Collapse Of Atheism

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

Not until you actually read Kreeft. Then you can start another thread, so we don’t pull this thread off course.

It seems to me that you’re avoiding my objections because you don’t have an answer. This thread is about the collapse of atheism, why not talk about the arguments against it?

I am going to read the entire 20 arguments by Kreeft So you can start writing your response.

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

It seems to me that you’re avoiding my objections because you don’t have an answer. This thread is about the collapse of atheism, why not talk about the arguments against it?

How can I discuss with you the issues Kreeft brings up when you haven’t read them?

Secondly, I thought we were in agreement on not hijacking this thread. I know you know how to start a new thread.

 

[mike182d]

Atheism is perhaps the only belief system that is void of arguments in support of it. Rather, it exists solely to deny the beliefs of others and a belief system with no positive support cannot possibly stand for long.

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

How can I discuss with you the issues Kreeft brings up when you haven’t read them?

Secondly, I thought we were in agreement on not hijacking this thread. I know you know how to start a new thread.

Since this thread is about the collapse of atheism, why not discuss it here? We can see whether atheism has collapsed intellectually by seeing whether there are good arguments against it. I don’t see the point of a new thread when so much of what has been said is already in this thread, and other people have already participated in the discussion.

Let’s start with a few of Kreeft’s arguments:

**Kalam: **
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
2 The universe began to exist.
3 Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

Contingency:

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.
   **
   Time and Contingency:**

1. We notice around us things that come into being and go out of being. A tree, for example, grows from a tiny shoot, flowers brilliantly, then withers and dies.
2. Whatever comes into being or goes out of being does not have to be; nonbeing is a real possibility.
3. Suppose that nothing has to be; that is, that nonbeing is a real possibility for everything.
4. Then right now nothing would exist. For
5. If the universe began to exist, then all being must trace its origin to some past moment before which there existed—literally—nothing at all. But
6. From nothing nothing comes. So
7. The universe could not have begun.
8. But suppose the universe never began. Then, for the infinitely long duration of cosmic history, all being had the built—in possibility not to be. But
9. If in an infinite time that possibility was never realized, then it could not have been a real possibility at all. So
   10 There must exist something which has to exist, which cannot not exist. This sort of being is called necessary.
   11 Either this necessity belongs to the thing in itself or it is derived from another. If derived from another there must ultimately exist a being whose necessity is not derived, that is, an absolutely necessary being.
   12 This absolutely necessary being is God.
   peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#3

First, these 3 arguments are really just variations of Aristotle’s prime mover argument. Restating the same argument 3 times doesn’t give you 3 arguments for the existence of God, it’s still the same general argument: there needs to be an uncaused first cause, a necessary reason for everything to exist etc.

Okay, valid argument. But what does it have to do with God? A timeless multiverse would suffice. A timeless multiverse would not need to be caused because it would exist outside of time, and if God can exist necessarily why not a timeless multiverse?

This is only an argument for the existence of God if you say uncaused first cause/necessary reason to sustain contingently existing things = God.

 

[solarwind23]

Continuing with Kreeft’s arguments:

Design

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
   2 Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
   3 Not chance.
   4 Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
   5 Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
   Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

This completely ignores what we know about self organization in system. It is not intelligent design or chance. There are various forms of non-intelligent self-organization: i.e. evolution, i.e. fractals in nature

You do need a set of fundamental rules on which to operate, and the source fo these rules may be a necessarily existing uncaused first cause whatever. But a personal God? A mind?

I don’t see how it follows.

 

[DeFide]

solarwind23:

Since this thread is about the collapse of atheism, why not discuss it here? We can see whether atheism has collapsed intellectually by seeing whether there are good arguments against it. I don’t see the point of a new thread when so much of what has been said is already in this thread, and other people have already participated in the discussion.

Let’s start with a few of Kreeft’s arguments:

First, these 3 arguments are really just variations of Aristotle’s prime mover argument. Restating the same argument 3 times doesn’t give you 3 arguments for the existence of God, it’s still the same general argument: there needs to be an uncaused first cause, a necessary reason for everything to exist etc.

Okay, valid argument. But what does it have to do with God? A timeless multiverse would suffice. A timeless multiverse would not need to be caused because it would exist outside of time, and if God can exist necessarily why not a timeless multiverse?

This is only an argument for the existence of God if you say uncaused first cause/necessary reason to sustain contingently existing things = God.

Because you are obstinately

1. Disregarding what I wrote regarding reading Kreeft’s work and starting a new topic out of courtesy to this thread.

and

1. Ignoring the Kalam argument and painting it as the contingency argument,

you have won a place on my ignore list. Congratulations, you are the first.

 

[solarwind23]

Continuing with Kreeft’s arguments:

Design

1. The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.)
   2 Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design.
   3 Not chance.
   4 Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design.
   5 Design comes only from a mind, a designer.
   Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer.

This completely ignores what we know about self organization in system. It is not intelligent design or chance. There are various forms of non-intelligent self-organization: i.e. evolution, i.e. fractals in nature

You do need a set of fundamental rules on which to operate, and the source fo these rules may be a necessarily existing uncaused first cause whatever. But a personal God? A mind?

I don’t see how it follows.

Miracles

1. A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
2. There are numerous well-attested miracles.
3. Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
4. Therefore God exists.

Name one well attested miracle. There are countless stories of miracles from back in the day, but so what, there are stories of alien abductions and ghosts as well. There are various pagan miracles, the prophet Mohammed claimed to have talked to God or whatever.

Well -attested: multiple eye witness accounts quoted from the eye witnesses themselves, names of people, places, dates. Many different independent sources without an agenda corroborating the same thing. Pictures, videos, physical evidence.

Frankly, I don’t even know if this is enough. I bet you’d get a bunch of witnesses attesting to televangelist miracles/exorcisms. Some Protestants claim to talk in tongues, have seen others do it, and believe it. There are pagan records of healing miracles.

So frankly I think well-attested means physical evidence, pictures, videos, or better yet miracles demonstrated in a laboratry.

But even pictures can be doctored as evidenced by people who believe in UFO’s, and evidence can be doctored i.e. Bigfoot footsteps.

I guess it’s pretty darn hard to have a well attested miracle.

But if God decided to move stars in the sky around and write us a message Jesus is Lord, and every single person in the world saw… I’d believe it.

 

[solarwind23]

DeFide:

Because you are obstinately

1. Disregarding what I wrote regarding reading Kreeft’s work and starting a new topic out of courtesy to this thread.

and

1. Ignoring the Kalam argument and painting it as the contingency argument,

you have won a place on my ignore list. Congratulations, you are the first.

What a great way to avoid responding to my objections.

Maybe instead of ignoring me you should have argued why the Kalam argument is different? And why those arguments don’t all get summarized by the necessarily existing uncaused first cause idea?

In fact, you have responded to none of my objections. You do realize that it seems you’re just avoiding the argument.

I am prefectly willing to debate this and be convinced if you give a valid argument.

 

[solarwind23]

Kreeft’s further argument on first cause, saying it must be a personal agent:

Question 3: But is this cause God—a he and not a mere it?

Reply: Suppose the cause of the universe has existed eternally. Suppose further that this cause is not personal: that it has given rise to the universe, not through any choice, but simply through its being. In that case it is hard to see how the universe could be anything but infinitely old, since all the conditions needed for the being of the universe would exist from all eternity. But the kalam argument has shown that the universe cannot be infinitely old. So the hypothesis of an eternal impersonal cause seems to lead to an inconsistency.

Is there a way out? Yes, if the universe is the result of a free personal choice. Then at least we have some way of seeing how an eternal cause could give rise to a temporally limited effect. Of course, the kalam argument does not prove everything Christians believe about God, but what proof does? Less than everything, however, is far from nothing. And the kalam argument proves something central to the Christian belief in God: that the universe is not eternal and without beginning; that there is a Maker of heaven and earth. And in doing so, it disproves the picture of the universe most atheists wish to maintain: self—sustaining matter, endlessly changing in endless time.

How can a timeless, eternally existing being choose? It is eternal, and unchanging. A choice is a change, it means that at some point God didn’t want to make the universe, but then, i.e. time, he did. Without time, how can you change?

If God is outside of time then for it everything exists all at once? What does it mean to be outside of time? I don’t know. Frankly I can’t get my mind around this.

All I can say is if God has a mind it has to be completely unlike ours. Our minds are in time, one thing follows the next etc. It’s how our logic is, one step after teh next. It’s how we live. It’s how we learn.

For God there is no time. There is no change. There is no step-by-step, or at least so it seems to me.

So can God be neutral about creating the universe and then decide to create it? Hmm. It seems to imply time to me.

And if God exists within time, then what caused time? What caused God? Is God an infinite regress into the past? I don’t know.If time is a necessary part of God, why can’t it be a necessary part of a multiverse?

There are a lot of time/infinity related paradoxes that human minds might not be able to ever wrap their head around.

Plus, even if this proves a God who is a mind this is all still within deism.

But people who want to read more of Kreeft’s arguments nad his responses to objectiosn are free to do so.

I simply don’t have the resources to read that whole thing and respond to every objection.

But in each category he does respond to various possible objections. If you are interested, go and find out for yourself.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

What is time anyway, if you go near the speed of light and then return to earth thousands of years will pass where for you it was only 5 minutes (well obviously numbers are different, but this is the idea).

It seems like we’re pushing the boundaries of our limited minds here

 

[solarwind23]

P.S.

If the universe has a cause, can it be infinitely old? Cause means that at some point the chain leading into the past would stop. This doens’t sound like infinity.

But if this cause is a thing that exists eternally and gave rise to the universe by virtue of its existence, then should it be infinite as Kreeft says?

It just seems like an infinity paradox.

If this cause exists eternally outside of time and created time by virtue of its existence, what would we expect?

Can I even say that this means at some point time would come into being, because this seems to imply that time exists before time.

If a necessarily existing uncaused first cause gives rise to time, then time IS.

I guess the ineresting philosophical question, that I think has already been posed many many times, is:

Did God (who is also necessarily existing uncaused first cause) have a choice in “creating” the universe?

All I can say is that my mind can’t comprehend this at all.

So far I have this: God is either within time or outside it, if God is within time then it seems that a necessary uncaused first cause can itself be within time, or can have time as its necessary feature. But would it be an infinite regress into the past? What would be the source of time? In that case why not transfer these to the multiverse and have it give rise to our universe at some point in time?

If God is outside of time, then how can God choose? How can there be change in God? It seems that God would have to be everything it necessarily is at once, and do everything it must necessarily do at once. Which means he couldn’t wait around and then choose to create the universe, because that would imply God is in time.

But then why has the universe been around for only 15 billion years if God is eternal and necessarily created the universe.

Can God be both outside of time and within time? Can our minds be completely limited and inadequate to even think about these? Somehow I think so.

Maybe time is just an illusion as some say, a function of our limited minds. Maybe with better brains we’d see this so differently we wouldn’t even be asking these questions.

 

[DreadVandal]

Well, I’m a latecomer to the thread. Hmmmm, are we still on the video itself or are we now having a debate about the existence of God?

I haven’t viewed the video yet, but I don’t think atheism is collapsing. But, who cares? What do statistics and polls have to do with truth? If everyone on the planet was an atheist, that would not prove that God didn’t exist.

Now back to the proofs: I’m not particularly fond of Kreeft’s work. I believe that the poster “EtienneGilson” said it well when he made the analogy Kreeft/Philosophy Dr.Phil/Psychology. That being said, let’s look just at the cosmological argument in terms of the move from contingent to necessary being.

Here is how I would construe the argument with a little help from Leibniz:

1. For every being that exists,
   there must be some sufficient reason for its existence
2. Contingent beings have their principle of sufficient reason
   outside of themselves in another being
3. The universe taken in its individual parts
   and as a whole is contingent
4. So, the universe must have its sufficient reason
   in another being.
5. That being must be necessary and be its own sufficient
   reason
6. Otherwise there would be no necessary being and therefore
   nothing would exist, which is absurd

Therefore; there is some necessary being that is the cause and ground of the universe.

If this argument is successful, then it proves the existence of necessary being. But it doesn’t specify the nature of that Being other than to say that its existence must be thought of as necessary. In other words, one does not get to a personal God from this argument. The argument just as easily proves pantheism.

But, I would also point out that Kant correctly observed that the argument attempts to apply the category of causality to that which cannot be within human experience. We have no way of understanding, from reason alone, what necessary existence must be like. Reason leads both to the confirmation and denial of such a first cause (what Kant calls an antinomy). And so, first cause arguments are ultimately inconclusive.

 

[kildare]

“If God made the universe for a purpose, I think we’re just a small part of that purpose. Otherwise it would be an awful waste of space and time.”
I dont think of it like that, afterall the entire universe is supposed to have come from a tiny point at the start of the Big Bang or inflation. Then to think that for all its size, the most compliacted natural thing that we know of in the Universe is the Human brain! I guess what I’m trying to say is that things that may appear important to us, such as cosmic size and being in the geometric center etc, may not be of the same value to the Infinite Intelligence, who is in all regards outside teh closed system of the Universe.

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

P.S.

Maybe time is just an illusion as some say, a function of our limited minds. Maybe with better brains we’d see this so differently we wouldn’t even be asking these questions.

I’m inclined to accept this view that time is a product of the mind. True infinite eternity is atemporal. To God, everything is present in one eternal “now.” I would also argue that while the universe is bounded in time, there is a sense in which God did create the universe from eternity. In this I follow Meister Eckhart’s exegesis of Genesis 1 and John 1. When God gave birth to the Logos in eternity God also created the world through the Logos.

Did God create freely? I would say yes but that only means that God was supremely free in HIs power to bring forth the world with no resistance to His will. “Choice” is a matter of human freedom, not God’s freedom. God necessarily does what is best, since He is perfect. So, out of the necessity of His own nature, God freely created the best possible universe.

Of course, the difficulty in speaking about all of this is that we are talking about God, who cannot be talked about. We have no univocal language for God and so we must keep that in mind. All that we say about God is symbolic, analogical, or metaphorical.

 

[DreadVandal]

“If God made the universe for a purpose, I think we’re just a small part of that purpose. Otherwise it would be an awful waste of space and time.”
I dont think of it like that, afterall the entire universe is supposed to have come from a tiny point at the start of the Big Bang or inflation. Then to think that for all its size, the most compliacted natural thing that we know of in the Universe is the Human brain! I guess what I’m trying to say is that things that may appear important to us, such as cosmic size and being in the geometric center etc, may not be of the same value to the Infinite Intelligence, who is in all regards outside teh closed system of the Universe.

I would also say that the production of highly intelligent, yet tiny, beings in a universe that is seemingly infinite is for the sake of showing those tiny little intelligent beings just how infinite in magnitude God really is. Also, who knows what other kinds of intelligent life are out there and how the Divine Being relates to them is a mystery? The most perfect Divine Being radiates goodness and good is effusive by nature, so God’s being spills out into all of finite being and there may be an infinite number of ways in which God relates to a potentially infinite number of beings.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

I’m inclined to accept this view that time is a product of the mind. True infinite eternity is atemporal. To God, everything is present in one eternal “now.” I would also argue that while the universe is bounded in time, there is a sense in which God did create the universe from eternity. In this I follow Meister Eckhart’s exegesis of Genesis 1 and John 1. When God gave birth to the Logos in eternity God also created the world through the Logos.

Did God create freely? I would say yes but that only means that God was supremely free in HIs power to bring forth the world with no resistance to His will. “Choice” is a matter of human freedom, not God’s freedom. God necessarily does what is best, since He is perfect. So, out of the necessity of His own nature, God freely created the best possible universe.

Of course, the difficulty in speaking about all of this is that we are talking about God, who cannot be talked about. We have no univocal language for God and so we must keep that in mind. All that we say about God is symbolic, analogical, or metaphorical.

But if God is outside of time, can God even “do” anything? It seems that God can just BE everything at once, there can be no step by step sequence.

So in this sense how is God by virtue of being a mind different from a mindless necessarily existing timeless first cause?

But on the contrary if God is inside time, and God can not create the universe for a while but then choose to create it by a free act, then why can’t a multiverse be inside time and create the universe after a while because of some necessary but mindless aspect of its nature?

Can the necessarily existing uncaused first cause be inside time in the first place and have time as its necessary property? Bah!

A crazier idea is if we are going to join God after we die in eternity, then are we already there at the same time that we are here?

There everything is at once, does it meant we’re eternally there?

!!!

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

But if God is outside of time, can God even “do” anything? It seems that God can just BE everything at once, there can be no step by step sequence.

So in this sense how is God by virtue of being a mind different from a mindless necessarily existing timeless first cause?

This is a mystery and paradox that cannot be understood. We have no language capable of describing it. At the most, we can say that we are speaking analogically of God’s existence in relation to the existence of the Universe. The difference between God & a “mindless necessarily existing timeless first cause,” is the difference between Leibniz’ vision of things and Spinoza’s vision of things. If Infinite, Eternal Mind is the ground and cause of all things, then there is a final goal for all things and our experience of truth, goodness, and beauty have some transcendent and abiding ground. But if the Substance of all things is pure, mindless, blind efficient causality that there is no purpose to anything. What is simply is. At best, good and evil are concepts that are related to our personal desire for survival. They may serve a useful function in preserving our race as a species, but they have no intrinsic worth. In such a universe, nothing has intrinsic worth, except perhaps the universe itself. Also, if all there is is blind, efficient causality, then there is no freedom. Everything exists in a chain of efficient causes and what happens necessarily happens, but for no intelligent purpose.

The question is: Which universe do you choose? Its an existential question. I suppose if you can live with the latter vision, then you might choose it, but most people can’t. There is something intuitive within us that cries out for more. Either this is a vain illusion or it is an intimation of some transcendent purpose in things.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

This is a mystery and paradox that cannot be understood. We have no language capable of describing it. At the most, we can say that we are speaking analogically of God’s existence in relation to the existence of the Universe. The difference between God & a “mindless necessarily existing timeless first cause,” is the difference between Leibniz’ vision of things and Spinoza’s vision of things. If Infinite, Eternal Mind is the ground and cause of all things, then there is a final goal for all things and our experience of truth, goodness, and beauty have some transcendent and abiding ground. But if the Substance of all things is pure, mindless, blind efficient causality that there is no purpose to anything. What is simply is. At best, good and evil are concepts that are related to our personal desire for survival. They may serve a useful function in preserving our race as a species, but they have no intrinsic worth. In such a universe, nothing has intrinsic worth, except perhaps the universe itself. Also, if all there is is blind, efficient causality, then there is no freedom. Everything exists in a chain of efficient causes and what happens necessarily happens, but for no intelligent purpose.

The question is: Which universe do you choose? Its an existential question. I suppose if you can live with the latter vision, then you might choose it, but most people can’t. There is something intuitive within us that cries out for more. Either this is a vain illusion or it is an intimation of some transcendent purpose in things.

Well, first of all quantum physics did away with determinism. Uncaused events happen all the time in the particle world as described by quantum physics. Could this be a source of free will? I think so.

But having said that free will is greately exaggerated. Human beings are not completely free, we are predictable and our thoughts, feelings, and even actions are in a big way predetermined by our past experiences and knowledge, and we frequently have little to no control over for instance the way we’re raised.

Having said that, there is some freedom, and I think the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics might be the way to fit it in.

I also don’t agree about your portrayal of a Godless universe, maybe “God” is whatever happens within our minds, the universe coming to know itself. Maybe it’s up to us to create justice, goodness, compassion etc. Why should it have less meaning because of it?

Maybe there is a God who is a mind but he doesn’t pay any more attention to us than to apes. Who said we’ll have an afterlife? It seems that our minds and “selves” cease when the brain dies. Memory, language, ways of thinking etc. are all tied to the brain. Once it’s gone, what goes to the afterlife? What will it remember? Will it still be “us”?

No way of knowing.

 

[DreadVandal]

solarwind23:

Well, first of all quantum physics did away with determinism. Uncaused events happen all the time in the particle world as described by quantum physics. Could this be a source of free will? I think so.

But having said that free will is greately exaggerated. Human beings are not completely free, we are predictable and our thoughts, feelings, and even actions are in a big way predetermined by our past experiences and knowledge, and we frequently have little to no control over for instance the way we’re raised.

Having said that, there is some freedom, and I think the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics might be the way to fit it in.

I also don’t agree about your portrayal of a Godless universe, maybe “God” is whatever happens within our minds, the universe coming to know itself. Maybe it’s up to us to create justice, goodness, compassion etc. Why should it have less meaning because of it?

What would the basis be for justice, goodness, etc? Utility perhaps? That’s all I can think of. The other possibility is one suggested by Camus, that we create love and morality out of rebellion. We rebel against the absurdity of life through heroic acts of love. Perhaps this would be the way. In any case, what one chooses as the good and beautiful depends on what one considers to be of primary importance. If having a reasonably comfortable life surrounded by reasonably pleasant folks is most important to me, then a world with some basic moral rights and rules is something to work for. If my own will to power is most important to me; then it is simply whatever brings an increase of life and power to myself. But if there is no God, then there is no particular choice of values that is inherently better than any other. That doesn’t mean we can’t be moral or don’t choose a moral set of values. It just means that our morals are a reflection of our preferences.

 

[DreadVandal]

Also, I’m not so sure that Quantum physics did away with determinism. You will have to explain to me what an “uncaused cause” is. How can there be things that exist that have no cause? From what I read, theories in physics are changing all of the time, so don’t put too much stock into physical theories. Metaphysical questions are of a different order. By the way, I am a compatibalist and I agree with you that human beings are largely, though not entirely determined. Some explanation of what quantum physics is supposed to show would be helpful to me, thanks.

 

[solarwind23]

DreadVandal:

What would the basis be for justice, goodness, etc?

Love, compassion, empathy. That’s what it is in my life. I do good things to help others, I don’t do evil because it hurts others, justice is about fairness: if you steal something, you should replace it.

But for me punishment is not about vengeance, but making the person learn a lesson and deterring more evil acts.

For me this has nothign to do with God, but with human beings and my genuine empathy/compassion etc.

In any case, what one chooses as the good and beautiful depends on what one considers to be of primary importance.

But overall this tends to be teh same for people. It is important for people to be helped in a difficult time, people tend to care about others and help them. People see the objective evil of murder, rape, theft etc. and the pain it causes to human beings.

There are opposing tendencies in us which I think can be explained by evolution. We are at once caring, compassionate, cooperative and also selfish, lustful, desiring power. In most of us the cooperating/compassion wins out and we’re pretty kind and civil to one another.

There could very well be a God who is “good”, but I dont’ think it would be the same kind of goodness as human goodness. The things we consider good are very human and based on things good for human beings.