Reference request for an argument that atheism is a natural consequence if we do not treat the world as special


Let us assume "miracles" do not happen.

Proponents of the existence of God would argue that it's somehow a necessity for God to exist, because they think the world had to have been created. But it's not necessary that everything have been created - at least we could cite things from the realm of mathematics, which could be presumed to exist without a maker. These are often termed abstract things; but whether or not we presume the world to be fundamentally a mathematical structure, and whether or not other structures akin to our world exist, even with all the intricacies and emerging phenomena here(consciousness etc.) calling it concrete and then treating it as somehow different and special is unwarranted in regards to the necessity of having a maker. God seems not only unnecessary, but believed only for its own sake.

(Labeling a phenomenon as not emergent or otherwise not "just a part of the world" would already be treating our world as something special.)

Here we are not emphasizing so much on mathematical structures, or arguing whether things are "abstract" or "concrete", we're just pointing out that things could just "exist" as they are without a maker having to have created them. Also the different phenomena that could take place in the world are not individually analysed, but instead it's pointed out that it doesn't matter how complex or bizarre these phenomena might seem - they are just parts of the world and don't warrant the invocation of a maker. The world shouldn't be treated as something special and invoking a God only in this case is unwarranted.

I'm asking for references where this sort of argument have been made, either for demonstrating that it's absurd to say a maker is even a wee bit necessary, or in other contexts not necessarily related to the existence of deities. How far back have philosophers put forward such arguments? And, also, what are some relevant terms from philosophy for this sort of argument?

Tony Marshle

Posted 2020-03-03T20:47:38.953

Reputation: 11

Postulating brute existence is not intellectually attractive, which is why arguments for plausibility (not necessity) of God have some appeal not only "for its own sake". But you can look at the standard objections to the cosmological argument for this line of thinking.

– Conifold – 2020-03-04T06:34:16.813

Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the tour or find help. You can perform searches here or seek additional clarification at the meta site. Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the contributor.

– J D – 2020-03-04T23:08:20.797

No answers