The Evidence Points to Atheism

Non-Cognitivism Con's objection is based on a misunderstanding of premise 2. The premise is “We give meaning to words by our understanding and experience” This doesn't mean we need to comprehensively understand or directly experience everything. It just means a word must refer to something that we already understand or experienced. For example, if I say there's a tree the size of a molecule in my back yard, we have no experience or understanding of this tree or trees of this size. However the statement isn't meaningless, because it refers to things that we do have understanding and experience of. While such things like omnipotence refers to power, yet “all power” would remove the human context of power, ceasing it to have meaning. The reason why Con's response fails is because my challenge was provide a meaningful word that doesn't refer to anything that is within our understanding and experience. The reason we have a concept of infinity is because infinity refers to an unlimited finite. Finite would still have the same context, since it would be within what we experience. If I have 1 computer, I can always imagine one more computer because I've experienced the finite world. Infinity still refers to what we understand and therefore doesn't refute premise 2. Numbers also refer to the finite world. They're just descriptions of material. Con continues with another objection. “Just because we do not have understanding or meaning of an object or concept does not mean that the do not exist. The only way this thing can exist is if it has meaning. For instance, does a “zsgarbub” exist? Con ignores what I quoted from SA.net which explains why a meaningless thing doesn't exist. I'll quote it again. “...to say, “A God exists” insofar as it attempts to construct itself as a proposition is false because the term “God” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration...... One cannot posit the existence of something if that something means nothing. The term itself, without referring to any specific concept or possible instantiation, holds no actual or even potential place in reality. In truth, it is amusing to note that the theistic position is unwittingly equivalent to the atheistic position, as to posit belief in “God” actually means “belief in nothing” – the stance of atheism.” For better understanding, I'll quote this too. “The Strong-Atheist, however, just as the weak-atheist, need not defend their position along the lines of the term “God” being meaningful. If a term refers to no thing which may possibly exist, then obviously the term has no application to reality. Thus, the Strong-Atheist might say that, “God does not exist”, concerning him/herself with “God” as only a word, and not a concept.” [1] Con's case Con gives 3 contentions. All together they're basically the first cause argument. Time and Causality Con says that “Every reaction must have an equal action that caused it”. This seems self defeating. If every reaction must have an equal action that caused it, then God would have to be caused. Con could claim that God always existed and is outside the laws of physics, so doesn't need any type of cause. This leads to a further problem, creating a special pleading fallacy from Con. If you grant something can exist without a cause and outside the universe, then why not something other than God? “Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born. The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." In layman's terms “If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along" "The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations." "If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest." "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct." . . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . ."Keep things simple!” [2] Therefore using Occam's Razor it's better to say that this uncasued cause was something simpler than God. A particle being an uncaused cause is simpler than an omnipotent, super intelligent, perfect, and conscious creator. Meaning we have no reason to have a God hypothesis. Conservation of Mass and Energy: Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. They in a sense, bypass the laws conservation [3] [4]. The Only Viable Solution?: If Con says before the universe there were no laws of physics, then again what makes us think this cause has to be God? No laws before the universe means no conservation of mass and energy before the universe. By Con's own reasoning, the universe can be uncaused without God. Con asserts “The only force or being that is outside of that must be God”. This is an unwarranted assumption and has yet to be proven. It's also an argument from ignorance, if we don't know how something came to be, this doesn't mean God did it. Just like when we didn't know where lightning came from, we thought it was God. Because we didn't know. Con is just pointing to some effects and saying God is the cause. Con has yet to prove this! There's also naturalistic models for the universe coming into existence. “...But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.[5] Edward Tryon said The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible.[6] Tryon's model is falsified, but he set the stage. There's newer updated models that use the same foundations as Tryon. Like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [7] Why should we accept God over the scientific alternatives? There's no reason to assume God when talking about the creation of the universe. The resolution is affirmed Back to Con. Sources [1] http://www.strongatheism.net... [2] http://math.ucr.edu... [3] “In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.” Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. [4] “Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs constantly appear and disappear....” https://www.cfa.harvard.edu... [5] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time [6] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? [7] http://www.mukto-mona.com...