Minnesota Atheists
President's ColumnFrom our newsletter
Board Strategy & Initiatives
Get Nominated
Public Policy Positions
MNA Facebook Page
MNA Facebook Group
MNA on Twitter
MNA on Instagram
Atheists Talk Facebook Page
Atheists Talk on Twitter
Support MNA
Volunteer With MNA
Our Wishlist
Day of Reason
Solstice Celebrations
Parades & Outreach
MNA at CONvergence
Atheists Weekly Email
Atheists Talk
Cable TV Show
MNA in the News
Atheist Voices of Minnesota
Area Communities
Secular Celebrants
Interview an Atheist
Steal Our Governance
The Something (rather than nothing) That I Attended
Published by Minnesota Atheists on July 8, 2015 July 8, 2015
By James Zimmerman
Recently, I had the opportunity to attend and present at the National Conference of Undergraduate Research, held at Eastern Washington University (near Spokane). My presentation was in the History discipline, and I made an effort to support and attend other History presentations.
However, in the listing of presentation descriptions, one topic caught my eye: "Something Rather than Nothing: Theism Explained." Despite this being from the Philosophy and not the History department, I felt I just had to attend.
The young man who gave the 15-minute presentation was a student from the hosting University. He began by asking everyone to approach his discussion with an open mind – advice that I thought was very applicable to many of the presentations I attended.
He said that he would prove a theistic creation of the universe to us and, simultaneously, point out how the atheistic worldview is lacking.
He first asked us all to accept that whatever caused the universe to begin is God. As much as I dislike the term "God" for whatever started the universe, I had to admit that there wasn't anything wrong with his proposition, so I continued even more intrigued.
He next showed a list of five bulleted points on the screen. I didn't have time to write them all down, but the gist was that the universe did have a beginning, that everything that begins to exist has a creator, that creators have individual personalities, and that infinities cannot exist (except in the abstract, such as with numbers.) Of course, the first point – that the universe had a beginning – has near universal acceptance. The student then moved on the next points. He was careful to point out that only things that begin to exist have creators. He explained that this argument satisfies the atheist's question of who created God: Since God never began to exist, then surely he did not need to be created. God thus, he claimed, is both eternal and omnipotent.
For those who were unsatisfied with this argument, he gave a detailed argument of the absurdity of infinities – and then applied this to a God who was supposedly created by someone, who was then supposedly created by someone else ad infinitum. This is ridiculous, he claimed (evidently the absurdities of infinities does not include a being who imbues such infinities such as omnipotence or omniscience).
He singled out atheists again by saying that the burden of proof is on them to prove the non-existence of God, especially since he has just proven that God does exist. Atheists are the ones who categorically state that God does not exist just as, say, most people claim that unicorns do not exist. The only difference is that there is proof of God's existence. Besides, he pointed out, the universe is clearly fine-tuned for life and ideas such as a cyclically recurring Big Bang or expanding multiverse are without evidence and only serve to provide reassurances to atheists who have been scrambling ever since Hubble determined that the universe had a beginning.
During the Q and A segment, I asked how he was defining "atheism," since he seemed to be conflating it with anti-theism. I suggested that most atheists simply see no evidence for gods and thus live as though they don't exist. He rifled through some papers and said he used the definition provided from a source (sorry, I can't recall which one) that defined atheism as the rejection of gods. I was hoping to ask a follow-up question, but he next called on a few other people.
After a couple minutes, he called on me again, but this time I said, "You mentioned that the burden of proof is on non-believers, but I don't think you can ever disprove a negative." A few people in the audience nodded their heads in agreement. I added, "To use your example of unicorns, maybe they do exist…who knows?"
The student chuckled a bit and then pointed out that at a certain point we can prove a negative. He said that, for all practical purposes, you can disprove the existence of unicorns.
But without waiting to be called on again, I said, "I don't think you can disprove unicorns. Even if we photograph every square inch of the solar system. I mean, maybe they're really small. Maybe they're invisible, or live somewhere we haven't explored."
This got a few chuckles. The student noted that this is something Christopher Hitchens has noted in the past. He was going to continue, but his time was up just as someone else asked him how he knew which god was true. The student, as he was leaving the lectern, said he felt the New Testament provided the most compelling argument for God which, I felt, negated any credence he had built up by that point. I left rather disappointed that the presentation didn't offer anything new, just the same tortuous logistical leaps I used to employ to keep my own faith alive.
As I headed to the field house for lunch, a fellow Hamline student (who had attended the presentation with me) agreed: there were a grievous numbers of errors in logic during the presentation; an especially appalling fact considering it had been in the Philosophy and Ethics discipline. It's too bad. There were several presentations I attended during the Conference that challenged my notions and opened my mind to new arguments. "Theism Explained," however, wasn't one of them.
Positive Atheism in Action Since 1991
Thank You from Children's Hospital
News and Notes: Supremely Awful Opinion
Opinion: Democrats Ignore the Johnson Amendment in Pursuit of Black Voters
Letters The Star Tribune Did Not Publish
Archives Select Month January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 October 2021 September 2021 February 2021 January 2021 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 November 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 November 2017 September 2017 May 2017 April 2017 February 2017 January 2017 November 2016 October 2016 June 2016 February 2016 November 2015 August 2015 July 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008
Categories Select Category Announcements Articles Book Reviews Events MNA in the News President's Column Video
Minnesota Atheists recently received the following letter from Children's Minnesota. This is a response to our "War on Christmas" gift drive and wrapping event. The board also adds our thanks to Caroline for coordinating this Read more…
By George Francis Kane On December 13, President Biden signed into law the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages performed in other states. Those marriages were already protected Read more…
By George Francis Kane Donald Trump knew that conservative Christians were his core constituency, and so was always eager to promote their political power. In particular, he declared his determination to end the so-called Johnson Read more…