Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[JSAD]

That’s interesting. I enjoyed both books. Maybe I’m.easily convinced !

 

[Wozza]

JSAD:

Answering Atheism by Trent Horn.

God bless you on your journey .

I have not read Answering Atheism, but if it’s anything like Trent Horn’s “Hard Sayings” it won’t be much of a refutation of atheism.

It is. And it isn’t.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That’s interesting. I enjoyed both books. Maybe I’m.easily convinced !

I don’t want to take this thread too far afield, but the Trent Horn book I read dealt with every difficulty by either whitewashing it, engaging heavily in moral relativism, or playing fast and loose with language so that when a passage said X he tried to make it seem like it said not-X.

That’s just my opinion, and I could very well be off-base. Still, as someone who has heard more than a few attempts at refuting atheism I find him especially unconvincing.

 

[o_mlly]

The realist (me) believes for sufficient reason everything that exists is mind-independent.

That means that it would be impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

Atheists on other threads have gone to great pains to explain the reality that existed before mankind (or sentient life of any kind). Although I disagree with them on many issues, on this issue – a reality that is independent of the thinking mind – I agree.

In the example there is only one ontologically existing object in every one of them, namely a sub-atomic particle.

What caused any sub-atomic particle to exist in any world?

 

[o_mlly]

Whether an object is light or heavy depends on the “mass” of the object, the “gravitational field” where this object resides, and the “power” of the one who attempts to move it. The same object can be light for someone and heavy for someone else.

Every property exclusive to the object exists independent of any mind, i.e. mass (the number of atoms in a thing) also measured as weight by the gravitational forces acting on it (also independent of any mind).

Every property exclusive to any body exists independently of the mind, e.g… strength, tensile property of one’s muscles (among other properties).

Further, the relationship of the tensile strength of anyone’s muscles to the mass of any object are independent of any mind. Thinking one can move the object does not make one able to move it. The reality is one’s muscles are up to the task or they are not.

They are the building blocks of our physical reality. The word “universe” means everything that exists. It is meaningless to ask “what caused the universe”?

I did not ask (yet) what caused the universe. I asked simply what caused the sub-atomic particles.

The believers of the “spiritual reality” assert that the spiritual existence is not available to the senses …

There is no need to deflect from our conversation about the nature of physical reality to a spiritual realm. Let’s finish the issue at hand. If you arbitrarily dismiss the principle of sufficient reason for one of the imagined mini-worlds then we are done. Are we done?

 

[o_mlly]

So you think that your thoughts are independent from your mind, and your mind is independent from your brain?

Strawman.

I wrote reality is independent of the thinking mind. Thoughts and the material organ that effects them are the precursors to knowledge which may be true or false. True only if the thoughts correspond to reality.

The water now will feel … spices in a dish could feel …

Feelings? Let’s keep the conversation rational.

I wonder, do you think that there exist “abstract objects”, and if you do, what does the word “exist” for them?

That’s better. Only a thinking mind abstracts. Without a thinking mind, there are no abstractions. Not so with reality. Reality is independent of the existence of thinking mind; abstractions depend on the existence of a thinking mind.

But, yes, if you are say that we are done, then I will not object.

It appears your quarky response to my inquiry on the cause of your sub-atomic particles confirms your dismissal of the principle of sufficient reason:

Nothing. They simply exist.

Absent controlling principles, any world can be imagined by anyone and dismissed by others as meaningless.

 

[lordjules]

Folks, for some light relief I started this thread. Feel free to add to it

Tell us your Story Casual Discussion

Not really a topic that I could put this under. Really should be a general topic I think but just thought I’d ask those of you who care to right in what your faith journey has been. I was born in to a non-Catholic home. Mother was a church goer, Dad not. I had to go to whatever church my mother went to until I was 16 (my mother is Irish so you can imagine how much guilt played in that!) In my mid 20’s I gave my life to Jesus as they say. Shortly after that I went to do a course at a shor…

 

[o_mlly]

Oh, so thoughts, feelings and other assorted neural activities are now NOT part of reality. However, “knowledge” is?

Flat Earther’s have the “nerual activity” that, if they venture out too far, they’ll fall off the edge. That knowledge is false.

The PSR is a good, wonderful even great concept, but not universally applicable.

If not universal, then tell us what principles determine the use or disuse of the PSR, where do you draw the line? If you do not have a principled argument for the application of the PSR then you use it when you feel like it. I cannot argue how you might feel, only how you ought think.

There is one and only controlling principle in a thought experiment: “it cannot contain a logical contradiction”. Even physical impossibilities are allowed, since the laws of nature are contingent on the fabric of the universe.

The only controlling principle in your thought experiment is to imagine a world where quarks pop into existence without cause. Having conjured up such an unreal world, you write: Therefore, (since I can imagine it), the Uncaused Cause is not necessary. Sorry, no sale.

 

[o_mlly]

If the PSR would be applicable to EVERY event, it would lead to an infinite descent.

You confuse beings with events. The PSR applies to the being or existence of things, not to the events which those things may experience.

“An event consists of objects’ losing or acquiring various properties and relations.”
“Philosophy of mind - Terminology and distinctions | Britannica”

Don’t “pop”… they just exist. Those are static worlds, very simple ones. Just like in your belief system there is a “god” (undefined, non-physical entity) who simply exists, because you define it as “existence itself”. Never mind that “existence” is also a concept, not an ontologically existing “entity”.

The argument does not conclude to a “god” but to a “necessary being.” If, in your imagined world, just one quark is necessary then you agree with the conclusion that no world can exist w/o a necessary being, a being that, as you write, just exists.

If you don’t accept this very frequently used philosophical tool and its validity, then why don’t you leave this thread alone? So far you did not make any constructive contribution to it. And you could safely forget capitalizing this “uncaused cause”. That fact of capitalizing these words immediately reveals your bias or hope that it might lead the Christian God.

You are again letting your feelings get the better of you. You’re hurt. Sorry, about that but the truth, like love, sometimes hurts.

 

[o_mlly]

“Experience” has nothing to do with anything.

Well, add that blatant error to your denial of PSR and it’s clear that your arguments have no grounding in principles or reality. While it true that imagination is boundless, not so with reality.

It is just another way to say that an entity exists in every possible world. In the stipulated mini-worlds the existence of the quarks is not “necessary” or “unnecessary” (contingent), it simply IS.

Sorry, still no brass ring. “Simply exists” = “Simply is.”

… maybe a little disappointed … Not “much” disappointed … I was hoping …

When you figure out exactly how you feel, please feel free to not let me know. As I said, I don’t care how you feel, only how you think.

The concept of “thought experiments” is a widely used tool, and not just in philosophy, but also in physics. Refer back to Einstein’s famous thought experiment about the faster than light travel. If you do not accept the validity of this tool, then you are encouraged to stay away from discussing it.

The thought experiment is a useful tool unless, as you have, experiment in such a way as to deny common sense. The more useful thought experiments are attached to the reality we experience. The more attached the more useful. The less attached the less useful.

 

[PickyPicky]

The thought experiment is a useful tool unless, as you have, experiment in such a way as to deny common sense

Einstein’s thought experiment was certainly contrary to common sense.

 

[o_mlly]

Einstein’s thought experiment was certainly contrary to common sense.

As PickyPicky correctly observed, common sense has nothing to do with thought experiments.

While there are no fast and rigid rules for thought experiments, the structures of those that are meaningful have three components. First, a surreal or unreal situation (one that cannot be duplicated in a laboratory), an operation of some sort conducted in that situation, and specified outcomes that are logical given the situation. As we are all grounded in the logical rules of inference and deduction (the common sense), the thought experiment so constructed has meaning for us.

Unfortunately, the thought experiment offered in this thread has no experiment in it so, therefore it is merely a thought. The dreamer fantasizes an unreal situation and leaps to claim that, “If I can fantasize it then it’s real.” The absence of common ground with which to argue for or against is lacking. So what is gratuitously offered may just as gratuitously be dismissed.

Some of them - like you - wish to hide behind the idea that these thought experiments are unlikely …

A properly constructed thought experiment creating an ethical dilemma is quite useful. However, your attempt at a thought experiment turns out to be just a thought and no experiment and so not useful.

By the way, I did not throw the switch, push the fat man off the bridge or out of the lifeboat, surrender the innocent one to the savages, abort the child, etc. You are leaping again without searching the numerous threads on ethical dilemmas on this site.

 

[o_mlly]

All they prove that the person is unable and unwilling to face the real dilemma.

The OP looks for good books to refute atheism. Reading how to refute atheism is certainly good. But what I presented in this thread was a challenge for the atheist to face his real dilemma that atheism is simply an incoherent worldview.

Denying an Uncaused Cause with no alternative theory on how things come to exist, claiming the universality of the PSR except where one wishes it were not so, claiming human acts are free unless they are not, etc. leaves us scratching our heads. Thank you for your participation.

 

[PickyPicky]

Denying an Uncaused Cause with no alternative theory on how things come to exist,

There is a presumption there: that things have indeed come to exist. Things do indeed exist – why should one suppose that existence has come about, rather than that it simply is?

 

[PickyPicky]

claiming the universality of the PSR except where one wishes it were not so

But the Uncaused Cause, should it exist, would indeed mean that the PSR was universal except when one wishes it were not so.

 

[o_mlly]

There is a presumption there: that things have indeed come to exist. Things do indeed exist – why should one suppose that existence has come about, rather than that it simply is?

Common experience. Any kind of change is movement. Nothing can move itself. If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin, and if it never began, it could not go on and exist now. But it does go on, it does exist now. Therefore it began, and therefore there is a first mover.

But the Uncaused Cause, should it exist, would indeed mean that the PSR was universal except when one wishes it were not so.

The argument does not use the premise that everything needs a cause. Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause. The sufficient reason for dependent (contingent) beings is outside the being itself.

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. The sufficient reason for being is the being itself.

See: The First Cause Argument by Peter Kreeft

 

[PickyPicky]

If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. The sufficient reason for being is the being itself

Ah, good, then that explains the Universe. Its reason is itself.

 

[PickyPicky]

If the whole chain of moving things had no first mover, it could not now be moving, as it is. If there were an infinite regress of movers with no first mover, no motion could ever begin.

If there were an infinite regress of movers all motion would be explained.

 

[Wozza]

There is a presumption there: that things have indeed come to exist. Things do indeed exist – why should one suppose that existence has come about, rather than that it simply is?

The presumption is one borne out of what you could almost describe as a parochial viewpoint.

In times past, everything that existed was the world (quite a small place, so a damaging local flood would be ‘world wide’) and a few lights in the sky. Then it was the world as a planet, the centre of the universe. Then as part of a solar system orbiting a sun on so on.

Looking outwards in space and time gets us only so far. To the edge of the observable universe, which is effectively shrinking as regards matter as I write (a quarter of a million stars have effectively dissapeared since you started reading this post).

So everyone turns inwards and looks for a beginning, because the physical laws in our universe make it impossible for there have been an infinite past. So we get so far back and those laws break down so we can’t see what’s on the other side of a particular point. So we don’t know what’s on the other side. Which is a position completely ignored by anyong claiming to be able to prove an uncaused cause.

Imagine being in a corridor that appears to go on for ever. If we walk forwards then it keeps expanding until we can’t see the walls. It seems that the further we walk, the more the walls expand. Maybe the walls expand so much that it ceases to be a corridor. Maybe there eventually aren’t any walls at all.

But we can see that if we walk backwards it has signs of being older and the walls get close together. So on the reasonable assumption that it must have a finite beginning, we all walk backwards until we can’t go any further. The corridor reaches a point where the walls narrow to a point at which we can’t continue.

Does the corridor go on from this point? We don’t know. What’s on the other side? We don’t know. Could it widen out again and continue? We don’t know. Is the corridor entirely natural or was it built? We don’t know. Does it serve any purpose? We don’t know.

Except one in the group. Based on just what we have discovered, she claims to know not only that the corridor was built but by whom and for what purpose. She also claims that the builder has our best interests at heart and that he loves each of us.

She also tells us that the builder has set some rules for us all and that if we follow them and thank him for building the corridor then we’ll all live happily ever after (literally).

It sounds convincing to a lot of people. But there is a problem in that there are others who also claim to know who the builder was. And they have different rules to follow. So a few of us think that it all sounds a bit suspect to begin with and they can’t all be right. And they are probably all wrong because their reasons for believing what they believe seem to be based on arguments that are structured to give the answer that they want.

So some of us wander off to explore and leave them to sort it out amongst themselves.

 

[PickyPicky]

The physical laws in our universe make it impossible for there have been an infinite past

That is debatable.

(1) If by “our universe” we mean The Universe, ie all existence, then it may well be that a chain of (little “u”) universes could exist infinitely.

(2) If Big Bangs recur in our universe, factors such as entropy, and time of course, would be reset each “time”.