Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

PreludeFor a very unusual & rare change, I am actually going to forward the exact reason as to why I am a strong atheist, and I look forward to seeing Mykeil’s challenges these.Inference to Best ExplanationAbductive reasoning (inference to best explanation) is a form of reason that is best used when inductive and deductive arguments cannot suffice.[2] It is the type of reason used in science, philosophy, and history today, and many premises used to justify inductive or deductive arguments actually have abductive grounding.In abductive reasoning, we seek to find the most likely explanation for a certain set of data. Thus, unlike with deductive reasoning, the conclusion is not guaranteed, but a best-educated guess. While there may be many possible for any given data set, we can prioritise which ones are most likely.To see abduction in action, I offer the following example, if we see a new puddle in our back yard which was not there before, and we had two possible explanations:1.A large ice block melted there yielding the puddle2.It rained last nightVia. abduction it is possible to prioritise which explanation is more likely, given they both can explain the observation of water existing. Factors such as prior likelihood, which is determined by factors such as multitude of assumptions, explanatory power, coherence, background knowledge, etc. all come into play. For this debate I will argue that metaphysical naturalism, which is the notion that everything within the universe is explicable by natural laws and that the universe itself does not require a sentient cause.1. Explanatory PowerThe notion that everything within the universe is fully explicable by natural laws is quite obvious, our two most successful theories – theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both predict with exquisite precision what “stuff” within the universe will do. Particle physics, including the highly successful standard model, and generalisations of quantum mechanics which yields Newtonion Physics essentially state exactly what the world of the small and middle-sized stuff will do.[4] Relativity is highly successful in explaining & predicting the expansion of the universe via the Big Bang theory, as well as predicting black holes, time dilation and length contraction, it’s only on scales where quantum gravity is predicted to take precedence where these physical laws lose explanatory power. Theism on the other hand plays virtually no role in explaining any of the observations we have within our universe, not any of the features we would expect of the world as a whole. Given that God is omnipotent, then it follows that God is a theory of anything, and as such, we cannot compute any expectations of what God will do and how he will do it. Given this, it follows that God has exactly zero explanatory power, since there is nothing to differentiate God from any other hypothesis that entails the dataset more explicitly.2. Law of ParsimonyThe Law of Parsimony, a form of Occam’s Razor posits that the simplest explanations are always preferable to ones that multiply complexity.[5] This can be affirmed in the case of metaphysical naturalism vs. theism in a brute deductive, and also a subjective sense.DeductiveQuite simply, theism always has the disadvantage over metaphysical naturalism since metaphysical naturalism only entails the physical universe we have observed, whereas any form of theism that wants to remain consistent with science needs to postulate both the physical universe and God. Note this argument also works for other interpretations of such, such as those posited by pantheism, since it will be the extra attributes that a theistic universe would posit that multiplies complexity. Thus in all cases, naturalism has an inherent advantage in simplicity.SubjectiveTheism also posits additional attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and some non-physical intelligence. We don’t have a quantitative understanding of intelligence, however intelligence clearly inductively requires several basic elements, such as the presence of a process (our minds are causal, in that one thought precedes and is necessary for the next, etc. this chain of events is a process), without which we couldn’t meaningfully call something intelligent. All of these elements add complexity to the concept of theism which yields a less and less likely explanation.3. Proposition is within Background KnowledgeWhen searching for explanations, we will always prefer explanations which are already within known experience. Metaphysical naturalism has an enormous advantage here, since the natural world obviously exists, and stuff within the natural world obviously obeys natural laws. Metaphysical naturalism posits very little else apart from these which we already know about. Again it doesn’t matter what the nature of “reality” is, since theism and naturalism are going to be compared on the same plane.Theism however, posits omnipotence and omniscience, something we have exactly zero experience with, we have no existing knowledge of such omnipotent, omniscient and intelligent beings existing to posit as a possible explanation for the data-set we observe, such an explanation is necessarily beyond our experience. To give an analogy, a bank that is blown up by horses, or chimpanzees, is always going to be a more likely than a bank blown up by centaurs, since the existence of the former two examples are not in question, centaurs are outside our background knowledge and thus are lower on the list of likely explanations.4. Makes Predictions About RealityNaturalism inherently is atheistic, thus is predicts a universe that is completely impartial to what happens within it, everything is mechanistic. What we observe is essentially this much, we have a universe that is essentially impartial to life - virtually none of the universe is hospitable to it with only with the amount of it inhabitable comparable to one molecule of water capable of inhabiting a space of six million swimming pools. Moreover naturalism predicts portions of the universe vastly over-tuned for life, such as is found with the cosmological constant.[1]Theism on the other hand cannot make any predictions whatsoever, due to what I argued in point 1. Because theism is inherently a theory of anything, there is nothing to differentiate one action from another, since theism is capable of any single action.5. Employment of ad hoc assumptionsI will explore these with my deductive arguments against the existence of God as follows which will do either/both of the following:1. Refute God2. Multiply the complexity of God and ad hoc explanations required for GodThus it is lose-lose in the case of theism.5.1 Argument From atemporal MindsI will present in deductive formulation first and affirm the premises second. The argument is logically valid, thus if all three premises are correct, the conclusion necessarily follows:1. If God exists, then an atemporal mind exists2. An atemporal mind requires a process3. All processes are temporalC. Therefore, God does not existP1 is true almost by definition, to argue otherwise is to argue God is temporal, which runs into serious coherency problems regarding God being the cause of the universe since time is contingent upon the universe as shown by general relativity. Thus God cannot be a temporal mindP2 I already explained in “Law of Parsimony – Subjective”, which follows from an obvious assessment of introspection. Also to argue a mind is not a process is to also concede that the entity is static, and essentially non-causal. Since all things that are not in flux, or in a process are themselves acausal, an extreme example of this is platonic realism (if correct), etc. All things that exist within the universe with efficient causal agency are themselves in flux in some form (e.g. a static rock cannot cause anything to move, since it’s not in flux).P3. This follows from an obvious inductive assessment of processes, but also coherency problems. Again, if time did not exist, then we would simply have a single three-dimensional slice of something. Nothing would happen, and nothing would be caused, a dead universe. Thus, for anything to ever ‘happen’, there must be a passage of time.In order for Con to refute this(if its possible), he will certainly need to employ ad hoc/post hoc reasoning, which works against him in my abductive argument.5.2 Incoherance of a Caused UniverseThe structure of this argument is very simple, the implication is very deep, once again if both premises carry then the conclusion necessarily follows. Given that well-established principles are used, it thus requires ad hoc explanations at best to circumvent.P1. If God exists, then the universe has a causeP2. The universe cannot have a causeC. God does not existP1 – Is correct by definitionP2 – There are two points here:1.Without the universe, you have no time2.Without time, speaking of causes are incoherentPoint 1 is affirmed by general relativity, where we can see that space and time are part of the same fabric, which is ‘pliable’ and ‘stretchable’, thus is physical.[3] Hence, without the universe, we necessarily take away the constructs of it, including space and time. Which leds onto point 2, all causes, in order to be meaningful, need to have a state of affairs where events did or did not happen. Thus in the universe, at t0 – the event has not occurred, yet at t1, the event has occurred, thus being able to differentiate between t1 and t0 allows us to coherently take about causation. Moreover directionality gives causation meaning which requires entropy. Thus we need both time & entropy to coherently talk about causation, both are absent the universe.ConclusionThus, by a scientific approach, we find the God hypothesis fails every single one of the criteria we use to find a best explanatory candidate.References1.http://goo.gl...2.http://goo.gl...3.http://goo.gl...4.http://goo.gl...5.http://goo.gl...