomy to think that Theism is separate from naturalism. Honestly I can not see how anything can be Theist with out naturalism. More often is a joining of studying nature and the idea of a creator.[1] In the mid 1800's this methodology began to be elevated to a philosophical position. The procedures of one investigative tool were assumed to some how describe the whole of reality. Inference to .. what? Best Explanation. And Pro has not shown that Metaphysical Naturalism more likely explains the events usually attributed to God. As I described Pro breaks the first rule of having a logical conversation. the law of identity[2]. As I stated the "Laws of Nature" break when applied to the event, the temporal moment at the beginning of the Big Bang. What Pro attempts to say is that these Laws are the prescriptive laws that we have not fully described yet. Well even if I am inclined to accept that there are eternal never changing principles of how nature interacts, Pro has not demonstrated these to explain the event in question. So A1 (Laws of Nature Pro knows) and A2 (the actual Laws the govern the interactions of energy and matter) do not have the same identity and therefore Pro can not claim any explanatory value in the event of the Big Bang. Abductive Reasoning I am all for IBE. I have even listed how it applies to the Scientific Method by Popper and Pierce. It is important to see that an abductive technique is NOT a Bayesian testing method. Ad Hoc means the addition of assumptions to keep an hypothesis from failing. But as I pointed out, the Metaphysical Naturalist is making great assumptions. Hasty generalizations and claims unfounded empirically or logically. The MN relies on bare assertions to keep from failing. Explanatory Power Pro confuses explanatory power with predictive capability. The descriptive laws do not describe sufficiently the prescriptive laws to lessen or negate the possibility of God. Because the prescriptive laws of nature could be contingent on God, and this possibility is ignored by the MNist because of an adherence to a unfounded presupposition. This is a false dichotomy. No one logically has to decide whether to accept God or to accept natural laws governing material interactions. Theist accept nature, and consider it to be a second book God has written. Essentially Without having a sufficient description of the prescriptive laws, Pro can not argue their explanatory power as being against God, least of all for his position. Parsimony In Pro's 3rd reference we find: To make any progress we need to have some understanding of what it means for an initial condition to be “natural.” If an unknown principle of physics demands specific initial conditions (but not final ones), there is no problem to be solved; it may simply be that the universe began in a low-entropy initial state and has been evolving normally ever since. This might be the case, for example, if the universe were created “from nothing,” such that the initial state was a priori different from the final state, or if Penrose’s explicitly time-asymmetric Weyl Curvature Hypothesis were true. There is, of course, no way to rule out this possibility... It goes on to state: We are left with the following conundrum: we would like to explain our currently observed universe as arising from natural initial conditions, but natural means high-entropy, and high-entropy implies equilibrium configurations with occasional fluctuations, but not ones sufficient to explain our observed universe. However, there is one loophole in this reasoning, namely the assumption that there is such a thing as a state of maximal entropy. Honestly a great read. And what we see is a list of assumptions and ifs. Not to mention the math doesn't work out. They chose a mass parameter of 10^13 GeV, and the latest research finding the higgs-boson says it is 126 GeV. That's off by 9,999,999,999,874 GeV.[3] Pro's 4th reference is another great read. It describes an Eternal inflationary model, like baby universe popping into exsistence like bubbles. On page 10 it notes: "But so far, unfortunately, this is only wishful thinking. As I will discuss in the next section, we do not even know how to define probabilities in eternally inflating multiverses." And again the math does not work out. While reading page 5 I picked up that Lambda was too large, not till 10 does the author admit this is a big problem. But both Authors were quite honest in their approaches and assumptions. Thank you Envisage. Predictive Power The Natural laws break down in that as Hawking admitted there could have been more matter and energy in the Universe at the initial state of the Big Bang. Clearly a violation of the Law of Conservation. Not just are the description of the Laws of Nature incomplete, but they at times can be completely inaccurate. I'm not arguing that Natural Laws do not exist. I'm not arguing that understanding and describing them don't have predictive power. This Methodological Naturalism has actually been grown by Theist thinkers. The leap in inference that this negates or or makes God unlikely has not been logically supported. Not soundly. Background Knowledge Pro has BoP to demonstrate that most likely God does not Exist. I do not have to argue for a metaphysical possibility of God. I did not drop the Mathematical point Pro offers. I investigate it. the values he perpetuates are arbitrary. As his own references allude to when discussing abduction and Bayesian theory. As I said the probabilities and manner he posited, does not take into account God+natural laws. Which would mean any data supporting Natural would be in the domain of God+Natural as well, Are there points of Data that currently do not fit into Natural Law space but do fit into God? YES. Spiritual experiences and other data, but at the moment I only discussed the beginning of the Universe. Which can not even be plotted in either space because there is no really good explanation on any side. not to mention that I have been discussing a moment between t-0 and t+1 plank second but I could talk about any moments between t-0 and t+379,000 years of the universe. Naturalism was a Methodology of an investigation, it lacks all coherency to be the basis for a philosophical view, especially one that posits the universal non-existence of things never scrutinized by the method itself before. That in itself is circular reasoning around a bare assertion. Absolute Truths The Mathematical argument is a sound syllogism. It's intent is to show that facts about reality and truths about this universe and absolute principles of interactions, more than likely will not be relatable to human experience. Such facts and absolute truths about reality are beyond human experience. Warped Space-Time I did not drop this argument. I ask Pro to elaborate; If everything is energy, matter or laws of physics, then how is space-time "physical". Self refuting or special pleading I am not sure, but if space-time can be physical and exist than why can't other non-energy, non-matter, entities exist? But Pro drops this point. Atemoral Mind What Pro calls ad hoc is a not. In the Pantheism contention I only offer that a pattern that explains the emergence of mind, is also present on a different scale. I was assuming no new attribute to the way energy and matter interact. Pro still has not backed up why God has to be atemporal. I suppose this is based on that he is asserting only this world and 4 dimensions exist. Which is counter to many scientific postulations and simply insufficient to account for this world itself. Cause of universe. Pro uses Eternalism to refute my post. Does he not know that in the same chapter of Confession Augustine posits "we should say present past, present present, present future". Again the argument over a beginning to the universe does not conclude that God does not exist. Probably because these arguments come from time honored smart Theist. Metaphysical Naturalism is insufficient to answer the cause of this event. And while the existence of the ruler is not contingent on the first inch, to explain the existence of the ruler the explanation must account for the first inch. Conclusion Strong Atheism is a philosophical position, that if supported by Metaphysical Naturalism, relies on the adherence to bare assertions that are not logically or empirically supported. It is a belief based on presuppositional assertions, restricted limited human experience, and invalid or unsound logic. Strong Atheism is an unsound philosophical position. [1] http://www.asa3.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://home.web.cern.ch...