Ask the Atheist

[hurst]

PLP:

Let me explain again the logical fallacy in all “first cause”-like arguments.
…

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P3: God exists (by C1)​

C2: A cause of God (meta-God?) exists

And we’re in an infinite regress.

Thus you prove that not everything can possibly have a cause. So the notion we tend to have that there was initially total nothingness is not very well founded, is it?

There is another way of perceiving and thus of stating it. It is actually quite logical.

Here is the start of a logic process of reasoning about existence.

1. Nothing can come from “total nothingness”
2. But there is not “total nothingness” now
3. Therefore, there must have never been “total nothingness”
   …

As you can see, the concept throws the notion of P1 around. The fact is, something is that always has been. There is no fallacy in these 3 steps, which are based on logic, natural sense, and human reason. It is as certain as one can naturally get.

(Of course, since we have free will, one can still decide not to accept this conclusion. But then they would have to accept something illogical, nonsensical, and/or unreasonable.)

hurst

 

[PLP]

We’ve touched on many topics in this thread, and I’m getting a sense of where various people statnd on these issues. Since we’re already at page 3 (and pages here are long!), I think it’s less effective to try to handle all of the various topics in one thread.

Instead, I’m going to post various threads for each of the individual topics that have been touched on here. Here are the biggest topics I’ve seen on this thread. Feel free to request more.

• Overview: What atheism means, why I personally self-identify as atheism, and my goals and motivations for posting here
• The First Cause Argument (and related arguments)
• Pascal’s Wager
• Positive arguments for atheism and agnosticism (multiple threads).

These are all complicated, subtle topics, and I’m not going to get to them all in a day. But I’m a “long-haul” kind of guy; I’ll be posting here as long as I’m welcome, so please be patient.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

RyanL

I agree with everything in your post. Somewhere along the line someone assumed that I had referred to God as illogical. I never did. The only post of mine that touches materially on this theme is the following:

Post # 269

Again, you are assuming that God exists in the human universe only and is therefore subject to the laws of human logic. No Catholic I know would ever agree to that definition of God. Nor does it make any sense. If God transcends the universe, surely His logic also transcends ours and we would be unable to completely understand His logic in the the same way that we understand our own.

In this sense we cannot explain God to any atheist’s satisfaction because to an atheist the idea of God is illogical, not supra-rational. God is illogical because the only logic the atheist admits is the logic of this world. He is certain there is no logic outside of this world, and so God must be an illogical concept. No Catholic agrees to this. On the other hand, God does not conform strictly to our human logic simply because we are finite and the finite cannot grasp the Infinite except to the extent that God allows that.

The atheist has little imagination because he cannot imagine a reality beyond the known reality of this world … nor does he want to imagine such a reality.

Sorry if you took anything I said about full decks personally. I think (hope) we are on the same page now.

 

[TNT]

hurst:

Thus you prove that not everything can possibly have a cause. So the notion we tend to have that there was initially total nothingness is not very well founded, is it?

There is another way of perceiving and thus of stating it. It is actually quite logical.

Here is the start of a logic process of reasoning about existence.

1. Nothing can come from “total nothingness”
2. But there is not “total nothingness” now
3. Therefore, there must have never been “total nothingness”
   …
   As you can see, the concept throws the notion of P1 around. The fact is, something is that always has been. There is no fallacy in these 3 steps, which are based on logic, natural sense, and human reason. It is as certain as one can naturally get.

(Of course, since we have free will, one can still decide not to accept this conclusion. But then they would have to accept something illogical, nonsensical, and/or unreasonable.)

hurst

AND THAT’S THE TRUTH THAT AN ATHEIST STUMBLES OVER.
HE MUST HAVE FAITH IN [Eternity of Matter]=[EOM]
But the word Faith is his anathema. Just as lack of Faith in [Eternity of God] = [EOG] is anathema to a Theist.

They are both RELIGIONS and I to not declare them as such, but simply RECOGNIZE them as such.
But if godless theory is ever PROPERLY RECOGNIZED for what it is, then it too would be prohibited.
That is the SOUL reason that they MUST under all circumstances deny the obvious conclusion…

From this inescapable truth, teaching in public school, a Godless theory by faith, is teaching a RELIGION by the state.

Good Post Hurst.

 

[Hitetlen]

…simply because we are finite and the finite cannot grasp the Infinite…

I would venture to say that you are not a mathematician There is nothing “mysterious” about the concept of infinity, be it infinitesimally small or infinitely large. It is true, that we cannot visualize infinity, just like we cannot visualize a tesseract, but that is not a major hindrance. Every mathematician understands infinity.
Gilbert Keith:

In this sense we cannot explain God to any atheist’s satisfaction because to an atheist the idea of God is illogical, not supra-rational. God is illogical because the only logic the atheist admits is the logic of this world. He is certain there is no logic outside of this world, and so God must be an illogical concept.

There is only one logic, and it is expressed in three simple axioms (the law of indentity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle). The concept of God is not necessarily illogical, though it may well be, depending on the definition.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Hitelin

Every mathematician understands infinity.

Only as a concept. Not as a reality.

Only the atheist holds to it as a reality … as in an infinite universe. But the atheist cannot grasp it as a reality in God. God’s intellect is infinite, whereas the atheist’s intellect is finite. Unable to grasp an infinite intellect, the atheist assumes God does not exist.

This in itself is illogical. It assumes that for which there is no proof and can never be any proof. Many things have been proven to be possible that once were thought impossible. It was only because men opened their minds and their hearts to the possible that their intellects began to SEE.

The atheist closes his mind and his heart to God. This is why he cannot SEE God. He does not want to see God.

The fatal flaw of atheism is that it rejects the imagination and intuition as avenues along with intellect to the knowledge of God. It assumes man is a calculating machine only. If intellect by itself does not compute (grasp) God, God does not exist.

The arrogance of intellect!

 

[Elzee]

PLP:

I don’t know. Whatever does happen, the evidence (with some controversial exceptions ) shows that it’s one way and irreversible. I’ve not seen a plausible instance of anyone coming back to report on conditions.

I suppose I’ll find out for myself in due tiem.

Are you afraid of what might happen, since you admit you don’t know (which I assume leaves open the possibility of heaven and hell?)
(I’m sorry if this is redundant - I haven’t read all the posts on this thread).

 

[StCsDavid]

PLP:

It’s amazing though, that these truths which are true even if the majority were to disbelieve them are still, always, what the majority does in fact happen to believe.

It’s a clever argument, but in action it fails to hold up. By that line of logic, truth is limited to human perception versus reality. For example you and I see a star in the sky…we perceive it is there…but in reality that star died millions of years ago and all we’re really seeing is the light that’s just now getting to Earth.

PLP:

It’s notable that the 10 commandments (none of the three sets, that is)

,Source please.

PLP:

do not prohibit slavery, genocide or rape; they do not compel democracy, the equality of women, fair economic dealing or the responsibilities of parents towards their children. And the second commandment seems pretty much completely ignored.

A bit weak. You have to consider that they weren’t meant to be an all inclusive lanudry list of dos and don’ts, but rather a foundation upon which to build. They are the bare minimum…much more is expected.

 

[tdandh26]

I disagree that any human can contemplate infinity in its true sense. A person might come close if it is assumed that the infinity that is being looked at streches infinitly in one direction on one plain, but to even attempt to understand it radiating in all directions without ever looping on itself is inconceivable to the human minds. Our minds must enclose on something at some point or that thought would never end, joining itself to that infinity, which it is attempting to ponder. Thus enter our infirmity, we are finite and our end is constantly leading us toward our own inevitable end.

 

[martino]

PLP:

Let me explain again the logical fallacy in all “first cause”-like arguments.

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P2: The physical universe exists​

C1: A cause of the physical universe (i.e. God) exists

But…

P1: Everything which exists has a cause which also exists
P3: God exists (by C1)​

C2: A cause of God (meta-God?) exists

And we’re in an infinite regress.

let me try it this way…there are two kinds of beings that could possibly exist; 1) independent beings; those whose existence needs no reason, cause or explanation by another being, they cannot not exist. 2) dependent beings are those whose existence is caused by another being, they cannot explain themselves. if God exists he is an independent being because if he had a cause he would not be independent but rather dependent.

our universe is made up of dependent beings and we know that dependent beings cannot exist without a necessary independent being. and since we know dependent beings exist we can conclude that an independent being must also exist. God exists.

so it would look more like this:

P1: dependent beings cannot exist without the existence of a necessary independent being to cause them.
P2: we know that dependent beings exist.

C1: an independent being exists(God)

 

[PLP]

Per my New Strategy, I’ve posted my first thread: Who am I? Why am I here?

Since the “hottest” issue in this thread is the First Cause argument and its variants, I’ll post a thread on that topic as soon as possible. My son is coming on Sunday for a week-long visit (yay!), however, so I’ll have less time to post. Please be patient!

 

[martino]

PLP:

Per my New Strategy, I’ve posted my first thread: Who am I? Why am I here?

Since the “hottest” issue in this thread is the First Cause argument and its variants, I’ll post a thread on that topic as soon as possible. My son is coming on Sunday for a week-long visit (yay!), however, so I’ll have less time to post. Please be patient!

sounds like a great idea!!

 

[Polska]

Hey PLP,
Thanks for the posts. Here are somethings to ponder about:

1. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, with Catholicism being the largest denomination within Christianity. Why do so many people believe in a fairy tale?
2. How could have the bible, “a fairy tale”, been written over 2000 years with over 100 authors, with one consistent message. I mean, that must be an eloborate hoax.
3. What about all the prophecies in the bible? Most of them have been fulfilled such as prophecies about Jesus, and prohpecies of the end times which are being fulfilled now.
4. The bible is extensive, why cannot things be disproved about what the bible is talking about? Its has existed for many years and it cannot be disproven.
5. Jesus was the only man to claim he was God.
6. Why is it that generally speaking, believers tend to be happy while non-believers have problems dealing with life and result to suicide, drugs etc. etc.?

Let me know what you think.

 

[PLP]

Hitetlen:

There is only one logic, and it is expressed in three simple axioms (the law of indentity, the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle). The concept of God is not necessarily illogical, though it may well be, depending on the definition.

You have to add the definition of at least the NAND operator, and the binary domain of quantification of the variables (true/false, 0/1, whatever).

 

[PLP]

Gilbert Keith:

The atheist has little imagination because he cannot imagine a reality beyond the known reality of this world … nor does he want to imagine such a reality.

This is not the case. I can imagine a lot of things. I just don’t believe that they’re all true.

The atheist closes his mind and his heart to God. This is why he cannot SEE God. He does not want to see God.

Again, this is not the case. My mind and heart are completely open to the truth, whatever that is.

The fatal flaw of atheism is that it rejects the imagination and intuition as avenues along with intellect to the knowledge of God.

I don’t see this as a flaw. I don’t reject imagination and intuition. But nor do I consider imagination and intuition by themselves to determine truth.

The arrogance of intellect!

I don’t see reliance on rationality and intellect as “arrogant”. I see it as merely sensible.

 

[PLP]

Elzee:

Are you afraid of what might happen, since you admit you don’t know (which I assume leaves open the possibility of heaven and hell?)

No. I’m not a fearful person in general. Regardless of what happens, I’ll deal with it when it happens.

 

[MrIrish]

PLP:

You have to add the definition of at least the NAND operator, and the binary domain of quantification of the variables (true/false, 0/1, whatever).

The NAND operator! Are you an electrical engineer or computer scientist, by any chance?

 

[RyanL]

MrIrish:

The NAND operator! Are you an electrical engineer or computer scientist, by any chance?

I’ve been both!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[PLP]

StCsDavid:

It’s a clever argument, but in action it fails to hold up. By that line of logic, truth is limited to human perception versus reality.

This is not a failure in my book.

For example you and I see a star in the sky…we perceive it is there…but in reality that star died millions of years ago and all we’re really seeing is the light that’s just now getting to Earth.

Empiricism is more sophisticated than that. We certainly do not need to rely on divine revelation to know that stars are very far away and light moves at a constant, finite speed.

Source please [for different versions of the 10 Commandments].

1. 
   *]Exodus 20
   *]Exodus 34-35,
   *]Matthew 19
   

   A bit weak. You have to consider that they weren’t meant to be an all inclusive lanudry list of dos and don’ts, but rather a foundation upon which to build. They are the bare minimum…much more is expected.

   IIRC, the 10C were presented in the post as comprehensive.

 

[PLP]

1. Christianity is the largest religion in the world, with Catholicism being the largest denomination within Christianity. Why do so many people believe in a fairy tale?

The Bible is obviously not a fairy tale. It’s a very important work of literature, in many places profound and eloquent.

1. How could have the bible, “a fairy tale”, been written over 2000 years with over 100 authors, with one consistent message. I mean, that must be an eloborate hoax.

Hoax? It’s no “hoax”. I’m sure all (or at least almost all) the authors represented in the Bible were sincere about their beliefs. But it’s not all that consistent; there are tons of at least apparent contradictions, which can be resolved only by importing no small few exegetical assumptions.

Nor were the individual books of the bible written independently of each other. The Jews had an elaborate bureaucracy to keep the OT at least relatively consistent, and one can assume that the Council of Trent (?) used at least some criteria of consistency when admitting books to the NT canon.

To the naturalist, there’s nothing particularly surprising about the Bible

1. What about all the prophecies in the bible? Most of them have been fulfilled such as prophecies about Jesus, and prohpecies of the end times which are being fulfilled now.

After investigating the supposed prophecies in the Bible, I find none of them persuasive. They are often over-general, many appear retroactive, and some are “fulfilled” only by other scripture of dubious literal truth. There’s a lot of good work on this in the Infidels library.

1. The bible is extensive, why cannot things be disproved about what the bible is talking about? Its has existed for many years and it cannot be disproven.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Many things in the Bible have been “disproven”, at least to the extent that modern science forces a metaphorical interpretation rather than a literal interpretation. The modern universe was not created in 6 days, it is not 6,000 years old, bats are not birds, rabbits are not ruminants, the sun did not stand still for Joshua, there was no global flood, Adam and Eve were not created from mud, Eve was not created from Adam’s rib, etc.

If the Bible is not disprovable by definition (e.g. forcing a metaphorical interpretation is not considered “disproof”), then it’s hardly surprising that the Bible has never actually been disproved.

1. Jesus was the only man to claim he was God.

The claims you are referring to are, prima facie, claims made by a character in a narrative. It’s not at all certain that any actual human being made those claims.

Second, I seriously doubt that Jesus was the only man to claim he was God.

1. Why is it that generally speaking, believers tend to be happy while non-believers have problems dealing with life and result to suicide, drugs etc. etc.?

I don’t believe this assertion to be at all accurate.