Strong Atheism?

Hello Algebe!

The problem is the assumption that science can ever answer the following question:

  • ‘Was the universe a creation’

IE was the universe created by something external to the universe(=spacetime)?

Well of course from within spacetime, we will never, ever, be able to tell!

So strong atheism is therefore an illogical and unscientific position - one cannot profess to certainty on a question that we can never collect any imperial data for and cannot even formulate theories for - that would be deeply illogical.


Oh dear! You mistake my intentions entirely! I am not a religious man, I am merely pointing out the indeterminable nature of the question:

‘Was the universe a creation?’

No human can, and no human ever will be able to answer that question. And if the answer is yes, that implies some sort of ‘bare-bones’ God.

Hence I maintain that strong atheism is a deeply illogical position.

Theism pretends to answer that question by saying, with absolutely no empirical or logical basis, that god did it. Theists compound this fallacy by making up all kinds of information about their supposed god, including his plans, likes and dislikes, family relationships, and even facial hair. It’s a fantasy reinforced by authority, indoctrination, and violence. There is no reason to accept it.

That is also an illogical and unscientific position akin to Lord Kelvin’s claim that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible, and Einstein’s prediction that nuclear power was impossible.


No, the only conclusion one can reach is that the universe was created. To inject a god is not allowing for other explanations. I could imply many other explanations. The universe was created by pixie farts. The universe was created by an ultra-intelligent and advanced alien youngster in a school project. The universe was created as a result of breaking off from another greater cosmos in another “dimension”. Each of those hypothesis are just as valid as a “god”.


That is not the position of an agnostic. We do not know if that answer will be found, or not.

1 Like

Uh, no…

Where did you get your degree in cosmology. Do you know what an unfounded assertion is? The fact that we do not yet know, does not mean that we will never know.

WTF? Your assertion has nothing at all to do with Atheism. Atheists don’t know anything about the origin of the universe and the origin of the universe, as far as anyone knows, has nothing to do with a God. If you think it does, why not post some evidence?

Atheism is the rejection of God claims based on the lack of evidence. Most atheists are agnostic atheists; however, they will take up anti-theist positions once a god has been defined.

(EDIT) The anti-theist position is completely logical and easily evidenced once a specific god has been defined. I can say with certainty that a God who is both Just and Merciful does not exist. Mercy is a suspension of Justice. This god is not real. This god can be merciful or just but not both.

1 Like

That would depend whether the question being asked is unfalsifiable, biblical and koranic creationism have already been falsified by evolution.

As is theism, if the god claim is unfalsifiable. If it is not then theists must demonstrate some objective evidence to support it.

I think you mean empirical data, and one cannot profess ANYTHING on a question that is unfalsifiable. So just why anyone would believe an unfalsifiable god claim is baffling, I mean do they believe all unfalsifiable claims, and if not then what’s their criteria for disbelief of all the other unfalsifiable claims?

That’s a bold claim, how do you profess to know this?

No it absolutely does not, that’s pure unevidenced assumption.

1 Like

One of the reasons I regard this question as loaded, is because inevitably, the word ‘creation’ is peddled here by mythology fanboys, with the intent of asserting that the universe was poofed into existence by their cartoon magic men from their pre-scientific mythologies. But that’s all they ever do - assert this. Frequently accompanying said assertion with duplicitous treatment of science as a branch of apologetics.

On the other hand, those of us who paid attention in physics classes, recognise that there exists a multiplicity of options for the instantiation of the observable universe, involving testable natural processes, as presented in relevant papers in the field of cosmological physics. Apparently you’re unaware of this.

Those papers I’ve just mentioned from the field of cosmological physics make a mockery of your above assertion. Indeed, in the past, I’ve presented a detailed exposition of two of those papers, which not only provide a testable natural process for the purpose of instantiating the observable universe, but provide three elegant features, viz:

[1] The process in question provides a mechanism for the donation of energy to the universe being instantiated, facilitating matter synthesis;

[2] The process in question eliminates the singularity problem from standard Big Bang cosmology;

[3] The process in question leaves in its wake physical evidence of its occurrence, in the form of a particular power spectrum of primordial gravitational waves.

In the case of [3] above, the moment scientists detect primordial gravitational waves, and find the predicted power spectrum, the authors of the two papers in question pick up a Nobel Prize.

No it doesn’t, for the reasons I’ve given above.

Strong atheism fails to be rigorous, but that’s a completely different failure from being illogical. Furthermore, if cosmological physicists succeed in demonstrating that a testable natural process is sufficient to explain the origin of the observable universe as we see it, then strong atheism enjoys far more support than “Magic Man did it”.

You obviously have much to learn here.

Agree here. Certainly at this point, no human can answer that. Maybe one day in the future as we humans continue to evolve.

Can you agree strong theism is also a deeply illogical position?

I consider myself a strong atheist. Do I know for sure if there was (or not) some sort of creating entity that deserve the very broad/vague title of “god”? No, that would be silly.


How strongly are you an atheist towards PooPu the rainbow farting unicorn god I “think” I just made up? What about 1000 different unnamed gods I just made up in my head as I write this sentence?

Why not be highly, HIGHLY! skeptical towards some random god idea that there is zero evidence for? Just like the skepticism for the above god ideas I just generated? They are all equal in terms of “likelihood” to be reality instead of human imagination.

All of them have the same basic level of “real” evidence available to justify these random ideas of god I just made up.

I consider myself a strong atheist because I dismiss all random unevidenced human imagination ideas as a possible reality until there is some actual, repeatable, testable evidence for them. If I did not, I would have to accept the possibility that PooPu might be the creator of everything just as much any any other human created idea.

Absolutely NO REASON to have any confidence in any of them… pretty simple concept.

Oh…and ideas written “signed by god” (hahahahaha sorry “inspired”, my bad) or like good ole’ Joseph Smith’s so called vision and plates (mind you, he did get his three witnesses) … is no more valid than my writing or yours, @logic or a hypothesis …

Yeah, it gets especially heinous when people want to accept their peer given as a child, god idea, and then ALSO accept the obviously human created scribblings on said god idea, and then accept said obviously human scribblings as “evidence” for the god idea.

Humans using fanciful, feel good lies, to control other humans. If only we humans learned to require real evidence instead of just talk! Something many folks never learn, via an education system that eithir embraces these mythologies or tries to skirt around it and avoid explaining that no evidenced based ideas are just “hot air.”

1 Like

So how do you propose we employ the scientific method to conclusively demonstrate that:

‘The universe is not a creation’

I am quite certain that no member of the human race can, and ever will, be in a position to profess certainty on such a question.

That implies that the strong atheist position is inherently illogical and unscientific.

I certainly concur on that - talking snakes! - people with wings growing out of their backs! - utter bollocks!

  • That is my point, strong atheism is an absolute assertion of the non-existence of any god/god-like creature. That equates to proving the universe is not a creation. Thats impossible to do - hence strong atheism is not a logical position.

Can you prove you are a human being? No.
So following your lead: it is illogical to believe you are a human being.

Hello Calilasseia!

But none of those options are outright provable - we can fundamentally never tell the cause of the Big Bang because that cause must be external to space time. So the question: ‘Was the universe created?’ is unanswerable - neither science or logic can answer that question - hence strong atheism is an illogical and unscientific position to hold.

You are frankly insane if you think mere humans can accurately compute what happened 14 billion years ago.

You are missing the point -

I do not claim outright that I am a human being. How could I ever be sure of that?

But strong atheists claim outright that the universe was not a creation. How could they ever be 100% sure of that?

Hence strong atheism is a logically unsound position to hold.

Well this forum is for human beings only.

Again you’re making a claim concerning the outer limits of human knowledge without any evidence.

1 Like