Tell me how you can still be an atheist after reading this?

Question

My preception of God is based on this simple fact:
The universe is. Whatever it is made of, the fact remains that something is. In science there is no such thing as an effect without a cause. Even if the entire universe were proved to develop from one original atom, what caused the original atom?. Lets name the original cause "God". The person who professes atheism really means that the original cause called "God" hasn't the personality or attributes religious people ascribe to God. God is not energy in chaos, The universe operates under perfect measurable laws of which modern science is based upon. To be the original cause "God" must have created the universe from himself. If there was anything else there must have been a cause for that, ie another God. So Gods presence is in all. eg. A cell in a persons leg is an entity in itself. It lives and dies. If it had intelligence it would know itself to be in a universe of other cells but it would be unaware of the mind of,"God", the person.

Answer 1

"In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from? And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?" -Carl Sagan, "Cosmos"

Answer 2

You make an assumption that there is no such thing as an effect without a cause. Which may or may not be true within the universe. Actually modern science makes no such claim. But then it is a fallacy to attempt to apply that to the entire universe. You cannot assume that because something applies within a set that it applies to the set as a whole. This is common fallacy. It is also the case that in quantum mechanics that effects do not always have causes. There is nothing in physical law that really distinguishes between effect and cause. All known laws of physics are invariant when you reverse time, charge and parity. This is the so called CPT theorem. When time is reversed then your effect becomes cause and vice versa.

For example my own opinion is the universe is the instantiation of mathematics, if this is the case then the universe is without a cause.

Further time is generally accepted to be a derived property of change within the universe, not something the universe is embedded in. If so then the idea of cause as applied to the universe may not make any sense either.

Answer 3

Richard Dawkins covered this topic well in his book, "The God Delusion".

But I'll reply in my own words here...

In science there is such a thing as an effect without a cause. If you look at virtual particles and Hawking radiation, you'll see two possible examples.

But let's suppose that there is a cause of this universe. That just means that something existed before it. Why name it with such a loaded word like "god"? There is no basis for using that word.

Then later, you jumped from this "god" being the cause of the universe to this "god" creating this universe. You have now anthropomorphized this god of yours, since "creating" is a word that implies intent, i.e. a sentience. You have not demonstrated any such sentience.

You also jump to the claim that this "god" had to use himself as material for this universe, even though it is entirely plausible that there was material not involved in the cause of this universe that could be used. There could be a whole multiverse of universes out there that cause more universes each femtosecond.

Also, having this material you call "god" cause this universe out of itself in no way alleviates the need, according to your logic, of this material, itself, requiring a cause.

And you end with a feeble claim of it having intelligence and knowing that it is a universe. However, this, too, has no basis.

I can be an atheist after reading this because of these flaws in your argument, and because of all the greater evidence showing gods to be a man-made fiction. Sorry, but junk like this just isn't convincing.

Answer 4

I am agnostic and your reasoning does make a bit of sense. I do believe in a Supreme Being as a force that guides all. I do not believe in 'God', however, in the Christian sense. I do not believe in a God capable of human emotions such as jealousy and love. These are merely attributes we have given 'God' in order to identify with 'Him'. I do believe that there is a force which connects all humans and creatures, althought I wouldn't refer to it as God since the word God denotes a Christian connotation.

However, by naming the cause of existence and creation 'God' does not proove the existence of a Christian or other organized religion's God.

Answer 5

Your arguments are poor. I don't only see a false analogy, a generalization, a really bad example of definist fallacy and a typical case of circular arguments.

I am still an atheist and makes me wonder if it's the lack of proper logical thinking what leads to some people to believe in the supernatural.

Bye

Answer 6

Oh, if it were so easy to convince an atheist - just be reading some warped reasoning!
Consider this simple equation: 0 = - x + x. That is, out of nothing (zero) can arise two somethings ( - x and +). e.g. 0 = - 5 + 5;
0 = -100 + 100;
0 = -10000000000+10000000000;
0 = -y + y.
What you call god is really the self-organizing property of matter e.g. oil floatingon water; the bond angle in the water molecule is 104.5 degrees; water freezing to form unique ice crystals; self-assembly property of DNA, etc, etc.

Answer 7

Your argument is weak. Who says "God" created the first atom? You?
Maybe it was aliens. You have no way of knowing, just a wild guess.
I still feel exactly the same way as before I read your post.

Answer 8

Nonsene. You are just another mortal who wants to feel important. You are brainwashed by ba bunch of money minded,two faced preachers. If there was a god why is there so much suffering and dysfunction in the world?

"must"- a word meaning you cannot think past the mideaval level.

Language is the root of religion,which is prooving to be a destructive bust.

Answer 9

the paragraph was nice, did you copy it from a website or a book? but im still agnostic...

your presupposition is stemming from a "belief" that we know that a god made the world...some people do not believe in that...its just like heaven/afterlife, no one realllllly knows whats beyond life...we can assume and make all these ludicrous predictions, but we'll never really know because you cant die and come back to life to tell us whats out there...

Answer 10

It's easy to remain an atheist after reading that. We both know that you are simply trying to redefine the word "god". I don't fall for that trick. If all you are saying is "we know the universe exists", I can agree with that and still remain an atheist.