Counter to Cosmological Argument

Authors note: This post was a counter response to Matthew (@Redsox_239) who said he'd respond:

but instead did this:

Ah well, I got an interesting post out of it.

****

Matthew (M): "Okay so two options on the table..Necessary being or Necessary Substance (like energy). Its true that both of these would avoid an infinite regress, but the former also makes a lot more sense then the latter."

Me/Bruce (B): I disagree. We know energy is necessary for existence & that it exists. Also, thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. So eternal energy fits with known physics. An eternal being is an unsubstantiated claim, so obviously eternal energy makes more sense.

M: "A Necessary being has a non-physical necessary mind, and comes with intelligence and ability to create"

B: There is no evidence a mind can exist without a physical structure such as a brain. So this is purely an unsubstantiated claim.

M: "A Necessary substance is simply an existing substance. To create it has to have the ability to do something by itself."

B: Nature has the ability to do things by itself via the four fundamental forces, although this is at risk of anthropomorphizing nature.

M: "So it would have to be conscious. It would have to be intelligence to create a variety of contingent things, and power to do anything. This just starts to sound like a necessary being."

B: As noted above, nature has forces in place that remove the need for a concious being to create things. Eternal energy is just energy constantly changing its state, something we know happens, in fact, it's something we see & do  every second of our lives. Breathing, fusion in stars, walking, eating, water boiling is all just energy changing it's state. No intelligence needed for energy to change state.

M: "So clearly a being makes much more sense. Maybe you know about cosmic fine-tuning. This could perhaps be seen as supporting evidence for a being rather then just some substance as necessary."

B: Nothing clear at all about it. An eternal being requires unsubstantiated claims & presuppositions. With eternal energy, it's unsurprising energy would eventually hit a state that can support life as we know it & it's wholly (pun intended) unsurprising we find ourselves existing at a moment when this is possible since it's the only possible time we could exist.

So in conclusion, I think I have soundly shown that a concious being is not the most probable option since it requires going against known physics while eternal energy fits perfectly within known physics.

A brief history of Yahweh

Yahweh started out as a small time tribal god, just one of many in the Middle East several thousand years ago. He stayed this way for a long time until a guy named Saul, aka Paul, (2) pulled off one of the greatest PR campaigns in history and started convincing Gentiles to follow Yahweh (not having to cut off the tip of their dicks really helped increase the numbers). This set off yet another branch (with many twigs) in the family tree of Judaism.

Then Constantine, the Roman Emperor, stopped the persecution of Christians and eventually declared himself a Christian. While his unfettered support for the Catholic Church surely helped increase Yahweh's stature, it wasn't until Theodosius I made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire that Yahweh really spread throughout Europe…usually at the end of a sword.

In one of the great ironies of history, one of the most persecuted religious sects in history, became, arguably, the greatest persecutors of other religious sects in history. By doing so, they managed to turn a small time Bronze Age tribal god into the most worshipped god in the world…but yeah, Yahweh is totally real.

Re: Religious Faith for Artie

I tend to stick with established definitions. So for "Religious Faith" I'd use the second definition of faith found in Oxford:

2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

People that argue a position based on their own personal definition of a word are being dishonest. It strips credibility, hinders communication & risks invalidating their entire point. Words have meanings…people should use them.

A rambling take on Refugees, atheism & Human Rights

Preface: I started out with one intent when writing this & it kind if spiraled into something else as I wrote. It may or may not be cogent. 

And sorry for the typos. I tried to catch them all but I'm sure I missed some…I usually do.

---

I'm not sure who's more scared, the refugees fleeing a horrendous war, or the people that are scared of the people fleeing a horrendous war.

As an atheist, many might assume I'd be against letting in more Muslims. Islam is, after all, a horribly oppressive & often violent ideology (cue the standard accusations of Islamophobia & bigotry). And of course, atheists supposedly want to ban all religions (or alternately, perhaps you think we only want to ban yours). Truth is, I & most atheists I know, want people to be free. Free to believe as they see fit (but not force those beliefs on others or onto our Secular government), free to question (not ban…question) others beliefs & free to live happy, safe lives. 

Atheists don't believe in "nothing", we actually have many beliefs (although I admit some avoid the word 'belief' like its a radioactive zombie preacher that will turn them into a religious nutjob if they get 'infected' by it) but a belief in gods isn't one of them and not all atheists share the same beliefs outside the God question. Even in that area there can be rigorous debates between atheists, however we never seem to feel the desire to blow each other up over our differences. Weird, I know. I doubt we'll ever see the Great Atheist/Agnostic War.

One of my most cherished beliefs is in Human Rights. Yes, that includes the right to Religious Freedom…but with a caveat: If your Religion interferes in the Human or legal rights of others, your religion loses without question. For example, many religions restrict the rights of gays and women…your religion loses out to their human rights for equality.

With that said, refugees also have Human Rights.

What are these Human Rights? Let's have a look.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 1 says, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…" & that everyone  "should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

In other words, the refugees are your equal. Don't like it? Too bad. Take your bigotry elsewhere.

Article 2 says, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind…". 

Did you see that word 'Everyone'? That would include refugees…yes, even 20-something male refugees.

Article 3 says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

"Security of person". Maybe…just maybe…these refugees are simply looking to enjoy this basic human right. Maybe. Or maybe they're all evil terrorists hell-bent on destroying our perfect Western World! 

Yeah, somehow I doubt they're all bogeymen.

Please read Articles 4 to 13, but I'll skip ahead to the most relevant article, that being Article 14:

 

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

What's that? You mean the right to seek asylum from persecution is a Universal Human Right? So by opposing this right, you're opposing human rights. 

Think about that for awhile.

Take all the time you need to let it sink it.

Done? Got it? Good. I'll encourage you to go read Articles 24 through 28. They are also very much applicable.

I think a lot of people shout & holler about wanting to protect Human Rights, but I think a lot of these people have never read the actual document that has been signed & agreed to by the majority of the global community.

Before you go slamming other countries, people & ideologies for restricting or violating the Human Rights of others…you should make sure you're not promoting the restriction or violation of basic Universal Human Rights. 

I fully expect a chorus of responses from well-to-do western crybabies complaining about somehow having their own Human Rights trampled on by these refugees. I welcome anyone to prove how allowing refugees into your country will actually restrict or violate your Human Rights. Not 'possibly' or 'might'. Those words are meaningless fear mongering. Show how your rights will actually be affected. 

Yes, I learned a lot by writing this. Yes, I too need to review my own beliefs & attitudes. We all do & while we do it, we need to beware of the biggest free thought killer known to man: that restricter of rational reasoning is referred to as Cognitive Dissonance. 

"Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Learn what it is.

Watch for its evil tendrils snaking into your brain.

Be scared of its mind numbing powers.

Kick its ass. Kill it. Destroy it. Never let it win.

Think freely.

A response to @adikira

This post is in response to https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/sciencereligion/Rrvnj4gNh6w

By @adikira

In my opinion, I have taken atemporality into account. Putting God outside time means my future is available to God, for lack of better words, as if it's the past or in the same way as my past is. The past is set & cannot change, so if my future is equal to my past to an atemporal deity, then my future is equally set & cannot change. Meaning, per my meme you responded to:

P='What God infallibly knows I'll do/did', the fact he knows this outside my timeline doesn't change the fact there is only one option available…that being P. Unless God is only learning what I'll do, as I do it, there can never be more than 1 choice. It feels like a choice, but it's not. For example: 

I have to choose if I'm going to jump, run or roll. With freewill it looks like this:

A) Jump

B) Run

C) Roll

All are equally viable options & God waits with baited breath, wondering what I'll do. Oh the drama!!

With an omniscient being at play, this being knows I jumped, whether this is foreknowledge or looking ahead in my "book" as per your analogy, or sees all of time simultaneously (as some claim atemporality to be), he knows this infallibly & isn't learning what I'll do as I do it, nor can he be "surprised" (he's read every page of the book at the same time). 

So my choice now looks like this:

P) Jump

P) Jump

P) Jump

To me, it feels like I'm picking A, B or C, but it was always going to be P. To God, it's a boring rerun & he's likely nodded off (explaining the lack of prayer response at the same time).

I appreciate the time @adikira spent responding to me.

Evolution of Religion

I'm a "Practical atheist"

Let's ruffle some atheist feathers.

For all practical purposes, the statements "I disbelieve god exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" are basically the same statement & any differences between them are purely semantic and don't change the overall meaning from any practical perspective.  Further to this, "I know God doesn't exist" is, again, for all practical purposes, the same as saying "I believe God doesn't exist". Any differences between the above statements are epistemological mind games that have no practical bearing on our daily lives & from what I've seen in the atheist Twitter community, the main purpose of these games is to avoid the burden of proof.

Now here's the rub, "There's no evidence" is good enough for all practical purposes. "There's no evidence for dragons", is generally accepted as good enough for most to justify saying, "I know dragons don't exist" & it's good enough to keep others from dragging them into an epistemological pissing match over certainty of knowledge. Then you add the fact that there are tons of great arguments for the non existence of gods & suddenly you're well beyond good enough. It's only with the subject of gods that we are we suddenly forced to concern ourselves with tedious epistemological arguments, most of which border on solipsism, around the certainty of our knowledge. 

Most "agnostic atheists" I've spoken with will say they are 99.9% certain no gods exist, but seem irrationally concerned about that 0.1% chance they may be wrong. Well, I'm 99.9% certain the earth will be spinning tomorrow, yet few people would insist I be agnostic about that. It's generally accepted as being ok to say, "I know the earth will be spinning tomorrow"? Yes, technically speaking, there's a chance it won't be (by any number of possible reasons), but is it worth concerning myself over it? Is it worth being agnostic about or lacking belief it will keep spinning? Especially if all I'm doing is trying to avoid any burden of proof that it will?

Many "agnostic atheists" are willing to go further & say they are 100% certain all gods ever worshipped by man to date don't exist, & leave the 99.9% certainty only to the chance some unknown, not yet described god-like figure might exist. To this I reply, the unknown is unknown & there is an infinite number of things we can conceive of that we don't know or can't prove if they exist that has no practical bearing on our knowledge base. This sounds like it should be obvious, but apparently it's not.

I think most atheists would agree there's actually a greater chance of the earth not spinning tomorrow than there is of any god, currently or previously worshipped or an as of yet unknown god-like being ever to be proven. So it boggles my mind as to why so many seem to concern themselves over this infinitesimal chance some god might actually exist. If it turns out some kind of god exists, you admit you were wrong, adjust your knowledge base & carry on. That's practical.

For all practical purposes, 99.9% = 100%.  There's no practical or rational reason we should ever concern ourselves with such a tiny chance we may be wrong. There is no practical or rational reason why anyone should be scared of making a knowledge claim when you are 99.9% certain gods don't exist—because on most subjects, most people easily & willingly claim knowledge, often with less than 99.9% certainty, and this includes scientists.

So, if you want to partake in epistemological mental masturbation games to make yourself feel intellectually superior, be my guest, everyone needs a hobby. I have kids to raise, a job to attend to & life to live. I can no longer be bothered to argue about laughably remote odds that have no practical effect on my life & are primarily used as ways to distract & deflect from the many, many great arguments that no gods exist.

So no, I'm not an agnostic atheist, nor am I a gnostic atheist, I'm a Practical atheist.

**********

Here's a chart to help people understand what is meant by "gnostic atheist" & "agnostic atheist".

For anyone that wants to try & use Pascal's Wager to argue the odds: