The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 647 times Debate No: 64136
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (0)




Few atheists would be stupid enough to consider that there was no causation
for the universe we see.
So, what is the causation that the atheist mind refers to
when it tries to reconcile this internally?
Am I right in thinking the atheist mind must settle on
the last god off the rank (by default), the 'God of Probability'?


Okay first of all, atheists have no god at all... Literally that is as simple as it gets.

The issue of causation is not an atheist's concern. If everything that exists requires a cause, hence a causing agent, then the first thing that was caused could never exist to begin with and thus nothing exist hence all that exists requires no creator. On the other hand, if you assert that God is the creator of all that exists then since God is not considered part of that which exists, God does not exist.

If you assert that God is a self-generated entity, atheists can easily rebut that this is exactly who they see reality (self-sufficient in origin).

Mathematics is a system we use to calculate things and quantify the answer. It has no other significance to atheists.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for the uptake and comments.

Well everything has a cause. except the uncreated.
Beauty is an example of the uncreated, as is the creator(if one exists).

Atheists may think they have no god at all but they are assigned one by default by the
analytical philosopher.
When the atheist in muse thinks of a god (of causation) to reconcile his existence internally
do they come upon an empty black shadow = no record of any fact OR opinion about this most
pressing subject?

No - It is not blank (no God) as atheists would have you think. They are merely not being honest in the translation
of their muse to others.
For it is impossible to hold 2 conflicting ideas at the same time (unless you have been subject to trance).
So you look at creation and think there is no creator, that would require hypnosis or an internal lie
would be lived out each day.

Much atheism in the west is anti Christian or Muslim sentiment.
Many align their belief about a creator based on the default negative methodology of classic science
as a mechanism to promote their atheism. But the human mind is not a methodology.

But with the leap of knowledge provided by quantum mechanics, The issue of causation (god) is back on the table where
previously man did not know subatomic matter exhibits causation.

Thus, a third scenario my opponent may not have yet considered...
What if (at the ultimate level) there was only one type of thing (monism) and they were all identical and they
always existed. Where does that leave the atheist?

I'm an advocate of Panpsychism which is where matter is sentient right down to the leptons, quarks and beyond.
Quantum mechanics shows us that this is the case. That electrons etc. have no choice - but to have a choice
about the subatomic events that unfold causing us to observe our actuality. Causation is generated within at
the level where energy and matter dissolve into each other.

If this is the God (mechanism of causation) I perceive, how is it different to an atheists (private) reconciliation
of causation. Are atheists Pan-psychics or if not what is the difference between our belief sets?

If atheists do not believe in causation at this quantum level then all they are left with, it would seem is the
increase in complexity we observe is due to the mechanical bumping of one dead molecule into another giving
rise to something animate and conscious. Such reactions are determined by mathematical probability.


Pro states that atheists may think they have no god at all but they are assigned one by default by the
analytical philosopher. This is an unjustified assertion and is an insult to the analytical philosophers who concluded the opposite.

I do not understand the question that Pro asks about atheists imagining god. Atheists do not imagine god because god has no physical form to imagine to begin with. Even theists can't imagine god since imagination only works by simulating one, or more, of the five senses[

I am not sure what context of 'muse' Pro is referring to but it is either an artist's interpretation of a woman or one of the nine artistic or scientific goddesses in Greek or roman mythology [].

Pro argues that it is impossible to hold 2 conflicting ideas at once, yet Theists and deists both believe that God is necessitated by all that exists requiring a creator yet simultaneously assert that God itself requires no creator at all despite existing. This would mean that Pro just told us that all God-believers are in a hypnotic trance, that's some spooky stuff... It's also completely unfounded and has zero evidence to support it.

Pro then asserts that the anti-0theists of Western philosophy are what all atheists in the West must be... This is complete nonsense as anti-theism is a political outlook while atheism is a philosophical one that can coincide with it but not require it. You can have deistic anti-Theists and non-secular atheists who support a political framework base don religious values without believing in the existence of the God that the religion thinks is real.

Quantum physics /mechanics does not need a god at all. Just because Einstein happened to think so proves nothing; it doesn't necessitate a god whatsoever.

The dualistic nature of existence is not atheism vs Theism. Most atheists agree that there is a mental layer to existence which is how consciousness is enabled. This doesn't mean that there needs to be a god, it just means that a God is not impossible and I, myself, am not asserting monism whatsoever.

Unless you can prove that quarks, leptons and the like have consciousness your entire concept of Panpsychism is rendered moot. I will disregard it on grounds of you not having met the BoP in regards to it but if you do prove it, I have further arguments as to why it still has no assertion of a god whatsoever.

Just because mathematical probability can measure how likely it is for an event to happen is irrelevant. People can go all-in on a specific number and color in a roulette game and win. This is very bad mathematically but is reality nonetheless.

There is no god in atheism at all. Pro has yet to meet their burden of proof (BoP).
Debate Round No. 2


OK But my point is what metaphysic do atheists use to reconcile say the
causation of our sun.

What is the process for its existence, that is realised upon by the atheist mind
without any metaphysic selected. If you like what does that default to in terms of our suns
Lets see we have dead matter giving rise to sentient matter?
We have dead insentient matter communicating with sentient matter?

It might sound terribly Aristotle-ean, but if the matter is inherently insentient or non causative
in the mind what physical processes must have occurred to explain the causation of our sun...

Lets see we have
Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism and gravity to explain how the sun was created or anything for that matter.
lot. Plus whatever that which can be borrowed from the quantum universe that does not exhibit any sentience
or subjectivity... which is not much.

The quantum aspects of matter and energy that make matter sentient are as follows:
1. Energy comes in quanta in a universe that is not continuous.
Mechanism (older science as above) cannot be the whole story or the quantum world. Since quantum events only happen
when observed the supposed objectivity of the science that goes hand in hand with that science is compromised.

2. Events not 'things'. Although quantum theory contradicts relativity theory describing gaps rather than a continuum, they both agree that events not things lie at the core of physical reality. A quantum is a packet of action rather than energy in Planck's equation. Events or processes are current understanding. It makes the cosmos a verb not a noun.
The universe is "quantuming" or "cosmosing". (See Whiteheads Post modern cosmology.)
Subjectivity and sentience appear fundamental.

3.Non Causal: Quantum events are non causal. they are inherently unpredictable. To an atheist mind they would appear
utterly random and uncaused and seemingly random. But to the sub molecular particle there is a world of difference.
the quantum even t would be self caused not uncaused.
The notion of quantum choice is supported.As we know on a macro level with mammals etc.
As we know each macro level is composed of hierarchies of lower level micro entities. If the lower level entities were devoid of choice how can we account for the emergence of choice at any level?.

4. Indeterminacy: See Heisenbergs uncertainty principal. The indeterminacy is intrinsic to the quantum events themselves.
Causal determinism gives way to uncertainty built into the structure of reality itself.

5 Complementarity. Defies Aristotle logic. Quantum dualities are not discrete opposites.

6. Quantum Participation. The ideal of mechanistic physics is objectivity or 'plate glass science',
but no such science exists.
The observer is an integral part of the quantum system.

7. Quantum Non Locality. Mechanism cannot be the whole story when quantum events can occur over great distances
at speeds faster than the speed of light.
See French scientist Alain Aspect's work now confirmed.
Quantum events somehow defy the presumed possibility of action at a distance where in relativity this is impossible.

8. Complexity /Chaos theory. All recognise a fundamental inter- relatedness between various parts of a whole system.

Please consider these points a framework for the BOP you consider required.
Happy to elaborate debate any of these points and how they affect the worldview in terms of
the presumption of ontological dualism.

In Summary:
If there were say 999 gods of creation (causation) devised by the human mind, as a panpsychist. (theist), I would claim the God of Nature as what is shown by the great disclosure which is powerful evidence indeed.

That makes me wonder what default mechanism of causation can be claimed by the atheist mind?
As above it cannot be the God of Nature. Atheists must then choose another less sophisticated mechanism of causation to reconcile their physical existence. That of mathematical probability., which is just a part of nature.


I'm at a loss as to where on earth Pro has remotely proven that not only can mathematical probability be a god but that this god is the atheist's god.

What does the sun even have to do with anything? The creation of reality is not the creation of the sun or even related to it. There is no way that mathematical probability created the sun. You can use mathematical probability and combine it with quantum physics to calculate which possible creation is the most likely one to be true but you can't claim that probability itself is the actual creator of everything, that's simply absurd and if any atheist says that they are not only delusional but they are a deist in denial.

Even if events are not 'things' it literally has zero proof of the consciousness of all matter and on top of that energy being continuous whilst the universe is not, whatever that means, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the resolution. What even is the rest of that Round's argumentation? It's nothing to do with the resolution at all.

It's as if we are beginning a whole new debate on the nature of reality or something... Atheists have no god and probability is how you measure the likelihood of outcomes it can't have literally created the whole universe...

Please can you remotely address the resolution.

The only relevant thing to reply to that whole argument is the last paragraph. Pro states that since atheists have no god of nature, they must choose another mechanism to reconcile their physical existence. This is where I shall proceed to wreck both the notion and the link between that and mathematical probability.

First of all, according to atheists, time does not exist liner but is rather a very physical aspect of present reality. In other words, to the atheist the only moment that exist is the present. Everything else is pure perception and subjective nonsense. The universe right now is physically identical to the universe billion years ago. It has the same amount of energy and matter and if it doesn't that's because it's a multiverse and some mater and energy may seep in and out of one, into another. Thus, since time is a far more abstract concept there's no need for a 'first creator' or 'original creation' as really nothing ever changed or altered this is just a constant thing that has always been and will always be.

Second of all, this entire notion of mathematical probability being god is so stupid. Probability was invented by human mathematicians, meaning it has a human creator. How could we have created the original creator that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard in a long time.

This is so futile that Pro should stop trying and I conclude that this resolution is now just pure false.
Debate Round No. 3


Well half the point of this is to explore the atheist belief set.
Unfortunately for atheists a "no Vote" for any God does not remove the need for
them to rationalise causation (how complexity arises).

God then in this context is the agent of causation.
not something arising from nothing but the ongoing causation of complexity we can all see
in very good detail.

If one asked a Christian ... What is the mechanism of causation
They would take great pleasure in explaining genesis and the god of the Christian mind, now tainted by science since

Ask a Panpsychist and I will say claim "the god of nature" as the causative agent in the increase in complexity.
As a result I would deny the Christian claim to the God of Nature since his/her cosmology is at odds with nature,
as an atheist would agree. I say to Christians,,,, Go find another planet or universe where your cosmology holds true
because it is not this one.

Next Ask an atheist and they go all gooey as though someone has no right to enquire what rationality they justify their belief set (re God/causitive agency), except to say it is void because there is no belief in favour of a causative agency,

I call bullsh&ite!
If we go on a little visit to the memory banks of the conscious awareness of the clammiesta ahesit mind, we will see
it is little different to the religious adherents mind as follows:

The ego's memory has two databanks, factual memory and impression memory (opinion /attitude).

In the Christian/ Muslim mind the factual memory of the specific belief set god is blank.
(since the adherent has never met the creator personally).
The impression memory is on the other hand chock with revelations about the intent and general depth knowledge
on the qualities of the creator (according to the belief set).

In the Atheist mind the memory systems are the same deal again since we all share the same biology.
In this mind the impression memory is bound by a covenant ( the skeptics or rationalist (zombie) position.
Such that the impression memory has no outward or public voice (but retains an internal opinion/viewpoint/ attitude.
This fact causes internal disharmony and source of conflict for the false entity (atheist ego).

Notably The Atheist factual memory is full of scientific truths and these are toured for the purposes of
religious and scientific debate (in contrast to most religious views being based in impression memory).

What is the difference between Pan-pychists like myself and atheists ??,
(since we have addressed the problem of the notion that atheists are devoid of a belief set Re creation).

Both have factual memories grounded in modern science but there must be a quantifiable difference!
And that difference is..... in a nut shell he differences I observe as follows:

Atheist :
Monism, dualism etc: Ontological Dualism = Dead insentient matter giving rise to complexity.
Materialism: Yes (absolute)

Monism, dualism etc: Ontological Monism= Mind and matter separate types of things.
=Sentient matter giving rise to complexity.
Materialism: Yes (radical).

And for interests sake:
Christian/Islam :
Monism, dualism etc: Ontological Dualism = Dead insentient matter giving rise to complexity.
with dead insentient matter giving rise to complexity, but god used as a 'go between'.
Materialism: No , Spiritualism.

SUMMARY: Atheism and Panpsychism are different in that:
*Atheist belief set in error mired in 200 odd year old Cartesian materialism when analysed,
from conditioning and peer pressure style from world emergent worldview.
*Atheist catch cry of no belief in a God (agency of causation for increase in complexity) is ridiculous and false.
*Atheists/ materialists take the spirit out of matter and remove the ghost from our machine.
Take away the subjectivity inherent in all matter and all that is left of matter is the probability of a reaction or result
based on the conditions. And the probability of ANOTHER world like ours is calculated at One in many more than the
number of molecules in the universe.
* Similar to my advice to the Abrahamic adherents, Go find a universe /world where your cosmology holds true!
Because it isn't this one!
Atheists/ materialists take the spirit out of matter and remove the ghost from our machine.
Take away the subjectivity inherent in all matter and all that is left of matter is the probability of a reaction or result
based on the conditions. And the probability of ANOTHER world like ours is calculated at One in many more than the
number of molecules in the universe.


Pro argues that atheists need to find the original causation for reality because they do not have God. Theists and deists have never once explained the origin of God and need to find this origin before they even begin to think they are on the same level as atheists when it comes to philosophy.

Mathematical probability cannot be an agent of anything. It is not a thing by which something happens, it is a way of calculating the potential likelihood of what is to come. That is all. As I said, there are many situations in reality where the less probable thing ends up happening and atheists fully accept this. The entire gambling industry wouldn't be so successful if this was not the case.

If one asked a Christian what is the mechanism of causation of God they'd sit and cry and masturbate their banana because their testicles are in too much pain to do it thanks to the logic that just whacked them.

As a panpsychist you can believe whatever your ideology wants to, it still doesn't say a damn thing about those of the atheistic outlook.

God has no causative agent, God has no origin and no creator, thus by the very reasoning that you are using Theists have no God since such a creation requires an explain creator causative agent otherwise it's not possible to believe in it. Good luck changing every Theist's mind on that one.

I'm not going to even address that nonsensical psychoanalysis because it's literally something you made up right now that is not true according to any qualified individual working with psychological sciences.

Yeah, some atheists believe in multi-verses, this really has nothing to do with God at all.
Debate Round No. 4


kebomystic forfeited this round.


Imperfiect forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 1 year ago
Personally l feel atheists and my man con are worse than pugs> Since the whiteman thinks his God himself,he can never believe a God exists. These influences scientifically come from demonic realms trying to support satanic values to demoralize and destroy communities! Even Satan himself doesn't want you to believe he exists! So also my man( Imperfiect) Con denies Jesus Christ, Himself con is possessed by demons on a mission to mislead humankind from ever lasting life. Con uses his imaginations to wank! rather than adding spiritual value to his imaginations!
Posted by mightbenihilism 1 year ago
Very interesting, kebomystic. This is a definitely more fascinating topic than the tired debates about the Trinity or the existence of God.

As I see it, a position that holds to an immaterial consciousness needs some verifiable evidence that consciousness can perform activities or receive information beyond material limitations. I know there have been many studies in PSI (psychic) phenomena, but though they have initial promise, it seems that replication by other scientists reveals less than stellar results (i.e. non repeatability). Theorizing is interesting but some hard facts are necessary, I think. It wouldn't prove consciousness at the level of quantum phenomena, necessarily, but it would increase the likelihood that such might be the case --- at least on my initial, caffeinated analysis.
Posted by mightbenihilism 1 year ago

I think we agree, in part. Here's a better explanation of Schopenhuer:

Ordinary cognition, according to Schopenhauer, is bound up with the individual's will, that is to say, with one's generally egoistic strivings, and is subordinate to the four forms of the "principle of sufficient reason" (PSR), the principle which holds that nothing is without a reason for why it is. The PSR is Schopenhauer's formulation of the ways in which human beings cognitively condition the world of representation. It includes space, time and causality, as well as psychological, logical and mathematical forms of explanation. By contrast, aesthetic experience consists in the subject's achieving will-less [willenlos] perception of the world. In order for the subject to attain such perception, her intellect must cease viewing things in the ordinary way"relationally and ultimately in relation to one's will"she must "stop considering the Where, When, Why and Wherefore of things but simply and exclusively consider the What". In other words, will-less perception is perception of objects simply for the understanding of what they are essentially, in and for themselves, and without regard to the actual or possible relationships those phenomenal objects have to the striving self. Schopenhauer characterizes the subject who has aesthetic experience as the "pure subject of cognition."

The issue is how this "will-less" comes about, or why humans evolved for it to. Why is a storm as beautiful as a serene lake? Or why is a jewel-like pebble as beautiful as the orb of the Moon? I would say because they are less conceptual. The human mind, in contrast, is never beautiful, and is a pit of abject ugliness. But why should conceptual thought be reduces when beholding certain natural objects? Because they are inevitable and invariable, I say. The ego "rolls over", like a dog, and exposes its belly to them.
Posted by Imperfiect 1 year ago
you two need to just shut up and dance to this:
Posted by kebomystic 1 year ago
Might be ..
Thats quite a random metaphysic... that when we (the ego) cease to feel the will to survive (death?).
I would call it (fear of certain death of ego) a very real realisation of the reflective mind and a central
factor in the handling of that fact in terms of preservation of sanity.

Like the dog submitting in your example, the mind will give up personal responsibility for reasonable thinking in a myriad of unconscious programming held resident by the Ego.
(Ego defined here as: I aware of my experience).

Re: the beauty in the landscape you mention: When we feel a deep down joy emanating from inside us when we are lost in the beauty of a sunset or beautiful beach scene. Then a trivial detail from our ego
e.g. work money whatever takes over our only drive. Blah blah process process,

YOU look back to the scene to find the feeling again but it is absent.
Beauty is present as it always is but you are absent, chained by ego mostly into the past or future.
Never in the unfolding moment where beauty presides, outside of time. (conscious awareness).

Egoic consciousness is only "out of control' when it is not being internally observed by the 'silent watcher' which means the world is always pretty much out of control since very few would entertain the existence of such an agency in their being.

Saying that conscious awareness having control of the being is NOT a wise thing for the individual or
the human race but it is the way it is for the 99 odd percent that yet failed realise we are not separate to anything. It is a bad personal choice in a Y node of evolution. (our psychogenesis).

Posted by mightbenihilism 1 year ago
I subscribe to the Schopenhaurean aesthetic of beauty, defining it as that moment when we cease to feel the ever-gnawing will to survive. Oftentimes the mind does this when it is confronted by something more powerful than itself, as when a dog rolls over and exposes its belly to a more dominant dog. So too, when we see a beautiful landscape, we're aware that it can easily kill us and so we "roll over", unconsciously, and the will to survive flees us momentarily, allowing us to witness a pre-linguistic level to consciousness. Beauty is accident of cowardice, I mean.

We may feel this when beholding the complexity of nature, but I am suspicious of a true, objective beauty, or objective intentionality. Looking at the clouds, I can pick out faces, rhinoceroses, and other beasts, but I suspect that it is because I am superimposing myself upon them, rather than beholding them for what they are.

As to consciousness being inherent to the cosmos itself, what I fear is this: how are we certain that we are not imagining a human quality in an inhuman element? Quantum articles may perform actions which appear intentional, but this may also mean that time and space are non-existent (or greatly altered) at the deeper levels of reality.
Posted by kebomystic 1 year ago
Mightb.Could be...

Re Ducks.

As I said somewhere lately... Beauty is uncreated... it just is,
An inherent property of the ability of DNA to survive time and strive where possible toward
increasing complexity.
I see beauty in the displays of life generally, perhaps you can too?
Or as an atheist/skeptic are you immune to the meaning of it outwardly?
As you may be aware, humans have a dual honesty... the difference between
what e profess publicly and who we really are behind closed door or in private muse
which is mostly imagination (opinion). My point here is that it does not take any special skill to be a skeptic outwardly and is probably a wise strategy for sorting out the chaff from the wheat.
Posted by mightbenihilism 1 year ago

My main problem with the idea of a creator is when I first realized what ducks were. They are such absurd animals that it is almost impossible to imagine a God making them. One time I was feeding them garlic croutons at the park, and I was surrounded by maybe twenty or thirty of them, all fat & honking, waddling around, shuffling their ridiculous tails, and it struck me that existence was indeed a total accident, born of a perfectly random and inconsequential blank (the Chinese wu), without any mind directing it at all. When I later saw a nature documentary upon how ducks mate, it only confirmed my suspicisons. Since then I have been trying to spread the word to many believers that ducks disprove God, but most just don't see it. I talked to some Mormon missionaries and they even said ducks prove God because they are "wonderfully made"! I say that boy needs to drink some coffee!

Anyway, I thought you should know.
Posted by Atmas 1 year ago
-To Pro's last round- ...umm, yup. That's what scientifically aligned atheists believe for the most part. Though you're attacking a strawman if you think that Atheist=Science=Naturalism etc. Science is separate from unbelief in a divine creator, as it only describes the natural world mathematically and logically. If a person decides that a divine creator is unnecessary because science is a sufficient explanation, then that is that persons choice, it is not the fault of science or the burden of science to be an explanation or alternative.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
First of all, the First Intention-Giver Argument is not the equivalent of the question "what caused God ?". We accept that the god of Christianity has no cause, but his intentionalities must have some cause. God could very well exist without any intentionalities, indeed this would seem to be God"s natural state. What, therefore, started God"s intentionalities ? This is the question we must answer. Another possible objection would be to say that God"s intentionalities have no beginning. But this entails infinite regress, which is unacceptable. God"s intentionalities must have a beginning, and therefore a cause. Now, just as we can determine the attributes of the Creator by looking at the limits of the universe, we can determine the attributes of this FI by looking at the limits of God. What are the limits of God ? Well, God is not material, caused, or temporal (one can argue that he was such in Jesus, but reconciling the Trinity with basic logic is an insurmountable obstacle to this line of reasoning). God is also not the origin of his own intentionalities, therefore the FI must be an intentionality that originates God"s intentionalities, and therefore God"s actions. We know that the only material intentionalities that we know are those of human minds. And there is only one faculty of the human mind that can affect the supernatural, and that is the imagination " by imagining supernatural actions. Therefore, our conclusion is that God"s actions are caused by the human imagination. QED.
No votes have been placed for this debate.