Top Ten Reasons I'm An Atheist

[Philip]

Morny: Bringing in Einstein may not be helping your argument.

My only point with Einstein is that realizing the universe had a beginning - and the basics of what immediately began assembling with incredible precision - he also realized there had to be some grand intelligence behind it. No, he did not believe in the God of Christianity or a personal one, but he most certainly believed in a deist type of god - the "god of the spheres" - of nature, an impersonal, intelligent force.

Some quotes:

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who says there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University, page 214)”

"But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. "

“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." He went further in telling an interviewer that he was, “fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism."

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Asked about Christianity, in which Einstein answered the following questions:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"

"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"

"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"

"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

[Morny]

[... on Einstein's view of god/spirit ...]

Einstein said he was an agnostic. And saying you're not an atheist doesn't even make you a deist. Like many agnostics, including me, Einstein sometimes reverently refers to nature as god, e.g., "God does not throw dice" (referring to Quantum Mechanics).

Be my guest if you want to interpret Einstein's oblique "god" comments as your argument needs to. But do your interpretation rules change when Einstein explicitly comments that free will does not exist, that Jesus in not Christ, that the idea of a personal God is naive, and that the Bible is a collection of childish primitive legends?

ANYONE who thinks [the Big Bang progression] is possible without just the right incredible things forming and immediately functioning with unfathomable precision - amazing things revealing design, breathtaking interactions of cross functionalities and synthesis - all things requiring an intelligence to create, assemble and orchestrate WITHOUT AN INTELLIGENCE BEHIND IT - that defies all common sense and statistical probabilities.

Aren't partial differential equations, geometry, and probability cool! Whoever god is, she sure is fond of partial differential equations.

As the universe cooled from the Big Bang singularity, one by one, the various forces separate out: the gravitation field, the quark-gluon field, the weak force field, the electromagnetic field - all of which have a mathematical equation simplicity that physicist can almost fit onto a t-shirt.

From singularity to life, from a few simple governing equations on a t-shirt.

[Philip]

Morny: As the universe cooled from the Big Bang singularity, one by one, the various forces separate out: the gravitation field, the quark-gluon field, the weak force field, the electromagnetic field - all of which have a mathematical equation simplicity that physicist can almost fit onto a t-shirt.

Oh, yeah, that early universe that took 20 minutes to do what a century of modern science is still astonished at, that the planet's best minds have spent a century researching - it's all so unfathomably simple and explainable. Keep telling yourself that.

As for Einstein, he clearly believed in a god-like force - even it he might have just called it nature or the universe itself - and believed that force had and has an intelligence and abilities far beyond man. He was upset when people asserted him to be an atheist!

[Morny]

Oh, yeah, that early universe that took 20 minutes to do what a century of modern science is still astonished at, that the planet's best minds have spent a century researching - it's all so unfathomably simple and explainable.

I'm still astonished at lightning, but I understand the simplicity of the underlying physics and math. When Napoleon asked Laplace why his work on the stability of the orbit of planets made no mention of God (as Newton had), Laplace said, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la" ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Even starting just a nanosecond after the singularity (after inflation had stopped) physics has not only mathematical descriptions of all 4 forces, but also a plausible evidence-based understanding of the universe's progression leading to what we see today.

As a simple start to form a basis for mutual agreement, would you agree that physics has a clear understanding of the path from the emergence of that quark-gluon plasma to the generation of almost all the elements in the periodic table generated from the first few generations of stars?

As for Einstein, he clearly believed in a god-like force - even it he might have just called it nature or the universe itself [...]

Even I would agree with that.

[...] and believed that force had and has an intelligence and abilities [...]

But now you're projecting.

[PaulSacramento]

Yes.

So, it came to be only when living creatures came to be?

Yes; only after living creatures came to be.

So the properties of what it is to be intelligent existed in living creatures?

Eventually; yes.

What do you mean eventually?
They eventually came into being ?

[Philip]

Philip wrote:
[...] and believed that force had and has an intelligence and abilities [...]

Morny: But now you're projecting.

If something exhibits extraordinary capabilities, creates massively complex designs and functionalities that the best intelligent minds on our planet have put so much effort into understanding and are nonetheless amazed and baffled, that was capable of doing things only an intelligence could do - well, then it IS intelligent. And what occurred within only 20 minutes of the Big Bang beginning checks every possible checkbox we consider of created / resulting things requiring an intelligence. Non-intelligent things simply cannot do such. And no one has any reason whatsoever to believe they can.

Even if you deny that Intelligent "force" was the God of the Bible, or if you assert the universe itself simply has this astonishing intelligence - at least then you aren't denying the obviousness that the Big Bang required an intelligence. But the bigger question is, what is the identity of that intelligence? And if it's not a thinking being - the only thing we otherwise know of that has or can utilize intelligence, or make things requiring it, then you're right back to the absurdity of non-intelligent things acquiring intelligence. Can ANYTHING without consciousness and awareness (essentially like rocks), given enough time, learn to do calculus?

[Morny]

[... non-answer of my question responding to your paragraph containing a mocking emoji ...]

As a simple start to form a basis for mutual agreement, would you agree that physics has a clear understanding of the path from the emergence of that quark-gluon plasma to the generation of almost all the elements in the periodic table generated from the first few generations of stars?

[Philip]

Morny: As a simple start to form a basis for mutual agreement, would you agree that physics has a clear understanding of the path from the emergence of that quark-gluon plasma to the generation of almost all the elements in the periodic table generated from the first few generations of stars?

LOL, so right off, you attempt to bog me down in highly technical science, but you can't explain how any of the first 20 minutes of the Big Bang could happen by chance and without an intelligence behind it? One does not need to be a physicist to understand that just the right things of massive complexity (and the necessary conditions) didn't just happen to appear and then begin organizing themselves instantly, with mind-blowing orchestration and precision on a massive scale. Cut to the chase - do you believe that non-intelligent, "blind" things have such capabilities? HOW? WHY? Or do you just believe the universe itself is a thinking, intelligent entity? Were the origins of such things eternal? As, "Here's what happened" does not explain why or how it did! And what happened requires an intelligent source!

Listen, this isn't my first rodeo with people asserting things they have absolutely no idea about, but yet believe them possible. Talking about processes after they had already come into existence, as absurd as it is to think they orchestrated a universe's elemental building blocks in the time of a short lunch break, that's impossible enough. But how did these many, extraordinary things first come into existence at all - and from what source and cause? Did they create themselves? There is an immense range of problems that need explaining that you have no idea about, and you want me to discuss quark gluon plasma? LOL Explain the source of all, where the obvious intelligence it required came from, and whether you believe such things were eternal. Or how non-intelligent things obtained intelligence? From WHAT? How? And as man has been pondering such things for thousands of years, I don't think you have the answer using pointless science-speak (which, btw, science cannot test beyond the physical. And yet, before the Big Bang, even particles did not yet exist).

[Kenny]

So, it came to be only when living creatures came to be?

Yes; only after living creatures came to be.

So the properties of what it is to be intelligent existed in living creatures?

Eventually; yes.

What do you mean eventually?
They eventually came into being ?

I mean the living creatures were not always intelligent and conscious but eventually evolved to become that way

[PaulSacramento]

Yes; only after living creatures came to be.

So the properties of what it is to be intelligent existed in living creatures?

Eventually; yes.

What do you mean eventually?
They eventually came into being ?

I mean the living creatures were not always intelligent and conscious but eventually evolved to become that way

So, intelligence came into being when humans became intelligent?

[Kenny]

So the properties of what it is to be intelligent existed in living creatures?

Eventually; yes.

What do you mean eventually?
They eventually came into being ?

I mean the living creatures were not always intelligent and conscious but eventually evolved to become that way

So, intelligence came into being when humans became intelligent?

What do you mean by "came into being"?

[Morny]

LOL, so right off, you attempt to bog me down in highly technical science, [...]

Just the opposite. You're missing my point.

Since Moon-Watcher in "2001 A Space Odyssey", we've wondered about the origin of the universe's incredible complexity. And for tens of thousands of years, we've been explaining seemingly inscrutable phenomena with ever more simple and unifying explanations.

Fast forward to today with our simple equations for each of the 4 forces that govern the evolution of the universe from a nanosecond after the Big Bang through to the evolution of stars, galaxies, planets, mountains, rivers, and life itself. Atheists to Christians should all take pride on the monumental progress of discovering this incredibly simple basis for the development of such mind-boggling complexity 13.7 billion years later. But rather than throw this agnostic a bone, you seem to either not understand or choose not to acknowledge that simple basis.

But, you, I, and many others, justifiably want to know where those simple physics equations come from, and what explains that 1st nanosecond.
Maybe an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-caring God? Sure, why not.
Maybe an indifferent intrinsic property of beingness? Sure, why not.
Maybe another philosophical argument? Sure, why not.
We just don't know ... yet.

Listen, this isn't my first rodeo with people asserting things they have absolutely no idea about, but yet believe them possible.

Listen, this isn't my first rodeo with people asserting things they have absolutely no idea about, but yet believe them possible.

[Philip]

Morny, what I do know is that the Big Bang event had to be started, created, designed by an eternal, INTELLIGENT Source. Non-intelligent things simply cannot do even simple things requiring intelligence - there are zero examples of such. And non-intelligent things do not and cannot seek intelligence, nor do they have any capacity or ability to gain it. And only conscious beings have any level of it. And obviously no physical being was in existence to orchestrate the Big Bang. And though atheists and agnostics may deny this intelligence was the God of the Bible - well, okay, that's something that can reasonably be debated. But you lose all credibility if you deny the Big Bang event required a powerful Superintelligence. And as for just the necessary things needed coming instantly into physical existence without a planning Source selecting, producing, and controlling them - defies all mathematical / statistical probability. Really, what atheists assert is possible is best described as astonishing miracle upon miracle, yet without a god or God. That takes an unreasonable but powerful faith!

[Morny]

Morny, what I do know is that the Big Bang event had to be started, created, designed by an eternal, INTELLIGENT Source. [...] But you lose all credibility if you deny the Big Bang event required a powerful Superintelligence.

Eh? I freely admit that the Christian God may have created the universe - that's the agnostic-monger way (a la "The Chronicles of Riddick").

Non-intelligent things simply cannot do even simple things requiring intelligence - there are zero examples of such.

But what you stubbornly won't admit, even as a possibility, is that after the 1st nanosecond a clockwork universe obeys simple equations (that we have already figured out) up to before life appears anywhere in the universe.

I won't dare ask you admit that intelligent life may also have arose from the clockwork universe, even though the vast majority of relevant scientists see that conclusion as a no-brainer. What will those darn scientists make up next.

[PaulSacramento]

Eventually; yes.

What do you mean eventually?
They eventually came into being ?

I mean the living creatures were not always intelligent and conscious but eventually evolved to become that way

So, intelligence came into being when humans became intelligent?

What do you mean by "came into being"?

It didn't exist before did it ?