Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What they miss is that, while the physical sciences of Aquinas’ time are outmoded, our empirical methods presuppose many of the metaphysical first principles that Aquinas and the schoolmen developed, following classical thinkers.

The problem with all of this is that, well into the era of Classical Physics, both scientists and philosophers started every analysis with a Classical notion of causation. What Quantum Mechanics has brought to the table is the possibility that while causation certainly is a property of the world around us, that doesn’t necessarily follow that causation applied to the very beginning. In fact, to some degree, even Classical and Medieval philosophers understood the conundrum, which is why the notion of a Prime Mover for whom causation was given an explicit exception had to be inserted. It’s that which I object to. It’s that assumption that I find faulty, or if not outright faulty, then still an assumption.

If we imagine an epoch prior to the Big Bang (and remember now, that the Big Bang is not automatically presumed to the beginning of the Universe, but rather the beginning of the expansion of space-time and everything in it, and says nothing about what the Universe looked like or the nature of those primordial laws that governed that epoch), perhaps for whatever definition of infinite one cares to come up with, it was itself timeless. But again even that assumes that time would have any meaning in such an epoch.

At least on the scientific front, there’s no describing such a pre-Big Bang epoch without a quantum theory of gravity. Without that we can’t unify all the fundamental interactions, and thus we can’t really even begin to imagine an epoch that was potentially infinitely dense (in other words a Classical singularity).

No special pleading is made for God. If you disagree, please provide the starting claim we are exempting him from.

QM has not been demonstrated to violate causality and everything we’ve seen is consistent with Thomist notions of causality.

 

[IWantGod]

Also that existence does not need to be explained, it simply IS. Another error is to treat “nothing” as an ontologically existing “entity” and to ask: “why is there something, rather than nothing?

I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your post as i think you lack a basic grasp of metaphysical concepts. However i find what you say here interesting.

If you accept that it is a meaningless idea for there to be absolutely nothing, then do you agree that there must be a being or nature that is necessarily actual and cannot not be necessarily actual since there cannot be absolutely nothing. In other-words it cannot be something that is comprised of unnecessary actualized potential and at the same time be something that is necessarily actual.

Do you see why this must follow if the absence of all reality is impossible.

The other question i wanted to ask you is, do you understand and accept the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[niceatheist]

No, but a quantum theory of gravity raises the spectre of a unified single fundamental interaction and raises the potential of describing space-time in a singularity, and out of that, as Hawking related on a few occasions, comes the possibility that the universe itself is a quantum fluctuation, and negative and positive energy in all its forms, ultimately cancel each other out; that the universe is simply nothingness in a state of inequalibrium. And you may call that a bit of a fairy tale, but I see epistemologically that it is no different that handwaving away the need for causation to explain God. I’m merely moving the attribute “uncaused” to the Universe itself, rather than pushing it on to an entity of prior existence for which I see no evidence.

That’s not quite true. If we were to find a way to join gravity to the other fundamental interactions, to be able to model a single unified interaction that joins quantum field theory to gravity, and were able to model what a singularity actually looks like with quantum mechanics, then, we might be able to explain the pre-Big Bang epoch. That wouldn’t likely satisfy any Theist, but it might be enough to satisfy someone like me that in some way the Universe essentially is a timeless thing, that space and time are products of a primordial epoch when inequalibrium produced space and time, and the energy and matter embedded in it.

 

[Wesrock]

No, but a quantum theory of gravity raises the spectre of a unified single fundamental interaction and raises the potential of describing space-time in a singularity, and out of that, as Hawking related on a few occasions, comes the possibility that the universe itself is a quantum fluctuation, and negative and positive energy in all its forms, ultimately cancel each other out; that the universe is simply nothingness in a state of inequalibrium. And you may call that a bit of a fairy tale, but I see epistemologically that it is no different that handwaving away the need for causation to explain God. I’m merely moving the attribute “uncaused” to the Universe itself, rather than pushing it on to an entity of prior existence for which I see no evidence.

(1) That is not nothingness and remains an insufficient explanation.

(2) Again you make a claim of special pleading. Please elaborate.

That’s not quite true. If we were to find a way to join gravity to the other fundamental interactions, to be able to model a single unified interaction that joins quantum field theory to gravity, and were able to model what a singularity actually looks like with quantum mechanics, then, we might be able to explain the pre-Big Bang epoch. That wouldn’t likely satisfy any Theist, but it might be enough to satisfy someone like me that in some way the Universe essentially is a timeless thing, that space and time are products of a primordial epoch when inequalibrium produced space and time, and the energy and matter embedded in it.

Composition, change, and other such things for which no sufficient explanation is being given under such a theory. Only a descriptor, not an explanation.

 

[niceatheist]

If the Classical assertion that all things need a cause is true, then to assert that the Prime Mover is exempt is special pleading.

 

[Wozza]

God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting. He simply is and does from eternity.

And at this point the argument falls in a heap. You have used the claim that the uncaused cause is immutable to prove that it is…immutable.

Here’s where we get to the point I described earlier.

Q: On what basis do do claim that the uncaused cause doesn’t change?
A: Because ‘God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting’.

There you have it. In effect: ‘If it wasn’t immutable then it wouldn’t be God!’

 

[Wesrock]

If the Classical assertion that all things need a cause is true, then to assert that the Prime Mover is exempt is special pleading.

“All things need a cause” is not a classical assertion, or any premise of any argument I’ve encountered, and the assertion is clearly faulty.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting. He simply is and does from eternity.

And at this point the argument falls in a heap. You have used the claim that the uncaused cause is immutable to prove that it is…immutable.

Here’s where we get to the point I described earlier.

Q: On what basis do do claim that the uncaused cause doesn’t change?
A: Because ‘God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting’.

There you have it. In effect: ‘If it wasn’t immutable then it wouldn’t be God!’

No, you missed the point. I wasn’t demonstrating that God was immutable, I’m explaining that Christian theologians have not seen God’s action as sequential or in any way that would contradict his immutability, which is what you proposed.

I gave a demonstration of why the Prime Mover must be immutable the the “Argument from Motion” topic I linked to earlier, but it fairly easily follows from the premise that a passive potentiality cannot actualize itself, and leading to the conclusion that there must therefore be something that is simply act, never actualized, without any passive potentialities, for reality to be intelligible. Since change is the reduction of potential to act (well, that’s another topic), it follows that the first cause doesn’t change (is immutable). See the other topic, I do provide reductio counter examples.

Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 13 also gives a cursory overview, and further clarification follows in Chapters 15 and 16. I would provide more contemporary examples, but they’re not easily available just by a google search.

 

[IWantGod]

the universe itself is a quantum fluctuation, and negative and positive energy in all its forms, ultimately cancel each other out; that the universe is simply nothingness in a state of inequalibrium. And you may call that a bit of a fairy tale, but I see epistemologically that it is no different that handwaving away the need for causation to explain God.

What you are arguing for is a sequence of actualized potential that requires no existential cause. That’s why rational people reject such an idea. That is not the same thing as arguing that there must be a being that is necessarily actual

A Thomists would say that all potential states, or potential natures, or potential beings, require a cause inorder to become actual things, which is correct. In other-words a procession of change is essentially a sequence of ontologically unnecessary states, natures, or beings. And they argue that such a sequence requires an existential cause; in other-words there must be a nature or act of existence that is not an actualized potential, but rather is an ontologically necessary being upon which all unnecessary acts of reality are dependent for their continued existence.

 

[IWantGod]

What you believe about me is irrelevant.

It’s evident in what you write, and when people correct you, you choose to persist in building straw-men. It’s not what i believe, it’s what is evident in your responses.

 

[IWantGod]

You speak of the universe. I

Do i?..

 

[IWantGod]

It simply exists and that is all.

Are you going to address what i said, or are simply going to assert that you are correct?

 

[IWantGod]

God is a brute fact ,

A brute fact is an unnecessary object that exists for no rational reason, much like your idea of the universe. That is not how we define God.

 

[IWantGod]

The “only” difference is that the universe id readily available to our senses.

And it is evident that it is not a necessary being, which we have been arguing and you have been ignoring.

 

[IWantGod]

Now, if you wish to separate the universe into a “physical” and a “spiritual” part, where the “spiritual” is primary, and created the physical part, you are welcome to try. First you need to make an argument that this “non-physical part” actually exists - and explain what the word “ exists ” means in this context, and then you have to show how a non-physical entity can “act” and bring forth the physical part - especially in the light of the “conservation laws”? Good luck in that endeavor.

Why are you here if you are not prepared to listen to or directly address the arguments that people have made?

Are you trolling?

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

I’m not going to bother addressing the rest of your post as i think you lack a basic grasp of metaphysical concepts.

What you believe about me is irrelevant.

If you accept that it is a meaningless idea for there to be absolutely nothing, then do you agree that there must be a being or nature that is necessarily actual and cannot not be necessarily actual since there cannot be absolutely nothing.

You speak of the universe. It simply exists and that is all. What you believe about God, namely that “it” simply exists, does not require explanation, or - if you prefer - God is a brute fact, the skeptics believe about the universe. The “only” difference is that the universe id readily available to our senses.

Well, the universe is composed, extended through space, changes (at the very least, our conscious experience is subject to change). That’s a bit more than "readily available to the senses"being ethe only difference. It’s also frequently held that God has a reason but no cause, we could of course go through that, but he has sufficient reason and so is not a brute fact.

Now, if you wish to separate the universe into a “physical” and a “spiritual” part, where the “spiritual” is primary, and created the physical part, you are welcome to try. First you need to make an argument that this “non-physical part” actually exists - and explain what the word “exists” means in this context, and then you have to show how a non-physical entity can “act” and bring forth the physical part - especially in the light of the “conservation laws”? Good luck in that endeavor.

Most of this isn’t really relevant. That the First Cause must be non-physical necessarily follows from a posteriori starting premises. As for conservation laws, there really isn’t an issue, given that they are not absolute laws but physical laws (or descriptors of physical systems), and if the first cause is otherwise demonstrated to be non-physical, is a non-issue.

 

[IWantGod]

If the Classical assertion that all things need a cause is true

Who made that argument?

 

[IWantGod]

but it fairly easily follows from the premise that a passive potentiality cannot actualize itself, and leading to the conclusion that there must therefore be something that is simply act, never actualized, without any passive potentialities, for reality to be intelligible.

This cannot be refuted without rejecting the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Wesrock:

God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting. He simply is and does from eternity.

And at this point the argument falls in a heap. You have used the claim that the uncaused cause is immutable to prove that it is…immutable.

Here’s where we get to the point I described earlier.

Q: On what basis do do claim that the uncaused cause doesn’t change?
A: Because ‘God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting’.

There you have it. In effect: ‘If it wasn’t immutable then it wouldn’t be God!’

No, you missed the point. I wasn’t demonstrating that God was immutable, I’m explaining that Christian theologians have not seen God’s action as sequential or in any way that would contradict his immutability, which is what you proposed.

But we are NOT talking about God! We have just assumed for the purpose of this discussion that an uncaused cause existed (note the tense). To state that it did not or could not change by claiming that theologianshave not seen God’s actions as sequential is assuming the conclusion.

Quite possibly your concept of God is that He is immutable. But you CANNOT use that fact to claim that the uncaused cause at this point of the discussion is likewise. That’s your conclusion. You can’t use it as one of the key premises.

In any case, one would assume that you’d claim that the uncaused cause (that’s as far as we have got) was not compelled to cause the universe to exist. We can say that quite confidently because we know where you want to argument to end up. And no-one is going to suggest that God is compelled to do anything.

So it is logically necessary that a decision was made to cause or not to cause (I will not accept a plea that it was ‘in the uncaused cause’s nature’ because that is likewise an assumption and nothing has been said to this point that could allow for it).

And a decision requires change.

Notwithstanding that if you follow your line of reasoning to where you want it to go and we end up with God then unless God is utterly indifferent then He must change from concern to anger to love to any number of emotions. Are we not obliged to do what pleases God and avoid what angers Him?

If anything I do does not change His attitude to me then He cannot care what I do.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

Wesrock:

God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting. He simply is and does from eternity.

And at this point the argument falls in a heap. You have used the claim that the uncaused cause is immutable to prove that it is…immutable.

Here’s where we get to the point I described earlier.

Q: On what basis do do claim that the uncaused cause doesn’t change?
A: Because ‘God is immutable, and never moved from not acting to acting’.

There you have it. In effect: 'If it wasn’t immutable then it wouldn’t be God!

No, you missed the point. I wasn’t demonstrating that God was immutable, I’m explaining that Christian theologians have not seen God’s action as sequential or in any way that would contradict his immutability, which is what you proposed.

But we are NOT talking about God! We have just assumed for the purpose of this discussion that an uncaused cause existed (note the tense). To state that it did not or could not change by claiming that theologianshave not seen God’s actions as sequential is assuming the conclusion.

No, the First Cause is demonstrably immutable from simple natural philosophy, not based on any pre-conceptions of God. Did you not bother to even glance at the rest of the post you quoted?

Quite possibly your concept of God is that He is immutable. But you CANNOT use that fact to claim that the uncaused cause at this point of the discussion is likewise. That’s your conclusion. You can’t use it as one of the key premises.

I agree. Good thing I didn’t do that.

In any case, one would assume that you’d claim that the uncaused cause (that’s as far as we have got) was not compelled to cause the universe to exist. We can say that quite confidently because we know where you want to argument to end up

Also demonstrable, to touch on it briefly, to be compelled to do something would mean being caused or determined to do so by something else, which we can demonstrate by reductio cannot be the case with the First Cause. Again, I did this in the Argument From Motion topic and if you want I can quote the proofs from the Summa.