Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[IWantGod]

“You just don’t get it”.

Because you don’t understand. And if you finally did understand the argument and found yourself pressed i think you would throw out the principle of non-contradiction as an epistemological uncertainty…

metaphysical naturalism is grounded in nothing more than a plea for justifiable ignorance.

Most debates on this forum regarding the uncaused-cause has usually gone that way.

 

[IWantGod]

Keep in mind, first and foremost, even IF the proof is correct, it promotes a DEIST worldview NOT a THEIST worldview.

Straw-man. Aquinas argues for an intelligent uncaused cause that sustains the being of creation because creation cannot produce it’s own reality. In other-words, God is the ultimate reality in which creation has it’s being as a possibility because God is the source of all existential power. If you remove God from the equation, then his creation ceases to be because it cannot have an actual reality without the uncaused cause because the nature of creation by the very definition of being created is not existing by it’s own nature, and it never is, even when it it is given reality**. it exists only because God wills it to exist, and it would cease to be if God did not will it to be.

Thus you cannot say he is merely arguing for a deist position, a mechanistic conception of God, like a person who pushes a domino and allows it to do it’s thing. The God that Aquinas has proven to exist is sustaining the very existence of the dominoes as they act according to their nature… God is invested in the continued existence of that which cannot exist by the power of it’s own nature.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not supported by physics. Example, Hawking radiation has no cause.

Another tiresome Straw-man. The principle of sufficient reason refers primarily to the actual existence of a thing. That an object may move here or there without a mechanistic cause, is irrelevant. It still requires a sufficient reason for it’s existence.

Recent physics theories predict “big bangs” happen all the time, and that the concept of ‘first’ is meaningless.

As far as Straw-men goes, this one here takes the biscuit. Aquinas never argued that a regress is impossible, and neither did he argue for a temporal first cause or that the universe had a beginning. His argument stands regardless. But you are not going to know that if you don’t understand metaphysics.

Aquinas is basically saying that there can be no thing that exists unnecessarily without the existence of a necessary act of reality. And that is absolutely correct.

Your only way out of the argument is to reject the principle of non-contradiction and fly the flag for the believers of brute facts (an unnecessary being or nature that has no rational or sufficient reason for it’s existence)

 

[benjamin1973]

I thought this might be worth looking at:

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Another tiresome Straw-man. The principle of sufficient reason refers primarily to the actual existence of a thing. That an object may move here or there without a mechanistic cause, is irrelevant. It still requires a sufficient reason for it’s existence.

See here for a non-strawman criticism of the theistic position:

http://www.commonsenseatheism.com/w...runbaum-the-poverty-of-theistic-cosmology.pdf

 

[YehoiakhinEx232]

Okay, I have made the wise decision to sit out of this debate and watch it from afar, via my emails, and try to just watch and learn, but I need to address your “refutations,” @LateCatholic.

Most of your refutations seem to revolve around the objection that Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways are self-defeating. This objection doesn’t work because St. Thomas’ arguments address a very serious question namely, “why is there something, rather than nothing?” If God is not the reason for why there is something rather than nothing, than what is it? I have seen like 4 or 5 people on here, including you and at least one other theist repeatedly re-define nothing as something. fluctuating quantum waves in a vacuum are something, not nothing, (and based on what I’ve heard so far, although I could be mistaken, there is no evidence that the beginning of the universe was even like this, but that’s beside the point.) nothing is no thing, NO, THING. Something cannot come from nothing therefore there must be some explanation as to how the universe came into being, God is the best candidate for this explanation, as has and is being demonstrated by this thread debate alone.

You’ve also mentioned the objection of “who caused God?” I’ve got to be blunt here, “who caused God?” or “who created God?” is probably one of the two worst arguments an Atheist can give. (The other being, “I’ve got one less god than you!”) God by His very definition is a se, self-existing, He is His existence. To imply that God needs a creator is to attack a straw-god, and quite frankly, this argument (along with the second argument) strikes me as lazy and desperate.

Finally, in regards to your response to whether or not God exists, that you “hope God exists,” I find that argument a bit disturbing to honest. (Maybe “disturbing” isn’t the right word, but I think of a better word to describe my feelings regarding this at the moment.) One of the key reasons why I reverted to the Catholicism from Deism, was because of the Church’s history and philosophy. The Church’s rich Tradition of Reason and Wisdom have enabled me to understand and live in conformity with reality in a way no other philosophy or ideology has ever been able to do! I am 100% certain that God exists, since my reversion to the Faith, I have had to take many Leaps of Faith throughout my journey, none of them came anywhere close to worrying about whether or not God existed.

I’m going to try and continue to sit back and just watch and learn from this debate, I just figured I need to say something here.

 

[LateCatholic]

Aquinas argues for an intelligent uncaused cause

The argument logically calls for no intelligence on the part of the cause. I could quote nearly every word and refute from your replay, but it would get tiresome. As with most defenders of the arguments, you make them out to more than they are. They are LOGIC proofs. As logic proofs, they fail. You cannot state a logical argument and then ramble on about theology.

Thus you cannot say he is merely arguing for a deist position, a mechanistic conception of God, like a person who pushes a domino and allows it to do it’s thing. The God that Aquinas has proven to exist is sustaining the very existence of the dominoes as they act according to their nature… God is invested in the continued existence of that which cannot exist by the power of it’s own nature.

Again, there is absolutely NOTHING in the proofs that state this, nor even imply it. You are injecting subjective theology into a logic proof. You are turning one of the most celebrated ideas in history into a simple editorial.

Aquinas is basically saying that there can be no thing that exists unnecessarily without the existence of a necessary act of reality. And that is absolutely correct.

You are just saying I’m wrong without providing any substance. WHY am I wrong?
I say "Recent physics theories state that ‘Big Bangs’ happen all the time’. You say “Straw-man”! How? I state a fact, you respond with one word? In a reality where matter and energy are constantly being created, the concept of ‘first’ has no meaning. Explain WHY you disagree, instead of just having a tantrum about it.
I’m open to discuss, for example, I’ll help:

• So even if matter and energy can be created from “nothing”, as physics seems to imply, there is still the an underlying mathematical framework - a a vacuum field potential - that must exists, and you can transfer the Aquinas rational to that. But, as I said in my original post, that once again is a DEIST notion, and even if you are correct, you’ve minimized “God” to nothing more than a set of mathematical equations. You want to worship that, you can, but it’s not at all satisfying. THAT is the legacy of the 5 ways.

 

[o_mlly]

The answer is simple: because “nothing” is merely an abstraction, and does not exist ontologically. If it did, it would be “something”. This question is just a variant of “What exists on the ‘other side’ of the Mobius strip?” A meaningless collection of words. …

This assertion can be put into a rigorous, metaphysically precise format , namely: “God exists in all the possible worlds”. Now this can be examined, and it turn out that there is no “entity” which would exist in every possible world.

I think it quite arbitrary and somewhat self-serving a predisposed bias to label one abstraction as “A meaningless collection of words” and another abstraction as "a rigorous, metaphysically precise format."

Can you justify this discrimination intellectually, that is the former abstraction as unworthy of any metaphysical examination as leading to the existence of a necessary being and the latter most certainly worthy of examination as leading to the impossibility of a necessary being?

 

[LateCatholic]

You’ve also mentioned the objection of “who caused God?” I’ve got to be blunt here, “who caused God?” or “who created God?” is probably one of the two worst arguments an Atheist can give. (The other being, “I’ve got one less god than you!”) God by His very definition is a se, self-existing, He is His existence. To imply that God needs a creator is to attack a straw-god, and quite frankly, this argument (along with the second argument) strikes me as lazy and desperate.

The reason this is a Deist argument is because if you are going to define “God” as “existence”, you’ve made no progress. For example, there are many recent theories that reality is mathematical. We ARE math. Math is us. There is no other rational explanation for the uncanny accuracy in which our universe can be described by math, other than we ARE mathematical objects. Si I can thus simply say:

MATH by ITS very definition is a se, a self-existing, MATH is ITS existence.

The above statement is perfectly legitimate, and may very well be true. The above statement resolves any disagreements we have. This is why EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT you have made no progress and we are in essence discussing Deism.
If this satisfies your proof of God, wonderful. Personally, I’m not going to worship a mathematical equation or the laws of Calculus. It’s just not satisfying.

 

[LateCatholic]

Finally, in regards to your response to whether or not God exists, that you “hope God exists,” I find that argument a bit disturbing to honest.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not an atheist. I am a seeker of truth. I am open to the concept of a higher power because reductionism fails to explain our reality. Note that I get plenty of angry responses in atheist forums as well. I believe it is POSSIBLE a higher power exists because holistic phenomena could explain such an entity. But, right now, there is NO proof of such a being. But I HOPE one exists, for various reasons I won’t go into here.

BUT that does not mean I am so foolish or ignorant to accept Catholic/Christian dogma without questioning it. I was recently banned here for saying I don’t believe Hell exists. It is a cruel and nasty concept used to scare people. Why is that idea so offensive? I also questioned the virgin birth, which has no factual or historical evidence whatsoever. The Trinity makes no sense. I could go on and on. But I still call my self (barely) a Catholic, to the dismay of many. But I guess it comes down to my initial premise - I HOPE GOD EXISTS. But I am neither blind nor foolish nor ignorant.

 

[LateCatholic]

The problem with Craig has always been his approach of taking Deism, which has philosophical foundation, and stretching it to Theism, which does not. He knows this, and if you read his footnotes, you see he even tells you. This clip is directly relevant. For example, he won’t defend Catholicism or specific faiths, as this clip mentions, just the “minimal” commonality across Christianity - because it’s a losing battle otherwise.

The biggest problem I have with his position is that he states that God must exist because the universe is “personal” - we can exist in it. And there is only ONE universe, so the Creator of the universe must be personal too. And that’s the Christian God - no other.

BUT…what if Big bangs happen all the time? What if our universe is not special at all, just as initial Christian thought collapsed when under the Copernican revolution. Then what? His response is to ignore it and simply claim there is no evidence for a multiverse.

Either way, Craig is far more a Deism than a Christian Theist. He typically has a much harder time answering Christian questions (like this one), than questions from Atheists.

 

[IWantGod]

You are just saying I’m wrong without providing any substance. WHY am I wrong?

I’m going to ignore all your previous distortions of what i said and get straight to the point.

If the existence of a being or nature is unnecessary (is not something that cannot fail to exist), you cannot say it has become an actually real thing by itself or because of it’s own nature for the simple fact that a potentially real thing cannot actualize itself from nothing. It requires a cause. If a thing or nature does not necessarily exist, it does not exist because of itself, and thus it requires a sufficient reason for it’s existence; otherwise it exists for no reason, and that is not a reasonable position to hold.

Pointing to observations of things appearing from nowhere is not evidence to the contrary. It might mean that it has no physical mechanistic cause, but it still requires a cause for it’s existence since a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself into existence by itself. To say that it could would violate the principle of non-contradiction. If you don’t respect the principle of non-contradiction and you simply assume that a thing can become real for no reason, that’s your problem. Your rejection of reason is not proof that Aquinas is wrong, it is only proof that you are not a reasonable person. And you do science no favors by conflating a scientific theory with your own groundless philosophy.

If you accept the principle of non-contradiction then your only hope is to argue that physical reality necessarily exists because of it’s own nature. However, if the theist can observe and point out the fact that physical reality is literally a sequence of actualized potential, or that it’s parts or the things of which it is comprised begin to exist or become actual, then the theist is correct to argue that physical reality is not a necessarily real thing. It is not an example of necessary existence.

As far as proving that the uncaused cause is intelligent, one merely has to point out the fact that unnecessary beings cannot actualize themselves and that only a necessary act of existence must exist. In other-words it’s possible for unnecessary beings to never exist as an effect because they are not an intrinsic part of what is necessary. It follows from that fact that if an unnecessary being comes into existence, this can only be the case if the uncaused cause is intentionally causing it’s existence. In this case to cause a things existence is also the act of sustaining a things existence since an unnecessary being cannot exist by the power of it’s own nature, and only by the power of the uncaused cause. One cannot rationally consider it to be a natural event.

 

[LateCatholic]

If the existence of a being or nature is unnecessary ( is not something that cannot fail to exist ), you cannot say it has become an actually real thing by itself or because of it’s own nature for the simple fact that a potentially real thing cannot actualize itself from nothing. It requires a cause. If a thing or nature does not necessarily exist, it does not exist because of itself, and thus it requires a sufficient reason for it’s existence; otherwise it exists for no reason, and that is not a reasonable position to hold.

As I said before, even if you hold to the above, which can be argued, it is a DEIST position. In fact, it is even less than that, because one can simply say that the necessary entity is the vacuum potential, or mathematical truth, or information theory, or any such foundation which can be used as your foundation cause. There is absolutely NOTHING to say it has to be an “entity” or being of any kind.

This is what drives me crazy about the 5 ways. Even IF you are correct, you haven’t proven anything. It is NOT a theistic position whatsoever. It’s certainly not Christian. Even Christians acknowledge that.

Pointing to observations of things appearing from nowhere is not evidence to the contrary.

Not true. It is clearly evidence to the contrary. It may not be irrefutable or convincing evidence, but it is evidence. If you want to state that everything observed in the universe has a cause, you are wrong. Radioactive decay, hawking radiation, and so forth - have no cause. In terms of logic, the proof fails at that premise. Perhaps one day you will be shown to be correct and we identify such a cause, but we haven’t yet. Therefore, the proof fails.

As far as proving that the uncaused cause is intelligent, one merely has to point out the fact that unnecessary beings cannot actualize themselves and that only a necessary act of existence must exist.

What evidence do you have that it requires intelligence to ‘actualize’ something? According to the argument, the only example of anything being actualized is creation itself. Why isn’t reality then “God”? Transferring the creation of reality to a theistic being is unwarranted and unnecessary. It simply doesn’t follow.

This is why, if you follow WLC’s Kalam variation, he refuses to admit the possibility of a multiverse or reality foundation such as vacuum energy potential. To him, there was God, the Big Bang, and now us. What if there were multiple Big bangs, or possibly another? He refuses to discuss it, because he knows the entire theistic basis collapses. So much of Christian apologetics relies on the notion that there is just ONE world. First there was ONE planet. Then one solar system. Now ONE universe. But what if there are more? The whole foundation collapses.

 

[IWantGod]

In fact, it is even less than that, because one can simply say that the necessary entity is the vacuum potential, or mathematical truth, or information theory, or any such foundation which can be used as your foundation cause.

You are merely dictating this as being possibly true. In what way shape or form can you say that the uncaused cause is vacuum potential. loool.

 

[IWantGod]

There is absolutely NOTHING to say it has to be an “entity” or being of any kind.

That which is necessarily actual doesn’t have to be an actual being inorder to cause something into existence? That’s a bizzare philosophy, where did you learn it?

 

[LateCatholic]

That which is necessarily actual doesn’t have to be an actual being inorder to cause something into existence? That’s a bizzare philosophy, where did you learn it?

If you read my other post, an example of a non-being causing existence could be a fluxuating vacuum potential, mathematics, information theory, or any other such mechanism.

Consider this example. Assume the ocean is “eternal”. Waves break on the sand all the time. But…there comes a time when constructive interference occurs such that one wave is large enough to exceed a threshold, and it breaks over a sand dune. No “being” was required. Not entity. It just occurred.

The theist typically gives two responses. One - the ocean is clearly “God”. In that case, fine, but you’ve just agreed that the ‘necessity’ you place so much value on is nothing but a set of rules. Hence my comment earlier about how you can worship math if you want, but it doesn’t satisfy me. Second - they can say well then who created the ocean? Of course, that is the same argument atheists give - well, who created God.

The point to all this is that EVEN IF YOU ARE CORRECT, you haven;t proven anything. Why as a Christian do you put so much value on an argument that at best is Deist or at worst irrelevant - even if correct?

 

[LateCatholic]

You are merely dictating this as being possibly true. In what way shape or form can you say that the uncaused cause is vacuum potential. loool.

This is one of the leading theories of why the Big Bang occurred.

User K. 622

Q&A for active researchers, academics and students of physics

physics.stackexchange.com

 

[IWantGod]

If you read my other post, an example of a non-being causing existence could be a fluxuating vacuum potential,

No scientific theory gives an example of a non-being causing the existence of an actual being. That is your own philosophical interpretation and it is irrational.

 

[IWantGod]

mathematics,

Mathematics causes physical existence to be real? You clearly don’t have an inkling of what is required in-order to make a reasonable argument…

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe I’m just making excuses for myself, but I’m going to read through these things now and try to reply. I’m not really in a “philosophy mood” but I got time.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m going through these posts one by one.

Wesrock:

in fact, some philosophers believe that if God DID interact with the universe since he was created, he invalidates the proof. So for the proof to be valid, he MUST NOT interact with the universe. Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical - God must of course exist to invalidate the proof. But it is interesting to note that if you want the first cause proof to be valid, you have to deny God’s place in the universe in terms of Christianity.

OK, just to clarify this. Let’s discuss it in terms of “prime mover”, Let’s use the analogy of billiard balls. I see one moving in the here and now, to use your term. Well, it must have been ‘moved’ by another, some time ago. And that one must have been moved, and so on and on, a long chain until we come to the PRIME mover. the very first, the start of the universe. Let’s say, for discussion, the chain is 100 billiard balls long.

For the PROOF to stand, this chain of moving billiard balls MUST BE pristine. If someone, say, ‘bumped’ the fourteenth ball, then all bets are off. The PROOF fails. Think in terms of logic theory. In other words, if the chain of events is ‘contaminated’ by other actors (God, for one), I can no longer say the 100th ball got to where it ended up BECAUSE of the prime mover. It got to where it was because of the intermediate mover.

Why am I pointing this out? To show how useless and invalid these proofs are. For this proof to be valid in terms of logic, God can never interact with the world, and the entire premise of Christianity is false.
Long story short, if these proofs are the foundation of your faith, you’re in trouble.

I feel I already addressed this in Post# 200, posted after this, but before I read this. If you still have questions on this exact point, please let me know.