Problems and Questions in Atheism

[Roy]

Some questions to clarify atheism.

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

No.

If no, then atheism requires that -

No it doesn't.

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?

Those are not conclusions of atheism.

For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?

It isn't.

Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being.

Not exactly, though some forms of atheism deny the existence of infinite beings.

If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?

It doesn't. It concludes (from lack of evidence or internal contradictions of theism) that an infinite being does not exist.

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

Atheism does not require that.

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

Occam's razor.

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

It doesn't. It doesn't need to.

[Roy]

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.

Hey Jorge! Welcher! Pay up so I can put this in my signature.

[Doug Shaver]

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.

Yes, it does. Your premises include the following:

Reason of be (A) is "that whereby a thing is" (A)
But "that whereby a thing is"(A) is "that without which the thing is not"(A).

Your argument presupposes the existence of such a reason for all things that are, but that presupposition is just a restatement of the PSR.

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.

Your argument begins by reaffirming the principle, not by denying it. A denial would be "At least one thing is without reason" or other words to that effect.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
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.

Hey Jorge! Welcher! Pay up so I can put this in my signature.

Stock standard Christianity. Whats the problem?

JM

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
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.

Yes, it does. Your premises include the following:

Reason of be (A) is "that whereby a thing is" (A)
But "that whereby a thing is"(A) is "that without which the thing is not"(A).

Your argument presupposes the existence of such a reason for all things that are, but that presupposition is just a restatement of the PSR.

The proof begins by stating the definition of what "reason of be is", then proceeds to use the method of argument ad absurdum to show that if the principle of sufficient reason is denied, then contradiction is had.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
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.

Your argument begins by reaffirming the principle, not by denying it.

I don't think so. The opening line doesn't state the principle is affirmed as true. It only provides the definition of what sufficient reason is.

JM

[Psychic Missile]

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

It isn't necessary for an atheist to explain away the contingency of the universe. That issue is different from the issue of whether a god exists. Also, there doesn't need to be proof of nonexistence of there to be disbelief. For example, we do not need proof that dragons and fairies and bigfoot don't exist for us to disbelieve, because their existence goes against what we know, and these is evidence against their existence. Likewise, the existence of a god goes against we we know and there is evidence against one's existence.

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

You argue, for example, that there exist inadequacies in a series of caused causes without an uncaused cause or that an uncaused cause must be a god because of the philosophy of acts and potency. This is all speculation. We have no clue how causality works outside the universe.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
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
It isn't necessary for an atheist to explain away the contingency of the universe.

That issue is different from the issue of whether a god exists.

No. This issue of contingency of the universe is directly related to the ultimate cause of the universe, which is the necessary being. Such ultimate cause is God.

Also, there doesn't need to be proof of nonexistence of there to be disbelief.

Correct. You can believe whatever you want. But if you want to believe there is no ultimate being, then that is merely an opinion held averse to reason.

For example, we do not need proof that dragons and fairies and bigfoot don't exist for us to disbelieve, because their existence goes against what we know, and these is evidence against their existence. Likewise, the existence of a god goes against we we know and there is evidence against one's existence.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post

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

You argue, for example, that there exist inadequacies in a series of caused causes without an uncaused cause or that an uncaused cause must be a god because of the philosophy of acts and potency. This is all speculation. We have no clue how causality works outside the universe.

[JohnMartin]

Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Some questions to clarify atheism.

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

No.

Good, then atheism implies all causes are caused causes, etc.

If no, then atheism requires that -

No it doesn't.

If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then it affirms the existence of caused causes.

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?

Those are not conclusions of atheism.

This seems to be untenable. Atheism denies the prime. So atheism as a belief system must then include some explanation of motion, causation, contingency, etc to explain the real by reason alone.

For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?

It isn't.

How is the existence of causation explained by an atheist? Via a philosophy of causation that can only ever discuss caused causes. How then does such a philosophy explain caused causes, when causation has no ultimate explanation without an uncaused cause?

Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being.

Not exactly, though some forms of atheism deny the existence of infinite beings.

If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?

It doesn't. It concludes (from lack of evidence or internal contradictions of theism) that an infinite being does not exist.

What are these internal contradictions within theism?

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

Atheism does not require that.

If atheism says there may be a being beyond the universe, how does theism affirm a universal negation of that being as God?

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

Occam's razor.

So pantheism is not required for there is a better explanation for the universe than the self sustaining universe, such as . . . the dependent universe?

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

It doesn't. It doesn't need to.

Why not? Surely atheism must demonstrate its conclusion regarding the non existence of a supreme being.

JM

[shunyadragon]

The proof begins by stating the definition of what "reason of be is", then proceeds to use the method of argument ad absurdum to show that if the principle of sufficient reason is denied, then contradiction is had.



I don't think so. The opening line doesn't state the principle is affirmed as true. It only provides the definition of what sufficient reason is.

JM

. . . which is Begging the Question by establishing your conclusion in the premises.

[shunyadragon]

Good, then atheism implies all causes are caused causes, etc.

If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then it affirms the existence of caused causes.

How is the existence of causation explained by an atheist? Via a philosophy of causation that can only ever discuss caused causes. How then does such a philosophy explain caused causes, when causation has no ultimate explanation without an uncaused cause?

Atheism does not deny the uncaused cause, it considers the infinite Greater Cosmos (Quantum World) and natural law the uncaused cause of all causes.

[JohnMartin]

. . . which is Begging the Question by establishing your conclusion in the premises.

You are merely repeating a statement already made by Doug and already answered.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Atheism does not deny the uncaused cause, it considers the infinite Greater Cosmos (Quantum World) and natural law the uncaused cause of all causes.

Which means atheism is really pantheism.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

I don't think so. The opening line doesn't state the principle is affirmed as true. It only provides the definition of what sufficient reason is.

Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded your argument makes it difficult to follow your reasoning. Let me check my understanding by some rephrasing.

In your argument, A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is." And you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction. Is this a correct summary or your argument?

[JohnMartin]

Perhaps I misunderstood. The way you worded your argument makes it difficult to follow your reasoning. Let me check my understanding by some rephrasing.

In your argument, A is a sufficient reason. And you define A as "that whereby a thing is." And you attempt to prove that if we say there is any thing for which A does not exist, then we must affirm a contradiction. Is this a correct summary or your argument?

Reason of be defined as a positive -
1) Reason of be is "that whereby a thing is"

Reason of be defined again as a positive and also a double negative
2) But "that whereby a thing is" is "that without which the thing is not".

Consequence of denying the equating of the positive and double negative definition of reason of be is a contradiction -
3) For if "that whereby a thing is" is not "that without which the thing is not", then the same is together:
4) That without which a thing is; and that whereby it is.
5) Which is contradictory.

The double negative definition of reason of be in line 2 is validated by evidence of contradiction had.
6) Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not".

Application of the double negative definition of reason of be in line 2. If the definition is denied, contradiction is had -
7) But if a thing is without "that without which it is not", then contradiction is had, because then the same thing together:
8) Is without something;
9) And is not without the same.
10) Therefore if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.

Consequently because the denial of the principle of sufficient reason concludes to a contradiction, the affirmation of the principle is true.

Doug, I don't mean to be offensive here, but I do believe the principle of sufficient reason is something we really don't need to think about too much. The proof is interesting, but the principle is almost as self evident as the principle of non contradiction. All of the inductive sciences assume the principle of sufficient reason is true. The legal profession also assumes the same principle is true. Without the principle, the legal profession would have encoded into law that an innocent man could be convicted of a crime without any evidence that he committed the crime. However, because the legal profession follows reason, and thereby the principle of sufficient reason, the law is constructed so sufficient evidence is required to bring forth a verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Whatever apparent (or maybe real) holes you think you find in the above proof, the evidence of science and law is against your denial of the principle of sufficient reason. Life experience is clearly in favor of the same principle. Experience alone is enough proof that we cannot live without the principle, hence the principle is true. Its like saying men don't need nourishment, yet life experience says otherwise, for there is a need for sufficient reason for biological life to continue.

JM

[shunyadragon]

You are merely repeating a statement already made by Doug and already answered.

JM

Doug was correct!!!