Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JohnMartin]

We have no objective falsifiable evidence for any other worldview. It is based on Methodological Naturalism, and like all world views must make the philosophical step beyond the evidence, and assume Philosophical Naturalism.

How does Philosophical Naturalism conclude to 1) atheism rather than pantheism? 2) Atheism, when atheism says there is no prime cause that is God?

How is atheism defined?

JM

[Yttrium]

How does Philosophical Naturalism conclude to 1) atheism rather than pantheism? 2) Atheism, when atheism says there is no prime cause that is God?

You mean Methodological Naturalism, which is what shuny said. Philosophical Naturalism = there must be a natural explanation for everything = atheism. I would argue that Methodological Naturalism best concludes to soft agnosticism.

[shunyadragon]

How does Philosophical Naturalism conclude to 1) atheism rather than pantheism? 2) Atheism, when atheism says there is no prime cause that is God?

It is Methodological Naturalism that is the objective falsifiable evidence for the natural causes for the nature of our physical existence. It offers no objective verifiable falsifiable evidence for any other world view. It is on the basis of this that Philosophical Naturalists assume that there are no God(s). Though this indeed a philosophical assumption and the lack of existence of God(s) cannot be falsified nor determined by scientific methods.

As far as Pantheism goes, it is based on the belief there is no prime mover outside the inherent physical nature of our existence. Our physical existence and Natural Law are the 'Source' of everything, therefore Pantheism is in reality Atheism.

How is atheism defined?

JM

Simple atheism is the belief that here is nor are no God(s).

[Yttrium]

As far as Pantheism goes, it is based on the belief there is no prime mover outside the inherent physical nature of our existence. Our physical existence and Natural Law are the 'Source' of everything, therefore Pantheism is in reality Atheism.

Well, you could turn that around to say that, under Pantheism, the inherent physical nature of our existence is the prime mover. Everything makes up God. Therefore God exists. I think you can look at it either way.

[shunyadragon]

Well, you could turn that around to say that, under Pantheism, the inherent physical nature of our existence is the prime mover. Everything makes up God. Therefore God exists. I think you can look at it either way.

I do not believe this is a logical construct of Pantheism, because by any reasonable definition of God nor God(s) this does not fit. I believe if you look closely to the definition of Pantheism it is indistinguishable with Atheism.

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=pantheism+definition+religion&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS715US715&oq=Pantheism+definnition&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.12480j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Pantheism is the belief that all of reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

© Copyright Original Source

[JohnMartin]

It is Methodological Naturalism that is the objective falsifiable evidence for the natural causes for the nature of our physical existence. It offers no objective verifiable falsifiable evidence for any other world view. It is on the basis of this that Philosophical Naturalists assume that there are no God(s). Though this indeed a philosophical assumption and the lack of existence of God(s) cannot be falsified nor determined by scientific methods.

As far as Pantheism goes, it is based on the belief there is no prime mover outside the inherent physical nature of our existence. Our physical existence and Natural Law are the 'Source' of everything, therefore Pantheism is in reality Atheism.



Simple atheism is the belief that here is nor are no God(s).

Is there a prime being within Methodological Naturalism, if so what is it. If not, why not?

How does Methodological Naturalism conclude to atheism? Can you provide an argument?

JM

[JimL]

The aims of this thread.

The following thread is devoted to posing questions and problems in atheism.

Problems and Questions Posed.

Theism means concludes to God does exist, which is known through reason, whereby God is -

1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.

Atheism concludes to God does not exist. Therefore in accord with point 2 above, atheism either

1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God or

2) denies the existence of the uncaused cause, and thereby denies the existence of God as the uncaused cause.

Theism concludes that the uncaused cause, is pure act, without potency, which is God. In other words, God is act without limit, or infinite act.

Scenario 1- If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause.Question Scenario 2- If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause.

Alternatively, if atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then atheism affirms only the existence of caused causes.acting now,such as A causes B causes C etc. This series in an ontological series whereby each member of the series acts now, to be caused and to cause another. But this series has no end, for each cause is a caused cause. This series is also inadequate to explain causation as each member of the series has the same deficiency of cause. For each member is dependent upon another member for a positive influence regarding the being of another, when each member of the series has the same deficiency in be. As the same deficiency exists in each member, then no member is a cause in the series.

Questionacting now can and does actually exist, then 1) such a series is infinite which concludes to a series with an infinite be, which is very close to the prime being of theism (which has an infinite being). Therefore atheism must posit a being very much like the prime, infinite being of theism to explain causation. In effect, atheism must posit a quasi-god, to explain causation. In doing so, atheism requires the existence of a false god in the place of the prime cause to explain causation. The infinite series of causes acting now is false for the reason stated above and also suffers from the problem of 1) its own contingency and 2) any lack of empirical or experiential evidence in its support, and 3) any superior explanatory value over the prime being of theism.

QuestionAnd 2 - Atheism means the prime cause does not exist, but then consequently an infinite series of secondary causes do exist. The infinite series of secondary causes is itself self-causing, which is analogous to the prime cause of theism, which is self-causing. Therefore atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, but posits the existence of self-sustaining series of caused causes. Therefore atheism requires a quasi-prime cause to account for causation, analogous to the real prime cause of theism. Atheism is therefore quasi theistic to have any explanatory value. But to be quasi theistic is not atheistic. Therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

QuestionAnd 3 Atheism requires an infinite series of caused causes, wherever there is a secondary causes acting now. For atheism requires that no cause be uncaused. Therefore because there are many causes acting now, there must be many infinite series of causes acting now. Therefore atheism requires many series with infinite being, which infers a form of quasi polytheism. Why? Theism concludes to one God who is infinite being. Polytheism concludes to many gods with each god having much being (or infinite being). As atheism requires many large beings to account for causation, atheism concludes to a quasi-polytheism. But quasi polytheism is not atheism, therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

Question Atheism and the problems associated with the denial of the Necessary Being.

Theism affirms the existence of God as the necessary being, therefore atheism denies the existence of the necessary being and concludes that every thing that exists is a contingent being. The following problems flow from this atheistic position.

1) A contingent being does not have being from itself, but is from the nature of contingent being, dependent in be upon another being. The contingent being must therefore be either

A) dependent upon another contingent being and so on, ad infinitum. Such a series cannot exist as each member of the series has the same lack of be.

Or

B) not dependent upon another and therefore have being for itself. But to have being from itself is only found in the necessary being, which nature is to be. And the being which has an identity of essence and being is God as concluded by theism.

If the atheist insists that the infinite series does exist, then the above same problems found in the theme of causation also exist for the problem of contingency, namely that atheism concludes to the contingent quasi god with an infinite being and contingent polytheism required to explain the existence of contingent beings.

QuestionQuestion The problems associated with the denial of the Necessary Being and the contingency of the universe.

Atheism denies the existence of the prime and therefore the supreme being. Yet the universe exists. The universe has very much being and is therefore a candidate for the supreme being. Pantheism concludes to the universe as the supreme being and atheism denies pantheism. The following problems arise for atheism when the existence of the universe is admitted.

The universe is either the prime being or not.

A) If the universe is the prime being, then it is self-caused. What is self-caused is an uncaused cause. But atheism must deny the existence of the uncaused cause (see arguments presented above); therefore atheism requires the existence of another cause outside the universe and so on. Therefore atheism cannot posit the existence of the self-causing universe without positing another, independent cause acting outside, or diverse from the universe.

Furthermore, if the universe is the prime being, then the universe is the prime being, composed of potency and act. Such is an error as shown above.

Or, B) the universe is not the prime being, and then atheism cannot posit the existence of the self-causing universe. Therefore atheism concludes the universe must be caused by another cause, distinct from the universe.

Therefore, atheism requires that because the universe exists, then a cause distinct from the universe must also exist to cause the universe and thereby save the conclusion of atheism, namely that all causes are caused causes. But the cause distinct from the universe is also caused and so on. Therefore atheism concludes to an infinite series of caused causes, which is a quasi-god which sustains the universe. Such a god has never been proven to exist and even if it does exist, contradicts atheism, which concludes to God does not exist.

Question Further problems associated with the contingency of the universe. QuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestion

The problem of affirming and denying the prime and secondary being.

1) Atheism denies the existence of the prime being. Therefore atheism affirms the existence of only secondary beings. But to be a secondary being, infers the being is dependent with regard to being upon another being. This means atheism affirms the existence of secondary beings, 1) which are really the prime being, which concludes to theism, or 2) are accounted for through dependence upon the prime being, which is theism. Either way, if a thing exists, atheism concludes to theism, if atheism claims to have any explanatory power concerning the existence of anything. As such, atheism is self-defeating and therefore always false.

The problem of the self contradictory conclusion regarding the denial of the necessary beingThe problem of the denial of God as the universal cause of being

3) Atheism concludes to no universal cause of being, for theism concludes that God is the prime, universal cause of being, which is denied by atheism. If there is no universal cause of being, then all being is only caused specifically, by each specific thing that exists. Therefore according to atheism, when a thing is in act, the thing causes itself to exist. But, as being is the prime perfection in things, then the being of the thing must be caused by

A) Another being which is itself being according to nature, for only being causes being. This other being is God, who is both ontologically prior to creatures and the universal cause of being. As atheism denies the existence of the prime being, which is ontologically prior to creatures, the being of creatures cannot be caused by God.

Or

B) The thing itself. As a cause has being, and the thing has being, for a thing to cause itself means the thing is a cause which is ontologically prior to itself. Such ontological priority means the thing must cause itself before it is in act. Therefore, both 1) the cause must exist before the thing exists, and 2) yet the thing must exist prior to its cause of being to provide the being of the cause of the thing. Such convoluted need for causation prior to the thing existing and the thing existing prior to its own cause of its existence indicates the atheistic need for specific things to cause their own existence is ontologically impossible.

Atheism is very problematic. In fact it seems atheism has no explanatory value and is also absurd. We shall see how the atheists answer the problems and questions posed above. I doubt there will be any compelling answers at all.

JM

For one thing, I think you have far to much time on your hands John. But everything you argue can be said of the universe as a whole. Atheism concludes that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause, the unperfected perfection, the unordered order, the unmoved mover, and the necessary existence, which you for no good reason label as being, or mind. If you are going to apply these attributes to any eternal thing, which obviously you must, then they can be applied to an eternal universe as well. The universal cause of the universe, and the changes therein, is the attributes inherent in the universe itself, and there is no evidence of, or need of, an external cause.

[shunyadragon]

Is there a prime being within Methodological Naturalism, if so what is it. If not, why not?

Methodological Naturalism by definition can only falsify theorems, hypothesis, and models concerning our physical existence based on objective evidence. IT is also neutral to theological and philosophical beliefs beyond the objective physical evidence.

How does Methodological Naturalism conclude to atheism?

Methodological Naturalism does not 'conclude' Atheism. Philosophical Naturalism requires an assumption that to believe in a God(s) it requires objective consistent evidence that can be falsified by scientific methods.

Can you provide an argument?

JM

The above is the simple basic argument.

[JohnMartin]

How does Methodological Naturalism conclude to atheism?

Methodological Naturalism does not 'conclude' Atheism. Philosophical Naturalism requires an assumption that to believe in a God(s) it requires objective consistent evidence that can be falsified by scientific methods..

How does Philosophical Naturalism argue that God(s) are demonstrated only by scientific methods? What are the argument it uses to arrive at this conclusion?

What do you mean by scientific methods? If the inductive method, hasn't God been proven on this thread and by many other theists in history using a similar method?

JM

[shunyadragon]

How does Philosophical Naturalism argue that God(s) are demonstrated only by scientific methods? What are the argument it uses to arrive at this conclusion?

I have already answered this specifically.

What do you mean by scientific methods?

Those methods which test the predictability of theories and hypothesis, based on objective physical evidence.

If the inductive method, hasn't God been proven on this thread and by many other theists in history using a similar method?

JM

No, God has not been proven in this thread. You have made too many presuppositions that God exists, which match the conclusion. Circular arguments.

[element771]

No, God has not been proven in this thread. You have made too many presuppositions that God exists, which match the conclusion. Circular arguments.

FYI JohnMartin, he doesn't understand the arguments and he also doesn't understand what a circular argument actually is.

[firstfloor]

[element771]

I am both a man of science and a man of faith...I have been hearing about this supposed conflict between the two but so far, I haven't found one.

[JohnMartin]

How does Philosophical Naturalism (PN) argue that God(s) are demonstrated only by scientific methods? What are the argument it uses to arrive at this conclusion?

I have already answered this specifically.

Let me rephrase the question to get at what I perceive is a weakness with PN. Philosophical Naturalism requires the use of scientific methods to falsify theorems, hypothesis, and models concerning our physical existence. PN is itself a model, which then must be subject to its own criteria. How then does PN demonstrate its own world view from objective physical evidence? If PN cannot establish that only natural causes exist, then its criteria of "objective physical evidence" is required to falsify a model about God, is either 1) false in principle, where PN assumes only natural causes, or 2) is false in what it denies such as supernatural causes.

If PN takes a position, it must show that its position is true, and it must be shown within its own principles. How then can PN demonstrate only natural causes exist, based upon only objective physical evidence?

What constitutes objective physical evidence apart from say miracles and prophecy? How do you know?

I put it to you that PN is false because it cannot establish that only objective physical evidence is realist, and only natural causes exist. If you think otherwise I invite you to make an argument to demonstrate such is true in accord with PN.

What do you mean by scientific methods?
Those methods which test the predictability of theories and hypothesis, based on objective physical evidence.

Aren't the proofs for God based upon cause, perfection, motion, order all in accord with physical evidence and reason? If so what's the problem? If not, why not?

. . . hasn't God been proven on this thread and by many other theists in history using a similar method?


No, God has not been proven in this thread. You have made too many presuppositions that God exists, which match the conclusion. Circular arguments.

You are invited to demonstrate your claims.

JM

[JohnMartin]

FYI JohnMartin, he doesn't understand the arguments and he also doesn't understand what a circular argument actually is.

And you don't provide any evidence for your claims.

JM