Problems and Questions in Atheism

[shunyadragon]

Which means atheism is really pantheism.

JM

No problem

Actually pantheism is a form of atheism. If one concludes that the universe is God, than there are no God(s) other than the physical universe itself.

[Roy]

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.

No it doesn't.

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

Atheism does not deny the existence of any uncaused causes.

This seems to be untenable. Atheism denies the prime.

It's only untenable to god-soaked imbeciles. Atheism does not deny any first cause etc. It simply denies there is any connection between a first cause and any gods.

So atheism as a belief system must then include some explanation of motion, causation, contingency, etc to explain the real by reason alone.

Atheism is not a belief system. It's an unbelief system.

How is the existence of causation explained by an atheist?

It isn't.Yes.

What are these internal contradictions within theism?

Little things like a god who's supposedly omnipotent being thwarted by iron chariots, or a faith that can't decide which works comprise scripture.

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

Not my problem.

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

Occam's razor on cluelessness list.

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

Where's your demonstration of the non-existence of leprechauns, Shub-Niggurath, Xipe Totec, the Babylonian Brotherhood and Thetans? If you want to claim there is a supreme being, then you provide the evidence for it.

[Roy]

It is absolutely necessary for an atheist to explain away the contingency of the universe.

No it isn't.

Are you ever going to learn that you have to understand something before you criticise it?

[Roy]

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

No it doesn't. There is nothing in atheism that requires the cosmos to be uncaused, only that we don't know what, if anything caused it.

[JohnMartin]

No problem

Actually pantheism is a form of atheism. If one concludes that the universe is God, than there are no God(s) other than the physical universe itself.

Pantheism is a form of theism, that's why its called pan-theism and not pan-atheism. Even so, pantheism is false as well, for a self sustaining universe is not possible. For that requires a contingent being to be self causing it's own being.

JM

[JohnMartin]

This seems to be untenable. Atheism denies the prime.

It's only untenable to god-soaked imbeciles. Atheism does not deny any first cause etc. It simply denies there is any connection between a first cause and any gods.

If atheism denies any connection between the first cause and any gods, what then is the definition of a god in atheism? After all if there is not connection to a god, one must know that it is not connected to something, and thereby know what that something is.

If atheism says there is a first cause, what then is the first cause defined as? Is the first cause a creature, that is a finite thing, or something else?

JM

[37818]

Nothing causes nothing.

And anything uncaused is caused by nothing.

Therefore there are only caused things.

[JohnMartin]

Doug was correct!!!

No evidence required of course because you are making a post at Tweb.

I don't believe you.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Nothing causes nothing.

And anything uncaused is caused by nothing.

Therefore there are only caused things.

Line 2 is self contradictory.

Caused by nothing, both affirms and denies being. Line 2 is reducible to "Caused by nothing" --> being by non being

Line 2 contradicts line 1, "And anything uncaused" (being) is nothing (non being).

Line 2 should read - And anything uncaused is not caused by nothing.

Line 1 is also false. A cause is a being, and nothing is a non being. Hence nothing, cannot be a cause.

JM

[37818]

Line 2 is self contradictory.

<snip>

Line 2 should read - And anything uncaused is not caused by nothing.

<snip>

JM

Well, if anything "is not caused by nothing" then it is caused by something. And what ever is caused by something is not uncaused.

What is uncaused is not caused by anything.

[Psychic Missile]

Why must atheism give a solution? The atheist is forced into answering "I don't know" because there simply isn't any evidence of what came before the universe. Realizing there is insufficient evidence and admitting a lack of sound answers is not mindless superstition or irrational, quite the opposite. So why is it "absolutely necessary for an atheist to explain away the contingency of the universe"?

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.

That's an assumption. The ultimate cause may not be a god. A god may have made a ham sandwich appear in front of me, that doesn't mean that ham sandwiches are directly related to the existence of a god.

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.

My point was that there is a difference between logical proof and evidence.

1) A god is like a creature in that they both impact the world.

2) A god is a being, so it is beholden to inductive reasoning.

3) For the atheist, there has never been a proof for the existence of a god or a true revelation from a god. Also, the history of theism is incongruous with the existence and revelation of a real god. In fact, religions have been seen to evolve like creatures, and can be traced taxonomically.

4) A method that involves rejecting other arguments and believing what the evidence indicates is perfectly valid.

The informed atheist does have better knowledge than the best theologians in all of history, because they are arriving at their conclusion based on the evidence, and what is knowledge if not belief in things that are true?

The atheist asks "what action"?

[shunyadragon]

No it doesn't. There is nothing in atheism that requires the cosmos to be uncaused, only that we don't know what, if anything caused it.

I believe your describing an agnostic position that 'we don't know.' The atheist position, philosophical naturalism, would be emphatically that God(s) do not exist, and our physical existence is uncaused.

[Roy]

If atheism denies any connection between the first cause...

Which first cause? Atheism does not require a first cause.

... and any gods, what then is the definition of a god in atheism?

There isn't one. God/gods are defined/described by theists.

If atheism says there is a first cause, ...

It doesn't.

Are you ever going to learn that you have to understand something before you criticise it?

[Roy]

Nothing causes nothing.

Line 1 is also false.

Really? Should line 1 say "Nothing causes something" or "Something causes nothing"?

Or is this another "JM is not smarter than a turnip" moment?

[Roy]

Well, if anything "is not caused by nothing" then it is caused by something.

I'd nitpick, but I suspect you know what you're doing.