Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

  • Thread starter Thread starter YehoiakhinEx232
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
Can you argue to the truth of your antecedent: that there was an infinite regress of movers?
Click to expand...
I don’t argue that there was an infinite regress. I argue that the impossibility of infinite regress, and therefore the need for an Uncaused Cause, is an unjustified assumption.
 
PickyPicky said:
40.png
Wozza:
The physical laws in our universe make it impossible for there have been an infinite past
Click to expand...
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”.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. By ‘our’ universe I mean just the one in which we live (it sounds nonsensical to say ‘just’ referring to the universe but allowing that term allows for description ‘parochial’ to those who don’t consider any other possibility). Referring to my post above it would be like saying ‘this corridor’.

And when I say ‘all existence’ I refer to existence in this universe (corridor). The ‘parochial’ outlook would be one that claims there are no other corridors despite no evidence to back that up (the best one could say is that there is currently no evidence for the claim that there are any - which is not being made).

If there is something the other side of the Big Bang then it would be something other than ‘our’ universe and wouldn’t be part of what we experience as ‘everything’.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
I argue that the impossibility of infinite regress, and therefore the need for an Uncaused Cause, is an unjustified assumption.
Click to expand...
Hmmm? The existence of an Uncaused Cause was not assumed but argued. The argument, like you, agrees that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. ???
 
PickyPicky said:
In this context, everything that is.
Click to expand...
If “everything that is” is in the Universe then the Universe caused itself, explains itself which is illogical. What being in your experience caused itself, completely explains itself?
 
o_mlly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I admire your patience. Trevise does not understand that you have to determine that a world is possible before you can argue it to be a logically possible alternative. Trevise thinks that if a person can imagine - lets say- a static square object made of spaghetti, and that was the only object that exists, that therefore this would be a logically possible world in which God does not exist; and therefore God is not ontologically necessary. But Trevise hasn’t proven that a static object made of spaghetti existing by itself can possibly exist without an uncaused cause. Trevise is merely defining things into existence and making a pretense to their possibility.

If its okay for someone to simply define things as possible without proving that they are in fact possible, then there is nothing wrong with a theist asserting that there possibly is a being that cannot not exist in all possible worlds which would contradict Trevise’s assertion. And since there is no standard provided by which we can determine who is correct, then using the idea of possible worlds as a way of determining whats actually true falls apart as a method.

Trevise is just arbitrarily asserting brute facts and wasting everybody’s time.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Hmmm? The existence of an Uncaused Cause was not assumed but argued. The argument, like you, agrees that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. ???
Click to expand...
I did not say the existence of an Uncaused Cause was assumed.
 
o_mlly said:
If “everything that is” is in the Universe then the Universe caused itself, explains itself which is illogical
Click to expand...
I was simply using your definition. “Everything that is” cannot be contingent, since there is, by definition, nothing other than itself, and therefore nothing for it to be contingent on. Therefore (you tell me) it explains itself.
 
Goodness me. The impossibility of infinite regress and therefore THE NEED FOR an Uncaused Cause is an unjustified assumption. Of course the Uncaused Cause is argued. On the basis of the impossibility of infinite regress. The argument that an Uncaused Cause is NEEDED is based on the false assumption that infinite regress is impossible,
 
PickyPicky said:
The impossibility of infinite regress and therefore THE NEED FOR an Uncaused Cause is an unjustified assumption.
Click to expand...
Not to be picky but it appears you did not mean “assumption” but rather “conclusion.”
PickyPicky said:
On the basis of the impossibility of infinite regress.
Click to expand...
Ok, I will be picky: please write in sentences.
PickyPicky said:
The argument that an Uncaused Cause is NEEDED is based on the false assumption that infinite regress is impossible,
Click to expand...
We’re going nowhere slowly. The impossibility of infinite regress was not assumed; it was argued.
 
o_mlly said:
Not to be picky but it appears you did not mean “assumption” but rather “conclusion
Click to expand...
No, I meant assumption.
o_mlly said:
Ok, I will be picky: please write in sentences
Click to expand...
Well now …
A sentence is a set of words that in principle tells a complete thought (although it may make little sense taken in isolation out of context). It may be a simple phrase, but it conveys enough meaning to imply a clause, even if it is not explicit; for example, “Two” as a sentence (in answer to the question “How many were there?”) implies the clause "There were two”.
Click to expand...
That’s Wikipedia, but it’s correct.
o_mlly said:
We’re going nowhere slowly. The impossibility of infinite regress was not assumed; it was argued.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I’ve obviously missed that. What is the argument?
 
IWantGod said:
If its okay for someone to simply define things …
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. If the thought is muddled so is its expression. Our young philosophers would do well to take the advice of an older one, Mortimer Adler.

The test of the intelligibility of any statement that overwhelms us with its air of profundity is its translatability into language that lacks the elevation and verve of the original statement but can pass muster as a simple and clear statement in ordinary, everyday speech.
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
I don’t say that God DOESN’T exist. I am saying that you haven’t convinced me the He DOES’
Click to expand...
Gotta love instant replay.

Like that classic video we have of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Without that - and the river of course (if there’s one thing I love is a good swim in the Rubicon!) - nobody would believe he was even alive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top