Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JohnMartin]

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

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

No. Nothing causes nothing reduces to non being has a positive influence of being on non being. Which reduces to non being is a being which influences non being. The statement is jibberish. I suspect you don't get the concept of nothing because your atheism requires that the entire universe came from some process you or your atheist friend Lawrence Krauss says is nothing. You think nothing is really an implied being from which anything can be cause, such as the universe. Its just another false belief within the false worldview of atheism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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

Then again, you make things up as you go. Maybe in your brand of atheism, its better to be a blithering idiot. Then again, you can always change your mind as your atheism permits.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Some Irony in Atheism

1) One of the great ironies of atheism is often atheists portray theism as a belief in an invisible spaghetti monster, or some similar mythical, invisible man that cannot be discovered or scientifically verified. Yet atheism concludes to exactly what the atheists accuse theism of doing. Atheism concludes to an unknowable, or scientifically unverifiable, and thereby invisible baseline cause of all things that are observable. What is this cause of all things visible, and how is it any different to the invisible spaghetti monster, or the invisible man? There is no real difference because they cannot disprove the existence of such an entity and require some sort of cause to account for reality. Whatever that reality is, it cannot be observed and therefore must either be something not yet observed, or unobservable, and hence not known by science. Hence atheism concludes to an unscientific cause of all things.

2) Another irony is atheism concludes to life is ultimately meaningless. If life really is meaningless then it follows that because the ultimate reason of existence is meaning then all other intermediate explanations of meaning must also fail, or at least give an unsatisfactory explanation, and thereby be meaningless. For an atheist then to rail against theism, the atheist must breach his own world view and implicitly affirm that events and actions within the human experience really do have meaning, and simultaneously, such meaning is really a theistic delusion.

3) Atheism purports to claim that science points to either the unknowability of God, or the falsification of all theistic claims. What this means is according to atheism, because theism is false, then there is no first cause of the universe and no ultimate, supreme being. But these conclusions only mean atheism tries to explain reality with no prime being and hence no prime reason of be for all things. Such means atheism must 1) exclude the sciences being in any way dependent upon a greater being, and also assuming 2) the sciences cannot tell us anything about the prime being. Atheism then relies upon science to explain reality, but has no explanatory power to explain how any science exists at all. The result of this method is for atheism to rely upon science, it must deny any reason for faith as applied in theism, but then require an even greater act of blind faith in any reason why science should even exist, let alone be the only measure of reality. It seems the more the atheists deny the reason for faith, the greater the need for an irrational faith in science and atheism itself.

4) Atheism denies any reason for theistic dogma, but simultaneously insists that atheism is true, evolution is true, and reason can arrive at these conclusions with certitude. Yet atheism cannot be proven by reason and hence is only a belief system. The hardened atheist must then deny dogmatism in theism,and embrace an alternate dogmatism in atheism.

5) Modern atheism says the universe came from the big bang. Some atheists such as Kraus, claim the universe came from a quantum fluctuation. In making this claim the atheist is claiming everything came from either nothing, or something which we don't know. Atheism makes this claim along with denying theistic creation answers which say God has revealed that He created the universe in a manner which is only partly known, but incomprehensible. Atheism must then rely upon a largely science based, fabricated belief in something that is either nothing, or close to nothing and then dogmatically claim everything came about through some unknowable process. In doing so, the atheism must replace the prime, and ultimate being, with the least being, from which all things came. For atheism to do this requires that causation within reality must be posited to act backwards, whereby the greater is caused from the lesser, which is contrary to reason. Atheism then tries to account for the universe by stating it is unreasonable to have a creation event, but then rely upon its own atheistic answer by getting causation backwards.

6) Modern atheism dogmatically adheres to evolutionism, which posits the universe and all biological life came into being through a process of ever changing development. Yet such ongoing development must conclude to a deity, as the ultimate end of such development. The deity of course is denied to exist within atheism, which concludes there is no deity. Therefore the very method atheism claims to account for all things in the universe concludes to that which contradicts atheism.

7) Atheism says theism is false because there are so many contrary versions of theism. Yet if this is so, then atheism is also false because there are so many contrary versions of atheism. The errors of theism do not conclude to theism as false, because the errors of theism only show there are false theisms. However the errors of atheism are always false, for all versions of atheism are false. Therefore the atheist must reject theism because he thinks theism is false, by applying a false criteria and then embracing atheism, which is more false than false theism. Therefore atheism says theism is false, but then concludes to atheism is true, when in fact atheism is more false.

8) Atheism cannot account for the contingency of the universe. The grave deficiency within atheism means the atheist is forced into positing the universe operates via a mindless superstition. Atheism then rejects theism as being irrational, but then must conclude to a hyper irrationality in the inexplicable existence of the universe.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

You didn't answer my question. I asked whether I had correctly summarized your argument. All you did was restate your argument in different words.

Doug, I don't mean to be offensive here

I don't think you're being offensive. I think you're being obtuse.

but I do believe the principle of sufficient reason is something we really don't need to think about too much.

I can well understand why you'd prefer to think about it as little as possible.

All of the inductive sciences assume the principle of sufficient reason is true.

Everything I have read about the inductives sciences would fill a bookcase covering an entire wall of my living room. The PSR is not mentioned in any of it.

the law is constructed so sufficient evidence is required to bring forth a verdict that is beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the law demands sufficient reason to find someone guilty of a crime. In other words, given a proposition of the form "This person committed a crime," the law requires sufficient reason. But your claim is that we must assume there is a sufficient reason for all propositions, without exception.

the evidence of science and law is against your denial of the principle of sufficient reason.

Not even almost.

Life experience is clearly in favor of the same principle.

Maybe yours. Not mine.

[Doug Shaver]

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

Many atheists are philosophical naturalists, but philosophical naturalism is not the atheist position.

[Doug Shaver]

1) Atheism concludes to an unknowable, or scientifically unverifiable, and thereby invisible baseline cause of all things that are observable.

No, it doesn't.

2) atheism concludes to life is ultimately meaningless.

No, it doesn't.

3) Atheism purports to claim that science points to either the unknowability of God, or the falsification of all theistic claims.

No, it doesn't.

4) Atheism denies any reason for theistic dogma,

No, it doesn't.

5) Modern atheism says the universe came from the big bang.

No, it doesn't.

6) Modern atheism dogmatically adheres to evolutionism

No, it doesn't.

7) Atheism says theism is false because there are so many contrary versions of theism.

No, it doesn't.

8) Atheism cannot account for the contingency of the universe.

It doesn't have to.

[JohnMartin]

No, it doesn't.

Atheism allows atheists to say, no, it doesn't, when it does.

It doesn't have to.

Consequent to atheism, atheists have no way to logically explain how the universe as a contingent being actually exists. As the consequence to atheism is absurd, so too atheism is absurd.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
All of the inductive sciences assume the principle of sufficient reason is true.

Everything I have read about the inductives sciences would fill a bookcase covering an entire wall of my living room. The PSR is not mentioned in any of it..

And the wall is covered in books which both assume the PSR is true and then apply the PSR (even if it is not expressly stated), hence they attempt to explain reality using the principle.

JM

[shunyadragon]

Atheism allows atheists to say, no, it doesn't, when it does.

The claim it does is from the basis of a presupposition of faith.

Consequent to atheism, atheists have no way to logically explain how the universe as a contingent being actually exists. As the consequence to atheism is absurd, so too atheism is absurd.

A less biased Logic concludes our physical existence simply exists, beyond this your on own circular reasoning and justification of what you believe without objective substance.

There is no objective evidence either way that would objectively demonstrate an 'uncaused cause' outside the universe.

[shunyadragon]

No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


No, it doesn't.


It doesn't have to.

The broken record of self justification.

[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.

JM is too stupid for words.

[Roy]

No, it doesn't.

Atheism allows atheists to say, no, it doesn't, when it does.

No, it doesn't.

[Roy]

The broken record of self justification.

Come off if Frank.

How would you respond if moonbat wrote a long post like this:

1. Bahaism states that the moon is a pineapple...
2. Bahaism causes its adherents to belch constantly...
3. Bahaism shows the world that transvestism is acceptable...
4. Bahaism leads to smoking sticks of celery...
5. Bahaism has a history of causing submarine earthquakes...
6. Bahaism requires submission to the Wizard of Oz...

?

[JonathanL]

Come off if Frank.

How would you respond if moonbat wrote a long post like this:

1. Bahaism states that the moon is a pineapple...
2. Bahaism causes its adherents to belch constantly...
3. Bahaism shows the world that transvestism is acceptable...
4. Bahaism leads to smoking sticks of celery...
5. Bahaism has a history of causing submarine earthquakes...
6. Bahaism requires submission to the Wizard of Oz...

?

Bahaism doesn't teach any of that?! Why didn't anyone tell me sooner?






You've turned my whole world upside down. I will have to reevaluate a great deal of things from now on.

[shunyadragon]

Come off if Frank.

How would you respond if moonbat wrote a long post like this:

1. Bahaism states that the moon is a pineapple...
2. Bahaism causes its adherents to belch constantly...
3. Bahaism shows the world that transvestism is acceptable...
4. Bahaism leads to smoking sticks of celery...
5. Bahaism has a history of causing submarine earthquakes...
6. Bahaism requires submission to the Wizard of Oz...

?

Same, the broken record of self justification attacking my faith this time . . .