Problems and Questions in Atheism

[Roy]

I believe your describing an agnostic position that 'we don't know.'

Nope, definitely describing an atheist position that 'we don't know'. Though I understand how it is difficult to distinguish them.

The atheist position, philosophical naturalism, would be emphatically that God(s) do not exist, and our physical existence is uncaused.

I'm an atheist and that isn't my position

I note you've shifted from the 'Global Cosmos' to 'our physical existence' as the uncaused entity. This suggests to me that you think something somewhere was uncaused, but you're not sure exactly what. Is that correct?

[shunyadragon]

Nope, definitely describing an atheist position that 'we don't know'. Though I understand how it is difficult to distinguish them.I'm an atheist and that isn't my position

OK! Your position, but classically atheists do not claim, 'I do not know.'

I note you've shifted from the 'Global Cosmos' to 'our physical existence' as the uncaused entity. This suggests to me that you think something somewhere was uncaused, but you're not sure exactly what. Is that correct?

It should be the 'Greater Cosmos,' or the 'Quantum World.' This would be believed by atheists as the uncaused cause.

[Roy]

This suggests to me that you think something somewhere was uncaused, but you're not sure exactly what. Is that correct?

It should be the 'Greater Cosmos,' or the 'Quantum World.'

Aren't those two different things?

This would be believed by atheists as the uncaused cause.

'Fraid not. I don't believe that, and I don't recall seeing anyone else say they believed that either.

The quantum world may be uncaused. Or its formation may have been triggered by something else; this something else may be uncaused, or may have been triggered by something more basic, etc. I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either.

[JohnMartin]

Aren't those two different things?'Fraid not. I don't believe that, and I don't recall seeing anyone else say they believed that either.

The quantum world may be uncaused. Or its formation may have been triggered by something else; this something else may be uncaused, or may have been triggered by something more basic, etc. I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either.

That's merely your opinion. Others say God has revealed a creation event, so the latest science fad, based upon naturalism, that says all things came from the quantum world. The quantum world is just another version of the potency and act problem, which resolves itself into the pure act as the ultimate, uncaused cause. The pure act is God.

One of the key problems with atheism is its over emphasis on natural science, without thinking according to metaphysics. Once the nature of being is known, then causation is known, then we can know the real answer to the question of what is the uncaused cause. Its not a caused cause, which is composed of potency and act, but an act without potency. Which is pure act, and which is God.

JM

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Roy;336216]Aren't those two different things?'Fraid not. I don't believe that, and I don't recall seeing anyone else say they believed that either. [quote]

I believe they are the nature of the Greater Cosmos is the Quantum World where Multi-verses and universes begin and end.

The quantum world may be uncaused. Or its formation may have been triggered by something else; this something else may be uncaused, or may have been triggered by something more basic, etc. I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either.

At present the evidence indicates the ultimate nature of our greater cosmos is a Quantum world. We do not have any evidence that the Quantum World could originate from anything else. Based on the knowledge we have of the Quantum World it is timeless and boundless.

[JohnMartin]

At present the evidence indicates the ultimate nature of our greater cosmos is a Quantum world. We do not have any evidence that the Quantum World could originate from anything else. Based on the knowledge we have of the Quantum World it is timeless and boundless.

Potency and act conclude to pure act. The quantum world is ultimately dependent upon pure act.

JM

[Roy]

That's merely your opinion. ... The pure act is God.

That's merely your opinion. Since you are a blithering idiot, I see no reason to entertain it.

[Roy]

At present the evidence indicates the ultimate nature of our greater cosmos is a Quantum world. We do not have any evidence that the Quantum World could originate from anything else. Based on the knowledge we have of the Quantum World it is timeless and boundless.

Boundless, certainly. But timeless?* Is there something I'm unaware of?

But either way it suggests that our universe has a cause outside our universe that is unrelated to any theistic concept of God/gods other than those in the "This is God" category.

*pending qualifications re time being part of the universe and therefore not in the quantum world at all

[shunyadragon]

Potency and act conclude to pure act. The quantum world is ultimately dependent upon pure act.

JM

This represents a presupposition for the existence of God without any substance nor evidence. You need to demonstrate this using science beyond a theological presupposition for an argument for the existence of God.

[shunyadragon]

Boundless, certainly. But timeless?* Is there something I'm unaware of?

But either way it suggests that our universe has a cause outside our universe that is unrelated to any theistic concept of God/gods other than those in the "This is God" category.

*pending qualifications re time being part of the universe and therefore not in the quantum world at all

The current view of physics and cosmology is the Quantum zero-point is fundamentally timeless. There are brief discontinuous moments of time associated with fluctuations, but a continuous time arrow is considered absent from the Quantum World.

Source: http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

Quantum mechanics predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0, or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system. Although the term ''zero-point energy'' applies to all three of these interactions in nature, customarily (and hereafter in this article) it is used in reference only to the electromagnetic case.

In conventional quantum physics, the origin of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that, for a moving particle such as an electron, the more precisely one measures the position, the less exact the best possible measurement of its momentum (mass times velocity), and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy (and other so-called conjugate variables in quantum mechanics). This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter springing from the wave nature of the various quantum fields. This leads to the concept of zero-point energy.

© Copyright Original Source

[JohnMartin]

This represents a presupposition for the existence of God without any substance nor evidence. You need to demonstrate this using science beyond a theological presupposition for an argument for the existence of God.

A finite thing is composed of potency and act.
Potency and act are diverse.
A thing united is a unity of one thing, but diverse according to causes of potency and act.
What is united, is united according to a cause of unity and not a cause of diversity.
Potency and act are diverse and therefore do not cause the unity of a thing.
The unity of the thing is therefore caused by another.
The other cause ultimately must be a unity to cause unity.
The ultimate cause as a unity is a cause in act, without diversity of potency and act.
The ultimate cause is pure act.

All things examined by the inductive method are composed of potency and act. Hence the ultimate reason of be for such unity observed is the prime act. Therefore phenomena such as quantum mechanics presupposes pure act as the ultimate cause, just as much as any other finite thing.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

True, but that's not what I said. I said anything uncaused is not caused by nothing. You changed it to - anything uncaused "is not caused by nothing".

And what ever is caused by something is not uncaused.

True but irrelevant to what I previously said.

What is uncaused is not caused by anything.

True. But your error is to ignore the word uncaused as shown above.

JM

[JohnMartin]

False. God is unlike a creature. You have ignored the work of theologians and philosophers who have concluded that being is analogous. God is therefore unlike creatures analogously, but not totally unlike, and hence not equivocally and therefore not completely unlike creatures.

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.

Evolution of religion is a myth promoted by those who believe in a theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is so poorly defined that it is applied to anything that develops whatsoever, including any claim of development in religion. Yet, evolution must exclude an intellect as the principle of development, but at the same time apply evolution to a religion, which ascribes an intellect behind the entire religious show. Such wax nose application of evolution makes any evolutionary claims concerning religion, vacuous.

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 arrives at conclusions using invalid and unsound arguments and false methods. The entire show is false. The claim that atheists and theologians have access to the same truth is false, because atheism rejects out of hand methods and truths embraced by theologians. An example here in this post is you have claimed that God falls under the inductive method, which is false. Theologians would reject this claim and proceed to show that the proof for the existence of God falls under the deductive method.

The acts to be, to cause, to move, to perfect, and to order.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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.

Correct. Roy's atheism is his own brand. Atheism is simply untenable, so he must make up his atheism as he goes along. His latest jig is to affirm the existence of the uncaused cause, even though theism concludes to God as the uncaused cause. He thinks it is untenable that the uncaused cause is God. What's his reason for this? He has given no reason.

Roy is a closet theist, because he has affirmed the existence of the uncaused cause.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Roy - 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.

Roy has stated atheism affirms the existence of the first cause. Now Roy denies that atheism says there is a first cause as shown below.

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

It doesn't.