How I rationalize my atheism

[Kharisym]

Definitions:
God: An intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Force: A non-intelligent thing outside our universe with some power over our universe
Universe: The region of existence with laws and structures contiguous with what we experience on earth--then can expand beyond the observable universe
Extraverse: Anything that is outside our universe, differentiated from a multiverse in that it does not make claims about the existence or not of additional universes. The extraverse can be null, in which there is nothing beyond our universe

Groundwork for my assumptions:

1) The extraverse can be any conceivable or inconceivable state of structure, laws, or existence
a) All measurements and verifiable experiences we have access to originate from inside this universe
b) Without some mechanism of measuring what's outside our universe, we cannot empirically discriminate between true and false claims regarding the extraverse
c) Because what exists outside our universe exists outside all laws and structures of our universe, the extraverse is not bound by the laws and observations of our universe

2) We can apply logic to the extraverse
a.I) All logic we have has been performed within our universe
a.II) All logic we've been able to verify has only be verified against our universe
a.III) However, we have no indications that logic itself is bound specifically to the laws or state of our universe

b.I) Any logical claim is logical within this universe
b.II) Any illogical claim contains aspects that are self negating
b.III) Any logical claim that could potentially exist outside our universe but not in our universe would be self negating
b.IV) If a logical claim is self negating then it isn't true
b.V) If a logical claim isn't true, then it cannot be a positive description of the system it represents
b.VI) If a logical claim cannot be a positive description of a system it represents, then no system can be represented by an illogical claim
b.VII) Therefore, no state of existence can exist that does not follow the basic guidelines of logic, this includes the extraverse

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

3) Since we cannot know or measure what the extraverse is or composed of, but we can apply logic to the extraverse, then claims about what exists outside the universe can only be assessed and compared based entirely on the properties of those claims.

The argument:

The universe could have been created by a force, god, or nothing.

Nothing and force will be lumped into the catchall 'natural' simply as a convenience to differentiate it from a god. This does not imply that a natural cause of the universe has any relationship to anything natural within our universe

Because the extraverse could be anything with any set of laws, any mechanism employed by a natural cause could be employed by a godly cause, and vice versa

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

If all mechanisms are equally plausible between godly and natural things, the only discriminating factor between natural and godly causes is the possession of intelligence

Since all mechanisms of creation are equally possible regardless of intelligence or non-intelligence, then intelligence becomes an extraneous, unnecessary claim

Per Occam's razor, we can establish that since intelligence is an unnecessary claim, this represents an unnecessary increase in complexity, therefore making the thing without intelligence the more likely cause

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe

Criticisms and Opinions?

 

[PureX]

It looks to me, at a glance, like an intellectual version of that old sidewalk game of cups. Which cup is the ball under, now? Or in this case , which label are we applying to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, today? "God" (intelligence), "force" (random happenstance), or "nothing" (unknowable).

The "extraverse" is just an expansion of existence beyond the physical universe. It's mostly a semantic clarification. That's fine, but doesn't really tell us anything.

The mystery remains a mystery.

 

[paradox]

Any mechanism of creation is equally possible between the natural and godly categories because with no boundaries on the physics or structure of the extraverse, any conceivable structure of these mechanisms can be utilized by both natural and godly things.

Problem is that you're making a proposition on something for which we don't know is real.
Any propositions that follow on this one are thus baseless.

This is similar to "The fallacy of appeal to authority"
Argument and Argumentation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Your "Groundwork" portion needs to be shortened and more clear, I would exclude logic portion because these things should be self-explanatory.

Extraverse (at least for me) makes sense only if it's NULL, and by null I mean "nothing" according to the theory of nothing:
Nothing - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Criticisms and Opinions?

In my view it over complicates things with a few a ? b : s (if then else) ideas.

My rationalisation is more in line with the definition of atheist : someone who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So far there had been no falsifiable evidence presented of a god despite literally billions of people over ten thousand years making claims.
In the same way there is no falsifiable evidence for invisible pink polka dot unicorns and leprechauns. For that reason i don't believe any gods, unicorns or leprechauns exist.

 

[Kharisym]

Problem is that you're making a proposition on something for which we don't know is real.
Any propositions that follow on this one are thus baseless.

This is similar to "The fallacy of appeal to authority"
Argument and Argumentation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Your "Groundwork" portion needs to be shortened and more clear, I would exclude logic portion because these things should be self-explanatory.

Extraverse (at least for me) makes sense only if it's NULL, and by null I mean "nothing" according to the theory of nothing:
Nothing - Wikipedia

"Problem is that you're making a proposition on something for which we don't know is real. Any propositions that follow on this one are thus baseless"
Aside from the anything following being baseless, I think that's my exact point. We don't know anything about the extraverse, but we can apply logic to claims about it. The specific part you quoted is to defend against claims that certain mechanisms of creation lend themselves more to a god or force. I liken this to having two cups and a marble. We don't know the sorting mechanism putting the marble in a cup (The mechanism is the laws and structure of the extraverse), and even if the marble is a strange shape it doesn't cause it to be preferential to either cup because the sorting mechanism could negate that preference.

I don't really know how you apply appeal to authority fallacy. I don't reference any authorities in my argument? Did you mean a different fallacy?

Per the logic portion, I actually consider that to be the weakest claim. I came up with this argument applying a similar process as how Descarte came up with 'I think, therefore I am'. I tried to reduce the claims regarding the extraverse to the minimum that could be supported, then establish claims about God's existence based on those minimal constraints. An argument can be made that logic doesn't necessarily apply to the extraverse (Maybe 1+1 doesn't equal 2) so I felt I needed to really go over that hard.

 

[dybmh]

The argument hinges on occam's razor; but occam's razor's accuracy is not discussed.

 

[Kharisym]

The argument hinges on occam's razor; but occam's razor's accuracy is not discussed.

Can you expand on that? The only criticism I know of is Ockham's claim that it doesn't apply to God, but that caveat wasn't supported and from what I see is generally dismissed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Therefore a natural cause is the most likely answer for the origin of the universe. Criticisms and Opinions?

What you gave is closer to my argument for agnosticism than atheism. I claim both, incidentally (agnostic atheist). My atheism doesn't need justification. It is a statement that I have not been persuaded that gods exist.

My agnosticism is based in my inability to rule either the naturalistic or supernaturalistic version of reality in or out. I agree that the the former is orders of magnitude more parsimonious and therefore more likely to be correct, but that just allows me to order the options, not declare either correct or incorrect.

Also, I like the term nature to refer to the collection of objects and processes capable of interacting with one another. That's also my definition of reality, with those interacting entities being real, distinct from things said to exist outside of time and space and undetectable in principle, not merely contingently, as if a better detector might some day arrive that can detect it. If one wants to conceive of an "extraverse" that is causally disconnected from our reality, it is not part of nature and can be treated the same as all things believed to not exist, since the descriptions of the nonexistent and the undetectable are identical.

 

[HonestJoe]

Criticisms and Opinions?

Just a question. Why do you feel the need rationalise your atheism. You just don't believe in any gods. What is there to rationalise?

 

[dybmh]

Can you expand on that? The only criticism I know of is Ockham's claim that it doesn't apply to God, but that caveat wasn't supported and from what I see is generally dismissed.

Is simpler always better? I'm thinking no. A story, for example, doesn't fit with the simplest solution is always preferred. It is my view that God creates this existence like an author writes a story. So Im not sure if occam's razor applies here. But I could be convinced otherwise.

 

[Kharisym]

What you gave is closer to my argument for agnosticism than atheism. I claim both, incidentally (agnostic atheist). My atheism doesn't need justification. It is a statement that I have not been persuaded that gods exist.

My agnosticism is based in my inability to rule either the naturalistic or supernaturalistic version of reality in or out. I agree that the the former is orders of magnitude more parsimonious and therefore more likely to be correct, but that just allows me to order the options, not declare either correct or incorrect.

That's a fair point. I have a whole other treatise on how I differentiate atheism and agnosticism, but what it boils down to is that I don't believe *anything* can be proven to 100%. There is always some possibility that any belief I hold is wrong because I don't possess all knowledge. Given this, I define 'knowing' something as having an extremely high probability of being true. I believe atheism possesses an extremely high probability of being true, therefore I am atheist. If I thought the chances were very similar, then I'd be agnostic.

Also, I like the term nature to refer to the collection of objects and processes capable of interacting with one another. That's also my definition of reality, with those interacting entities being real, distinct from things said to exist outside of time and space and undetectable in principle, not merely contingently, as if a better detector might some day arrive that can detect it. If one wants to conceive of an "extraverse" that is causally disconnected from our reality, it is not part of nature and can be treated the same as all things believed to not exist, since the descriptions of the nonexistent and the undetectable are identical.

I used the term nature to keep to familiar language in these debates, but added that caveat that it does not relate to nature within our universe. I could have used another term but it's already a very complicated argument and I didn't see any need to add that hitch to it too.

 

[Kharisym]

Just a question. Why do you feel the need rationalise your atheism. You just don't believe in any gods. What is there to rationalise?

I like to have a rational basis for my beliefs as much as is feasible, and try to keep self consistency within those beliefs. Therefore I feel I need to rationalize my atheism. I think it would be pretty silly and foolhardy for me to say I'm an atheist and not have a rational basis to that belief.

 

[Heyo]

c.I) Godel's incompleteness theorem states that no logical system can be entirely self consistent
c.II) Godel's incompleteness theorem is, itself a logical claim
c.III) Godel's incompleteness theorem shows no indications that it is bound specifically to this universe
c.IV) Therefore Godel's incompleteness theorem does not bind logic specifically to this universe

That is not entirely correct.
Gödel's theorems apply only to systems powerful enough to make statements about themself.
Gödel shows that such a system is necessarily incomplete - not that it is inconsistent.

 

[Kharisym]

Is simpler always better? I'm thinking no. A story, for example, doesn't fit with the simplest solution is always preferred. It is my view that God creates this existence like an author writes a story. So Im not sure if occam's razor applies here. But I could be convinced otherwise.

Occam's razor is a logical tool and applies to comparative claims, not stories. You are right it'd probably make a terribly dull story, but until it can be shown that we live in a story then it seems foolhardy for me to treat reality like its a story.

 

[paradox]

The specific part you quoted is to defend against claims that certain mechanisms of creation lend themselves more to a god or force.

The portion I quoted can be understood as
We don't know anything about extraverse so any force is possible.
which is tautology: Tautology (logic) - Wikipedia
Because you can say the reverse with same result, ex. we don't know origin of force (god or nature) so extraverse is possible (since god is not excluded)

I don't really know how you apply appeal to authority fallacy. I don't reference any authorities in my argument?

Your first premise requires one to accept it as truth in order for premises that follow to be true as well,
otherwise if not, premises that follow can be false, this is why I said it's similar (not necessarily same) as "The fallacy of appeal to authority"

An argument can be made that logic doesn't necessarily apply to the extraverse

I don't think this would be useful.

~~~

If you want to prove nature over god, I would simply replace extraverse with theory of nothing, because you could logically exclude god and limit all to nature.

 

[dybmh]

Occam's razor is a logical tool and applies to comparative claims, not stories. You are right it'd probably make a terribly dull story, but until it can be shown that we live in a story then it seems foolhardy for me to treat reality like its a story.

Does occam's razor apply to all comparitive claims? If so, it would be good imho to include this in your argument. If not, it would be good to show why it applies in this context.

 

[Kharisym]

The portion I quoted can be understood as
We don't know anything about extraverse so any force is possible.
which is tautology: Tautology (logic) - Wikipedia
Because you can say the reverse with same result, ex. we don't know origin of force (god or nature) so extraverse is possible (since god is not excluded)


Your first premise requires one to accept it as truth in order for premises that follow to be true as well,
otherwise if not, premises that follow can be false, this is why I said it's similar (not necessarily same) as "The fallacy of appeal to authority"


I don't think this would be useful.

~~~

If you want to prove nature over god, I would simply replace extraverse with theory of nothing, because you could logically exclude god and limit all to nature.

I'll need to think more about your first two points to assess if I agree with them and if I should rethink things to account for those criticisms. Thank you. I know its a little bit unsatisfying for me to say "I'll think about it" but sadly I move slow when considering changes to my thinking and beliefs.

Per logic not applying outside our universe, that would be useful. If logic can be shown not to apply outside our universe, that'd probably make me an agnostic instead because then *nothing* could be said about the nature of the universe's creation.

Replacing extraverse with theory of nothing would negate my entire definition of extraverse. A multiverse could exist inside the extraverse, but it also may not. Its a term chosen specifically because it makes no claims regarding what's outside the universe, nor does it come with any preconceptions.

 

[Kharisym]

That is not entirely correct.
Gödel's theorems apply only to systems powerful enough to make statements about themself.
Gödel shows that such a system is necessarily incomplete - not that it is inconsistent.

That's a fair criticism. I'll need to consider how it effects my logic later. If logic itself is a system and its trying to state that it, itself applies outside the universe, does incompleteness render that claim impossible to prove? Its an interesting question.

If incompleteness undermines that premise and nothing else can support it, then the entirety of my argument implodes.

 

[Kharisym]

Does occam's razor apply to all comparitive claims? If so, it would be good imho to include this in your argument. If not, it would be good to show why it applies in this context.

Someone else might correct me on this, but I believe it does apply to all comparative claims. Its just that its not necessary to apply it to all comparative claims. If knowledge of the system renders one claim more likely than the other, then Occam's razor could be applied but why would you?

 

[paradox]

I'll need to think more about your first two points to assess if I agree with them and if I should rethink things to account for those criticisms. Thank you. I know its a little bit unsatisfying for me to say "I'll think about it" but sadly I move slow when considering changes to my thinking and beliefs.

Per logic not applying outside our universe, that would be useful. If logic can be shown not to apply outside our universe, that'd probably make me an agnostic instead because then *nothing* could be said about the nature of the universe's creation.

Replacing extraverse with theory of nothing would negate my entire definition of extraverse. A multiverse could exist inside the extraverse, but it also may not. Its a term chosen specifically because it makes no claims regarding what's outside the universe, nor does it come with any preconceptions.

Probably the best advice for such theories is "keep it simple stupid"
KISS principle - Wikipedia