Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/snapdigity]

What do you guys make of Antony Flew’s 2007 book “There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”

I haven’t finished it yet, but he makes a strong case. He really ties together many different arguments together. Some of the arguments are as follows:

1. Universe had a beginning and cannot cause itself. God as the “uncaused cause” is more plausible than other explanations.

2. Fine tuning of constants and laws of the universe for life.

3. Encoded information in DNA and the mechanism for self replication.

4. The failure of naturalistic processes to account for the emergence of life.

5. The alignment between the rationality of human thought and the rational order of nature is unlikely to be a product of blind chance. This suggests a rational mind behind both.

6. The failure of naturalism and materialism to explain human consciousness, the ability to reason, and think abstractly.

7. Complexity and interdependence of biological system, such as DNA, cells and proteins, cannot be fully explained by random processes or natural selection alone.

8. Influential scientists whose belief influenced him such as Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, Arno Penzias, Paul Davies and Albert Einstein.

9. The assumptions upon which science itself is based are better explained in a universe created by a intelligent source. Such as the idea that there is an objective truth that can be ascertained through scientific inquiry, and the assumption that the universe functions in a reliable and consistent way that can be discovered and understood by humans.

[u/pyker42 → u/snapdigity]

1. Universe had a beginning and cannot cause itself. God as the “uncaused cause” is more plausible than other explanations.

How is God more plausible? There is no real evidence to suggest that the Universe had to have a cause, and adding God into the mix just makes the answer more complicated.

1. Fine tuning of constants and laws of the universe for life.

Life is found on such an infinitesimally small scale in the Universe. That would imply a really horrible designer, if their goal was life. More likely, though, it indicates no conscious design whatsoever.

1. Encoded information in DNA and the mechanism for self replication.

So the fact that information can be enclosed in molecules means it has to be designed? How else would a natural process be able to encode information? This seems like more incredulity and human bias.

1. The failure of naturalistic processes to account for the emergence of life.

Scientists have been able to perform abiogenesis in a lab, so this one is flat out wrong. In addition, just because we haven't learned it discovered how a natural process works doesn't automatically the process isn't natural. That's just using God as a placeholder for knowledge we don't have yet.

1. The alignment between the rationality of human thought and the rational order of nature is unlikely to be a product of blind chance. This suggests a rational mind behind both.

The "rational order of nature" is nothing more than our observations of nature. We present these observations in ways that make sense to us. Nature has no obligation to make sense.

1. The failure of naturalism and materialism to explain human consciousness, the ability to reason, and think abstractly.

More use of God as a placeholder for things we don't understand yet.

. Complexity and interdependence of biological system, such as DNA, cells and proteins, cannot be fully explained by random processes or natural selection alone.

Natural selection isn't a random process. We have tons of evidence supporting the scientific knowledge we have of natural selection and evolution.

1. Influential scientists whose belief influenced him such as Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, Arno Penzias, Paul Davies and Albert Einstein.

An appeal to authority isn't real evidence of anything.

1. The assumptions upon which science itself is based are better explained in a universe created by a intelligent source. Such as the idea that there is an objective truth that can be ascertained through scientific inquiry, and the assumption that the universe functions in a reliable and consistent way that can be discovered and understood by humans.

The Universe functioning in a reliable and consistent way is why we can understand it. Because it allows us to describe, test, and verify the processes that we see. The only reason to think that requires a creator of some sort is ego. Humans are complex designers. So when we see other things with great complexity we naturally assume they were created. When you remove that human bias from all of these different "evidences" you can clearly see the inherent incredulity of the arguments.

[u/sierraoccidentalis → u/pyker42]

Life is found on such an infinitesimally small scale in the Universe.

The density parameter has a narrow range allowing for possible formation of astrophysical structures like stars. Vast uninhabitable vacuum is required for the formation of the dense matter structures that allow complex biochemistry.

[u/pyker42 → u/sierraoccidentalis]

Which doesn't sound like intelligent design.

[u/sierraoccidentalis → u/pyker42]

Why not?

[u/pyker42 → u/sierraoccidentalis]

Does poor design suit you better?

[u/sierraoccidentalis → u/pyker42]

That would imply there are other physical equations that would permit life and not require uninhabitable vacuum. I'm not aware of any. Are you?

[u/pyker42 → u/sierraoccidentalis]

Can the designer not design the physical equations anyway they want? Does this designer have limits for what they can do when making Universes and the life contained within? Can you even be sure that we are the purpose this designer set out to create using such an inefficient method?

[u/sierraoccidentalis → u/pyker42]

The nature of physical law would suggest constraints of logic and validity in mathematical relationships. If there's no awareness of any other equations fitting your definition of good design, then there doesn't seem to be much support for a belief that the design could be much better.

[u/pyker42 → u/sierraoccidentalis]

But you have no knowledge of the effects of any variations of the equations and what effects they would produce, you're just assuming this is the best way because that's the rationality that supports there being a designer.

[u/sierraoccidentalis → u/pyker42]

Yes, that would imply there's no knowledge or evidence-based reason to believe there's a better design. If you believe there's a better way, the burden of proof lies with you.

[u/pyker42 → u/sierraoccidentalis]

Considering I don't believe there is any design, I don't have any claims I'm making. I'm just questioning your suggestions. The burden of proof lies with you to show design. Otherwise there is no reason to believe that the natural state of the Universe is designed or created. And your suggestions don't have any real substance beyond the inherent incredulity of ID.