Why is atheism untenable? [Spirituality & Religion]

“Gradually, I realized that in the twenty years since I opted for philosophical atheism, a vast, systematic literature had emerged that not only cast deep doubt on, but also, from any reasonable perspective, effectively refuted my atheistic outlook. . . . Today, it seems to me, there is no good reason for an intelligent person to embrace the illusion of atheism or agnosticism, to make the same intellectual mistakes I made.
“As recently as twenty-five years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.”
(Patrick Glynn)

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

LeopoldBloom · M

To each his own. I’m not sure what “data” has come out in the past 25 years that he finds so compelling. I would need a personal revelation, but some people apparently require less.

So now that Mr. Glynn has found God, I assume it’s Jesus, and not one of the other countless gods people have believed in? It would be hilarious if he concluded that the “evidence” pointed to Allah or Vishnu or L. Ron Hubbard.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

If you actually do some reading then you might find out. Science has advance tremendously in its knowledge both of the workings of th3 universe and of the intricacies of the workings of the cell. The inescapable conclusion is that we are designed for all but those who are gullible enough to believe that it will happen by some cosmic accident@LeopoldBloom

LeopoldBloom · M

@Speedyman The implication is that there are other explanations for those observations besides goddidit.

It's people like you who subtract from the sum of human knowledge.

Please explain the mechanism whereby God "designed" everything, and how an immaterial intelligence can affect material reality. If you can't do that, you're just talking out of your ass and admitting that you're too stupid to understand science, so you fall back on mythology.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Sorry it’s people like you who rule out the possibilities of knowledge by eliminating a spiritual dimension. It’s up to science to find out how God designed the universe. The fact they can do so rationally is a testament to a rational creator. They are thinking God’s thoughts after him. Your mind needs to be bigger than it is.@LeopoldBloom

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman [quote]eliminating a spiritual dimension[/quote]

What need is there to even postulate one in the first place?

There’s nothing to eliminate

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@Speedyman [quote]find out how God designed the universe[/quote]

You’re assuming the conclusion. You first need to establish the existence of your god, and not merely conjure it up out of nowhere.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Speedyman In the interest of clarity, how about you provide some references for this scientific research that proved the existence of God. That way we can be sure that we are all talking about the same thing.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Well if you have read about the advances you will know (eg)the number of scientific constants that have to be all minutely tuned to make life possible. @Bushranger

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Bushranger What @Speedyman said and the fact that there is no reason for the chemicals in a given life form to arrange themselves in the way they are arranged. Then there is the little matter of what is life? A live cell and a dead cell are chemically identical but one is alive and one is dead. The dead one can not be brought to life by any means we try.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@hippyjoe1955 There are rules that govern how chemicals combine.

In regard to the difference between a living and a dead cell, I don't know what it is. That doesn't mean that I have to automatically jump to the conclusion that it was a divine creation.

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Speedyman Yep, the universe in which we live has a number of rules that govern how things work. So what? If the rules were different but still allowed for intelligent life to arise, we would observe a "finely tuned universe". I think @newjaninev2 has told you this on numerous occasions.

Pikachu

@Speedyman

I don't understand why people find the fine tuning argument so compelling.
I mean for starters it presupposes that life is the goal and that all this was created in such a way where permitting life was the goal.

For myself, i am not surprised to find that we live under conditions where it is possible for us to live.
It only becomes "unlikely" for the conditions to be "right" with reference to life and the assumption that life is a goal.

I guess the main take away here is how do we get from "The conditions for life as we know it to exist are specific." to "Therefore i know a god made it this way." ?

Bushranger · 70-79, M

@Pikachu Given the we only have one universe that we can observe, we can't know if life is possible with different physical rules. But I can see no reason to jump to the conclusion that the universe created for humans.

Given the general lack of suitability for human life in the universe, it would appear that we evolved in spite of, not because of, the rules that govern it.

Pikachu

@Bushranger

[quote]Given the we only have one universe that we can observe[/quote]

Right? We have n=1. That's not a great sample size lol.

[quote]Given the general lack of suitability for human life in the universe, [/quote]

Yeah it's actually not a particularly hospitable universe lol

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@Bushranger Completely beside the point. The fact that our universe exists because of its extremely fined tuned physical rules.... Life can not arise from non life by itself. The chemistry doesn't work nor does life simply appear. Two physically identical cells one is alive the other is dead. Hmmmmmm.

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 If our universe wasn't "fine tuned" to allow for life, we wouldn't be here to comment on it.

You're talking out of your ass when you say that life cannot arise from non-life. You've decided goddidit, so you're twisting the observations to align with your preconceived notions.

hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M

@LeopoldBloom Nope. Read Fred Hoyle.

LeopoldBloom · M

@hippyjoe1955 One man's opinion.

You still haven't explained the mechanism "God" used to create the universe. Science is about processes, not just saying "it happened" and leaving it at that. Even without the mechanism, you can't explain how "God" came up with the design. It's just goddidit STFU.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Science is investigating the mechanisms God uses. Because you know the mechanism you don’t dispense with the agency @LeopoldBloom

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F

@hippyjoe1955 Despite my reluctance to offer simplistic YouTube videos, you might watch this one and tell me... are the cells alive, or dead?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfxCJji_RHo