Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JonathanL]

Amazing. JM can't even deduce "atheism is false" from "monotheism is true" without making a complete pig's ear of it.

But the above nicely encapsulates all of JM's arguments in this thread: "Monotheism is true... Therefore atheism is false".

It's the same thing in his penal substitution thread. He will assert something, e.g. "penal substitution is deceitful", without providing any supportive argument for it what so ever, and then draw further conclusions that only occasionally follow logically from his previous, unsupported statement. Not to mention that he also engages in the same type of elephant hurling in both threads, which makes it tiring to attempt to correct all of his misunderstandings and errors, presumably so he can proclaim victory because no one can be bothered to answer his objections/arguments.

[JohnMartin]

It's the same thing in his penal substitution thread. He will assert something, e.g. "penal substitution is deceitful", without providing any supportive argument for it what so ever, and then draw further conclusions that only occasionally follow logically from his previous, unsupported statement. Not to mention that he also engages in the same type of elephant hurling in both threads, which makes it tiring to attempt to correct all of his misunderstandings and errors, presumably so he can proclaim victory because no one can be bothered to answer his objections/arguments.

Any examples in the thread would be helpful. Place your comments in the appropriate thread.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Amazing. JM can't even deduce "atheism is false" from "monotheism is true" without making a complete pig's ear of it.

But the above nicely encapsulates all of JM's arguments in this thread: "Monotheism is true... Therefore atheism is false".

Whats the problem?

JM

[Psychic Missile]

Some questions to clarify atheism.

Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?

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.

If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.

If no, then atheism requires that -

1 there is no unmoved mover, and consequently all motion is explained according to moved movers.

2 there is no uncaused cause, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

3 there is no unperfected perfector, and consequently all perfection is explained according to perfected perfectors.

4 there is no unordered orderer, and consequently all order is explained according to ordered orderers.

5 there is no necessary being, and consequently all being is explained as contingent being.

6 there is no universal cause of being, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.

7 there is no prime being and therefore there is no supreme being, and consequently all being is explained according to secondary being.

As such, consequent to atheism's conclusions, that all motion, causation, perfection, order, and being is without a prime, how does the atheist explain such? For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?

Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being. If affirmed, how does atheism explain the existence of an infinite being without reference or any implication that such a being is God? If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?

If atheism requires there to be no being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that no being is beyond the universe?

Also following this question, how does atheism refute pantheism, which says the universe is self sustaining, and therefore God?

If atheism permits there to be a being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that such a is not God?

JM

You provide for a lot of contingencies for if atheism concludes or excludes different things, but that's not how modern atheism works. Modern atheism is based on the rejection of theist arguments and what scientific evidence indicates. It looks like you are asking for the burden of proof for claims not being made.

[Psychic Missile]

Atheism opposed theism. Theism concludes to the uncaused cause, which atheism must oppose. I have argued that for atheism to say the uncaused cause exists, but is not God, the reasoning must be false in the opening post.

JM

Atheism only must oppose the existence of a god. Your argument is based on speculation as to the workings of reality prior to the Big Bang.

[Roy]

My emphasis:

In fact my arguments work better if theism is reduced to monotheism, because then we can better gauge the problems within atheism contrasted to the truth of monotheism.

If monotheism is true then atheism is false - but this is not a problem with or within atheism, since atheism is the view that monotheism and other religions are not true.

I currently think you are running away from critical evaluation of your statements and the real problems with atheism.

That atheism contradicts your monotheism is not and never will be a problem with atheism.

If you really want to identify problems with atheism, start and finish with the assumption that your monotheism is false. Anything else leads to reasoning so circular it's in danger of disappearing up it's own rectum.

[Roy]

Not to mention that he also engages in the same type of elephant hurling in both threads, ...

It would be so much easier if he were elephant hurling. Unfortunately he's just hurling.

(Elephant hurling was defined as saying e.g. "there's lots of evidence for my position which I'm not going to produce". JM is Gish Galloping - throwing out so much rubbish it can't all be addressed)

[JohnMartin]

My emphasis:If monotheism is true then atheism is false - but this is not a problem with or within atheism, since atheism is the view that monotheism and other religions are not true.

That atheism contradicts your monotheism is not and never will be a problem with atheism.

Atheism is merely the belief that monotheism is not true. Atheism is rather easily demonstrated to be false. Therefore monotheism is a very big problem for atheism. Even atheism is a very big problem for atheism, simply because of the consequences of denying theism. That monotheism contradicts your atheism is no problem for monotheism. And its not my monotheism, its just simply monotheism,

If you really want to identify problems with atheism, start and finish with the assumption that your monotheism is false. Anything else leads to reasoning so circular it's in danger of disappearing up it's own rectum.

I have started the thread by pretty much assuming atheism is true and then followed upon the problematic consequences of atheism. I have also started another thread showing that monotheism is true. Why not start with the assumption that monotheism is true as demonstrated, when we never see a demonstration of the truth of atheism? Your request is biased against the evidence.

What the heck, why don't you answer those questions about atheism presented on a recent post?

JM

[JohnMartin]

It would be so much easier if he were elephant hurling. Unfortunately he's just hurling.

(Elephant hurling was defined as saying e.g. "there's lots of evidence for my position which I'm not going to produce". JM is Gish Galloping - throwing out so much rubbish it can't all be addressed)

Its just when you try to address any problem with atheism, your answers are generally shown to be very inadequate. Your Gish Gallop claim is a poor substitute for engaging the problems exposed. It's a myth that the intellectual atheist is logical. There is no such thing as an atheist who can think logically about atheism. For an atheist thinks atheism is true, when in fact atheism is false. Lets face it, if a world view is false, then its false, no matter how intellectual the believer happens to be.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You provide for a lot of contingencies for if atheism concludes or excludes different things, but that's not how modern atheism works. Modern atheism is based on the rejection of theist arguments and what scientific evidence indicates. It looks like you are asking for the burden of proof for claims not being made.

Lets put this to the test. If modern atheist rejects theistic arguments, then the conclusion is merely that theism has not provided any logical arguments that prove the existence of God. Hence all you can conclude is Gods existence has not been proven, therefore agnosticism is true, for agnosticism concludes to the insufficiency of proof for the existence of God. Whereas atheism concludes to the proof for the non existence of God.

If we look at science, we also see atheism promoting arguments for 1) a lack of science evidence for a designer and hence a god, 2) no explanatory value of a god in science, and 3) a reliance upon modern theories such as the big bang, and evolution to explain the universe, apart from a god. All of these approaches are problematic, and simply do not prove the non existence of God. Even if we grant the atheists every theory they have to explain the universe, they still cannot explain away the contingency of the universe and hence the contingency of any act of being within the universe.

In short, there is no proof, and never will be any proof for the non existence of God. Hence atheism as a belief in a negation of a being, must always be only an irrational belief in a negation of a being, and never a conclusion arrived through argument.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Atheism opposed theism. Theism concludes to the uncaused cause, which atheism must oppose. I have argued that for atheism to say the uncaused cause exists, but is not God, the reasoning must be false in the opening post.

JM

Atheism only must oppose the existence of a god. Your argument is based on speculation as to the workings of reality prior to the Big Bang.

No. The conclusions of theism are opposed by atheism. Theism concludes to the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc, which means atheism concludes to the negation of theism's conclusions. The big bang has nothing to do with these conclusions, for theism's conclusions are arrived at through arguments based upon how things exist and act as observed now.

JM

[shunyadragon]

No. The conclusions of theism are opposed by atheism. Theism concludes to the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, etc, which means atheism concludes to the negation of theism's conclusions. The big bang has nothing to do with these conclusions, for theism's conclusions are arrived at through arguments based upon how things exist and act as observed now.

JM

The existence nor the none existence of God can be logically proved, therefore by your reasoning we should all be agnostics, because in reality we do not know God exists or not.

[JohnMartin]

The existence nor the none existence of God can be logically proved, therefore by your reasoning we should all be agnostics, because in reality we do not know God exists or not.

We do know that God is from the arguments for monotheism. We do not know who God is, and we must remain agnostic about that truth until He reveals His name, which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

To demonstrate the principle of sufficient reason is based upon the principle of non contradiction.

In order to do that, you must prove that, without any additional premises, the negation of PSR entails a contradiction. You have not done that. What your argument does is assume the PSR and then show that its negation results in a contradiction. That is called begging the question.

[JohnMartin]

In order to do that, you must prove that, without any additional premises, the negation of PSR entails a contradiction. You have not done that. What your argument does is assume the PSR and then show that its negation results in a contradiction. That is called begging the question.

False. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) was demonstrated through the method of Reductio ad absurdum, whereby the denial of the principle concludes to a contradiction. Hence the PSR is affirmed as true. Because the method of Reductio ad absurdum assumes the principle of non contradiction (PNC) is true, the PSR is dependent upon the principle of non contradiction as previously demonstrated by inspection.

To beg the question means the PSR proof would have to assume the PSR is true as a premise within the proof, then prove the PSR as true within the same proof. The proof of the PSR does not do this. The fallacy of begging the question is unrelated to the proof of the PSR, which assumes the PNC as part of the method of Reductio ad absurdum.

JM