Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[Wesrock]

@Wozza

And a flag in the sand here. If anyone suggests that terms like ‘compelled’ and ‘decide’ etc cannot be used to describe any attribute of the uc then I’m off for a beer. If we cannot discuss this with terms that we understand and use them in terms as they are understood then this is a complete waste of everyone’s time.

All effects bear some likeness to their cause. That’s a separate discussion in itself (I can’t do everything in a single post, and it’s better to discuss this after establishing the First Cause and its attributes). Therefore we can speak in like terms about the First Cause, given that everything we know is caused by it. We just need to be aware of the baggage and connotations that language brings with it. Nothing is predicated univocally of God.

 

[Wesrock]

Here is an even simpler example. World “A” contains one single electron - and NOTHING else. World “B” contains one single positron and NOTHING else. They are both possible worlds, since they contain no contradiction. They have nothing in common. Electrons and positrons are basic, elementary particles. (Protons and antiprotons would work as well, but someone might object that they are composite elements, composed of quarks.) So one may also consider two worlds, both containing a quark of different flavor.

Now your objection becomes vacuous. You assume that these worlds also contain something you like to call an unspecified “first cause”, thereby assuming the result you wish to reach. And that is an elementary fallacy called begging the question.

It’s more a matter of investigating whether Reality A and Reality B are actually logically or metaphysically possible. If it’s demonstrable that a reality of only an (uncaused) electron or positron is as absurd/unintelligible as a square circle, then the scenario fails to demonstrate that there are possible worlds without a First Cause/God.

That demonstration is basically what the cosmological arguments are, whether from change (which is what my argument from motion is about, so I have provided something for critique here), composition, contingency, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and others.

I went and read your linked argument, and I have to declare that it is a nice work.

Thank you.

But it has a bunch of problems. One problem is that some of your basic definitions / assumptions are unacceptable. (For example your usage of “goodness” is not how “goodness” is defined. “Goodness” means “moral goodness”, which is sometimes expressed as “perfectly just” and “infinitely merciful”) Nevertheless, I am willing to analyze it in details, if you want to. But let’s finish up this line of thought first.

Moral goodness, perfectly just, and infinitely merciful are oft abused terms (even by theists) and need to be clarified and better defined in a discussion of goodness in general. They concepts are facets of it, not separate topics.

One last thing, I am going to try to avoid posting here for most of the day. It is during work hours, a few comments here or there I can usually manage throughout the day, but this topic has admittedly been more distracting than I should allow myself. Wish me luck.

I do wish you luck. Come back when you are so inclined.

Lunchbreak! Closing my laptop now.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Now that indicates a change.

And before you head off with claims such as ‘the uc is outside time and everything is in the eternal present and we can’t anthropomorphise’ etc, these are arguments used for God which are not valid. Saying such about the uc is an assumption. It may exist/have existed on the other side of the Big Bang within time.

First, it does not necessarily follow that the First Cause’s act, being voluntary and based upon its knowledge (I did say it would be easier to discuss the Will if we delegate that to the end), implies a change between not acting and acting.

I didn’t say the act was indicative of change. I said the decision was.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Wozza:

Now that indicates a change.

And before you head off with claims such as ‘the uc is outside time and everything is in the eternal present and we can’t anthropomorphise’ etc, these are arguments used for God which are not valid. Saying such about the uc is an assumption. It may exist/have existed on the other side of the Big Bang within time.

First, it does not necessarily follow that the First Cause’s act, being voluntary and based upon its knowledge (I did say it would be easier to discuss the Will if we delegate that to the end), implies a change between not acting and acting.

I didn’t say the act was indicative of change. I said the decision was.

My apologies, though I maintain my position with the same argumentation provided.

 

[CatholicSpirit]

The book “Case for Christ” was written by a non-believer who was married to a believer. He explores all sorts of the things you might seek out individually online to form an opinion.

I highly recommend it as I have seen a conversion stem from it.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Wesrock:

Wozza:

Now that indicates a change.

And before you head off with claims such as ‘the uc is outside time and everything is in the eternal present and we can’t anthropomorphise’ etc, these are arguments used for God which are not valid. Saying such about the uc is an assumption. It may exist/have existed on the other side of the Big Bang within time.

First, it does not necessarily follow that the First Cause’s act, being voluntary and based upon its knowledge (I did say it would be easier to discuss the Will if we delegate that to the end), implies a change between not acting and acting.

I didn’t say the act was indicative of change. I said the decision was.

My apologies, though I maintain my position with the same argumentation provided.

The same argument doesn’t apply. The uc acts itself. It (as you said) voluntarily decides. Either that or we are in Walking Dead territory. It could be mindless and unthinking (hi, Nature!) but I assume you might prefer not to go down that oath.

So it requires nothing outside of itself to act (it’s uncaused) so any act in internally generated. That is, a decision is made to act or not act in one way or another.

That is change.

 

[Wesrock]

@Wozza

If you’re going to make me repost it with the appropriate word changes…

First, it does not necessarily follow that the First Cause’s decision, being voluntary and based upon its knowledge (I did say it would be easier to discuss the Will if we delegate that to the end), implies a change between being undecided and decided, or any change at all, or that there is any such thing as temporal succession at all in the First Cause. To declare it so is to make unsubstantiated anthropomorphic assumptions. You will need to demonstrate that this is so.

Now, we cannot rule out the possibility by assumption, either. However, if we are able to separately demonstrate that the First Cause is immutable and eternal, then we have eliminated the possibility that there is any temporal succession in the First Cause. It is demonstrable, which is why I believe it.

The First Cause can be demonstrated as immutable by a simple reductio argument. The argument for the First Cause proceeds from the a posteriori observation that any potential which is actualized (change) is actualized by another. The course of the argument, demonstrated in the The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion, shows that reality is unintelligible and contradictory if there is not some thing which itself is just Actual, that is not and has not a potency that has been reduced to act by something else. Since a potency being reduced to act simply is what change is, and since there is no passive potency in the First Cause, and since the First Cause has never been potency reduced to act, that simply is what it means to be unchanging, or immutable. If we hypothetically assume that there is potency in the First Cause or that it has in any way been actualized by something else, it is by definition not the First Cause which was demonstrated is necessary. And if we insist on exploring this further, then the First Cause (here’s the conclusion of our reductio) is both Pure Actuality and a mix of Actuality and Potency, which is a contradiction, therefore (passive) Potency (or any change at all) is logically eliminated as belonging to the First Cause.

The demonstration of the First Cause’s eternity simply follows upon the First Cause’s immutability. For if the First Cause had a beginning, it could not have pre-existed itself to cause itself to begin, and if it was caused to exist by another, it would not be the First Cause.

 

[Wesrock]

And tbh “deciding” is an act and belongs to the First Cause’s act anyway, so it seems like a quibble.

 

[IWantGod]

It sounds perfectly logical but then so do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand.

Let me ask you, does the idea of something potentially real actualizing itself without a existential cause sound perfectly logical to you?

There is no room for misinterpretation. The idea is either consistent with the principle of non-contradiction or it isn’t. Or maybe you would prefer to throw out the principle of non-contradiction? Others before you have tried.

If I ask you what was/is on the other side of the Big Bang then the only honest answer you can give is: ‘I don’t know’.

That’s the proper scientific answer regarding the big-bang because the scientific method is limited insofar as what particular physical events are happening before the big-bang or if it is even meaningful to speak of a before. As for metaphysical arguments for an uncaused cause, the big bang is irrelevant and such arguments are not focused on what caused the big-bang, but rather they are focused on the general fact that things are changing, that potential is being actualized, and that such beings are not necessarily real. And we use the principle of non-contradiction to determine what must be true in-order to explain why unnecessary beings exist.

Now you might not agree with the conclusion of these arguments, but it would only benefit you to properly understand them otherwise you don’t know what it is you’re disagreeing with.

 

[Wozza]

And tbh “deciding” is an act and belongs to the First Cause’s act anyway, so it seems like a quibble.

It’s certainly not a quibble. A decision to act and the act itself are obviously not the same. I may decide to pour myself another drink - that’s the first step in tbe process of getting a drink and it stands alone. I may act on it or I may not. If I do, then that is the second step. And whaddya know - we have a progression (it’s actually three steps because the first is to ruminate on the options - but we can skip that).

And can you have a progression without change? No. And does the uc require anything other than itself to make that decision and to act on it? Obviously not. There’s nothing in existence except the uc. So that ‘potential’ is internally generated.

If the uc could not change then nothing else would.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It sounds perfectly logical but then so do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand.

Let me ask you, does the idea of something potentially real actualizing itself without a existential cause sound perfectly logical to you?

There is no room for misinterpretation. The idea is either consistent with the principle of non-contradiction or it isn’t. Or maybe you would prefer to throw out the principle of non-contradiction? Others before you have tried.

Here’s a contradiction: Something can’t be in two places at the same time. And here’s where the non-contradiction was thrown out: https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

Here’s another: A man born before his brother cannot be older than him. And here’s where the non-contradiction was thrown out: How does relativity theory resolve the Twin Paradox? - Scientific American

We are talking about the beginning of the universe. The theory of non contradiction is blown out of the water even with standard physics that is taught at first year uni courses. Now you want to say that it stands even when the laws of physics themselves are not valid.

Gimme a break.

 

[Wesrock]

(Edited for character limit)

Since the possible world is something that contains no logical contradiction - and NOTHING else is required - both realities are possible. Both realities are extremely simple, they contain only one element each, so a logical contradiction cannot arise.

Let’s remove all the galaxies, except the Milky Way → … then let’s remove all the particles, except one up-quark and one down-quark. At that moment remove one them, but not the other → and we arrive at Reality #1. Or remove the other one, and we arrive at Reality #2. The important thing is that the existence of the elementary particles are not logically contingent / dependent upon others.

As a matter fact, the “null-world”, which contains nothing is also a logically possible state of affairs. It is not physically possible, of course, but that is not relevant. The “empty set” is a perfectly valid mathematical concept. But I don’t intend to use it.

In order to have a contradiction one needs at least two elements, which somehow are in contradiction with each other. That being the case, the concept of a “necessarily existing object” is refuted. And if there is no “necessarily existing object”, then there is no first cause, no god and no God - because one of the “alternate” definitions of God that God is a necessary being, someone who cannot not-exist.

And one more objection. Even if there would be a good argument for some first cause (and there isn’t - I can present the objections to your essay), once the creation happened, that first cause could be removed. (Just like the continued existence of the father is not necessary for the continued existence of the son.)The “sustaining cause” (the chain keeping the lamp suspended) argument is a totally different ballgame.

If there’s no real capacity for such a world it has no bearing on whether the First Cause could fail to exist. This is the distinction between logical possibility and metaphysical possibility.

The First Cause isn’t the “First Temporal Cause,” or first in order of events, but only first in order of dependency, itself being independent or underived. What the cosmological arguments show aren’t that God must have started the universe, but that God must cause each and every moment of reality for all particular things excepting himself (not the starting premise, the conclusion). In effect, they have nothing to do with a linear (Father to Son) series, but they are entirely concerned with hierarchical series for each and every thing as it is now. The entire point is that this is not a Father to Son situation; it’s a “reality as we know it wouldn’t continue to exist at any point if the First Cause didn’t continue to act” hierarchical series, that all things but the First Cause continuously derive their reality from the First Cause (again, conclusion, not premise). Same with the arguments from composition, contingency, perfection, teleology, abstractions, PSR… (and tbh we’ve been mixing the arguments from change and causality (two separate lines of argument) all around here)

 

[IWantGod]

Here’s a contradiction: Something can’t be in two places at the same time. And here’s where the non-contradiction was thrown out: https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

It’s not a contradiction if you understand the nature of what they are talking about. It’s not the same thing as a square circle, and certainly isn’t an excuse to believe in illogical things like something coming out of absolutely nothing by itself. Not to mention the scientific method is firmly rooted in the principle of non-contradiction and the whole epistemology by which inferences are made falls apart without it, and true knowledge becomes impossible. Peer review science has in no way affirmed that the principle of non-contradiction has been disproved, and so to suggest that it has would be deceptive and self-defeating.

The fault doesn’t lie in the principle of non-contradiction, the fault lies in the fact that you do not understand what you are talking about. In any case, when you were pressed and there was no way out, you chose to throw out reason because it no-longer served you.

 

[Escabrosa]

Atheism is a lack of belief in God or gods, belief being the key word here.

Some people still believe the earth is flat. You could provide evidence to the contrary until the cows come home and they still wouldn’t believe it’s a sphere. Some people truly believe that there are more than two sexes, regardless of the evidence. Go figure.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And tbh “deciding” is an act and belongs to the First Cause’s act anyway, so it seems like a quibble.

It’s certainly not a quibble. A decision to act and the act itself are obviously not the same. I may decide to pour myself another drink - that’s the first step in tbe process of getting a drink and it stands alone. I may act on it or I may not. If I do, then that is the second step. And whaddya know - we have a progression (it’s actually three steps because the first is to ruminate on the options - but we can skip that).

This is why we really should relegate the question of Will to the end. We haven’t even discussed Simplicity yet.

And can you have a progression without change? No. And does the uc require anything other than itself to make that decision and to act on it? Obviously not. There’s nothing in existence except the uc. So that ‘potential’ is internally generated.

But the UC was never undecided. We’ve demonstrated its immutability, but you continue to assign ratiocinate and discursive operations to it. It has no body, no parts, but you’re continuing to think of it as if it has mechanical processes in its actions. These conceptions are holding you back.

If the uc could not change then nothing else would.

You’re insisting on conceiving the UC as having duration and successive moments.

It is better to say that we attribute Will to the First Cause because its act proceeds knowledgeably and from an intrinsic principle, so it is voluntary. This can be contrasted with its act being caused by some external principle or un-knowledgeably from an intrinsic principle. Terms like “compelled” and “decide” can be used, they are like, but they do carry more connotations and baggage about the finite way humans do these things.

Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.

Not that i want to stop you from continuing, but he rejects the principle of non-contradiction. That needs to be addressed before you can convince him that any rational inference is possible.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.

Not that i want to stop you from continuing, but he rejects the principle of non-contradiction. That needs to be addressed before you can convince him that any rational inference is possible.

True, he can’t accept or reject arguments based on reason if he rejects it. It undermines the whole discussion and any idea of an intelligible reality which can be understood by means of empiricism and reason.

 

[Wozza]

Wesrock:

Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.

Not that i want to stop you from continuing, but he rejects the principle of non-contradiction. That needs to be addressed before you can convince him that any rational inference is possible.

Say what? I have already, for the sake of this discussion, accepted an uncaused cause. Let’s at least get to a point where we have agreement and see where it goes.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

Wesrock:

Again, maybe we should put aside Will and work with the other Attributes for now, and revisit Will later.

Not that i want to stop you from continuing, but he rejects the principle of non-contradiction. That needs to be addressed before you can convince him that any rational inference is possible.

Say what? I have already, for the sake of this discussion, accepted an uncaused cause. Let’s at least get to a point where we have agreement and see where it goes.

I think his concern is that if you don’t adhere to the principle of non-contradiction then whether or not an argument is self-contradicting is irrelevant, as the contradiction doesn’t demonstrate it wrong, and a non-contradiction wouldn’t mean anything at all in terms of it being right.

 

[IWantGod]

Say what? I have already, for the sake of this discussion, accepted an uncaused cause. Let’s at least get to a point where we have agreement and see where it goes.

I wasn’t eating pasta for dinner, i was eating insects.