Peter Atkins - Arguments Against God?

Theists must consider arguments against God. They should assess both the strong attacks of atheists and the counterattacks of scholarly believers who try to rebut non-believers. Belief in God is too important to be determined by default cultural circumstances. Arguments are a hedge against naive assumptions about reality.

Peter William Atkins FRSC is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. He retired in 2007. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics. Atkins is also the author of a number of popular science books, including "Atkins' Molecules" and "Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science and On Being".

Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[methodsocratic]

One of the most compelling arguments I’ve heard against the classic, particularly (but not limited to) Christian God is the conflict between His three supposed primary characteristics:

God can’t be omniscient, omnipotent & benevolent: at least through a logical framework, any combination of two of these aspects prevents the 3rd.

Obv I grant that “God” can have quite a few (& perhaps entirely subjective?) definitions, & that logical proofs & faith are inherently antithetical.

[MrWhytewlf]

God exists and there is evidence for him everywhere.

[audiosounddoctor]

To say that there is no God and to think that everything was created by chance is extreme naivety. If you cannot see that nothing comes into existence by chance and that everything we see and have exists because of a superhuman power that created it, then I don’t know what to say.

[Gjerrild]

The Bible, especially the OT, is a collection of books reflecting a development in their understanding of God and relationship

[drawnmyattention]

No supernatural explanation has ever replaced a natural, scientific explanation. The reverse has occurred relentlessly.

[bobpalka]

When asked "do you believe in God" my quick response is to ask describe God. WELL YOU KNOW GOD. No I don't know God. I've yet to get a satisfying answer.

[browngreen]

I would submit that our understanding of Existence doesn't allow for God: an immaterial being outside of space and time, yet is also omnipotent, omnipresent, perfectly good and the creator of everything, including presumably, God himself. 😮

[FrankiePanaia]

I listened to Atkins for the first 5 minutes, and 'know' I dumber for it.

[dougsmith]

All arguments for God are arguments from design, by definition. So, to me, it's not so much about God's existence, but about God's necessity. If God isn't necessary (to create some aspect of "existence" or another), God becomes functionally indistinguishable from irrelevant.

[Gjerrild]

How can matter, creation come to understand itself?

[SandipChitale]

Most believers of religion A are effortlessly atheistic relative to gods of religion B. The same atheistic attitude could be added up across all religions to give a sum of 0. If one religion claims only their god is true, the same can be said by other religion, no? All religions should sort out amongst themselves about which god(s), and then it makes sense to begin to talk about arguments for or against that idea. So, in other words, this is a a first order issue between various religions.

[hvglaser]

There’s no evidence for the existence of god. Next question, please.

[MrWhytewlf]

He starts off saying that he doesn't believe in God because there is no evidence for God but then goes on to speculate about other theories which he believes in for which there also is no evidence for.

[realitycheck]

We're not exactly in heaven, so I understand why he says there's no evidence. No one should be expected to believe anyone's inner experience. But just as an example; Sam Harris, an atheist, now believes in spirituality (spirit) having practiced meditation. He now believes that the self doesn't exist.

In ACIM, the evidence for the kingdom isn't found in external observations or physical manifestation, but rather in the inherent nature of your own consciousness (because consciousness is all we have to work with) and that the only real reality is a unified, loving state beyond the illusion of separation; essentially the evidence lies within us, in the potential to experience pure love and unity with all creation. The kingdom of God is within. I would say Peter is correct in saying there is no evidence that anyone can present to anyone else whether internal or external. But I wish the term "God" was explained in the interview before refuting its existence.

[lambda]

Okay now let’s hear an entire episode where science explains how the universe came to be. Not a word about how religion is wrong. Let’s just hear how science says this all happened.

[williamgeorgepeter]

If there's evidence then why is there a need to believe? Doesn't Peter Atkins agree the evidence negates beliefs? He says, no evidence for God to believe, that's nonsensical on his part.

[thomasridley]

You can never completely reject the idea of an intelligent designer. But we can absolutely reject the ones we have come up with. The level of cultural egomania involved is just too obvious to ignore. And gods do rise and fall with the civilizations that created them.
Even the conscious universe concept has the same logical inconsistencies of our other answers.

[Maxwell-mvrx]

A lot rambling about God make sure he shows his proposition in God evidence are fraud conclusions. Wortheless rethoric.

[MikeKreft-viqj]

He kind of dismissively says, "Laws are effectively summaries of behavior." But that warrants a deeper dive. We may have summarized the Laws in our attempt to understand them, but they exist independently of us. The general consensus among scientists is that Laws of Nature are discovered, not invented. They exist outside of space and time (eternal). They are unseen forces that are everywhere (omnipresent). They help explain the universe (omniscient). What an atheist or an agnostic may call the "Laws of Nature, " a religious person may call "God." If one defines "God" as an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, force, one can argue that there is evidence for "God." Now whether that god (laws of nature) is a personal or impersonal force depends on the nature and origins of consciousness.

[binucheriyan]

God is not a person, but the personification of the mystical energy of the universe.