How to combat Atheism?

[wanerious]

buffalo:

See if you can look out the window and identify anything that man has created.

I’m at something of a loss to understand the question, but ok… Out my window I see a parking lot hosting several cars, which I assume were created by man. Further, I see several different species of trees planted in a conspicuously human-arranged format (an L-shape). Underneath these trees is a human-engineered walkway with a human constraining the freedom of her pet dog with a leash. This dog, at least to the extent of its outward appearance, has been selectively bred by humans to arrive at its present form, subtly changed over the last few thousand years from its wolf-like ancestors. I see two contrails in the sky created by human-engineered planes.

 

[buffalo]

wanerious:

I’m at something of a loss to understand the question, but ok… Out my window I see a parking lot hosting several cars, which I assume were created by man. Further, I see several different species of trees planted in a conspicuously human-arranged format (an L-shape). Underneath these trees is a human-engineered walkway with a human constraining the freedom of her pet dog with a leash. This dog, at least to the extent of its outward appearance, has been selectively bred by humans to arrive at its present form, subtly changed over the last few thousand years from its wolf-like ancestors. I see two contrails in the sky created by human-engineered planes.

None of this was created from nothing. All is converted matter.

 

[wanerious]

buffalo:

None of this was created from nothing. All is converted matter.

Yes, I agree with that. All available matter and energy was in existence roughly 13 billion years ago shortly after the Big Bang. As time went on, some of this matter was “converted” into other forms of matter and energy by different processes, but the total balance is the same today as it was then.

 

[wolpertinger]

wanerious:

The argument from design has always appeared specious to me.

And e.g. Langton’s Ant is a demonstration of a more parsimonous explanation.

 

[James_Kanatous]

**Here is your argument in a nutshell:
Every existing thing has a cause, and every cause must be caused by a prior cause, which in turn must be caused by a still prior cause, and so on, until we reach one of two conclusions: a) either we have an endless chain of causes–an infinite regress, or b) there exists a first cause, a being that does not require a causal explanation.

According to your argument, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. For, if the universe did not have a first cause, we would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently exists, since according to this argument a first cause would be necessary for there to be anything at all in the present. But since things do exist exist, we must reject an infinite regress and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which we call “god.”

This causal argument rests on two main assumptions: that the universe as a whole requires a causal explanation, and that we cannot provide an adequate explanation within the context of the universe itself. Therefore, according to this argument, we must posit a transcendent first cause, a being that transcends natural cause-effect relationships.

Here are some remarks concerning this argument:

1. Even if valid, the first-cause argument is capable only of demonstrating the existence of a mysterious first cause in the distant past-- “god.” It does not establish the present existence of the first cause. On the basis of this argument, there is no reason to assume that the first cause still exists–which cuts the ground from any attempt to demonstrate the truth of theism by this approach. In fact, even if we were to accept this argument, the most that it can possibly demonstrate is that something has existed which is itself uncaused.
   **

 

[James_Kanatous]

2)You may object to the last remark, claiming that not only must there be a first cause, but this first cause cannot be part of the natural universe. The universe does not explain the reason for its own existence, but a supernatural first cause does provide us with an explanation. This transcendent first cause, therefore, explains the previously unexplained. Now assuming for the moment that the universe requires a causal explanation, does the positing of a first cause provide us with that explanation? How does the concept of god function as an explanatory concept in this instance? A supernatural first cause, a god, supposedly caused the universe to exist. Consider the nature of this “explanation” … Does it provide one with a conceptual grasp of the issue being considered? Does it provide a causal explanation in any meaningful sense? No, it does not … To posit god as the cause of the universe still leaves two crucial questions unanswered: What caused the universe? How did it cause the universe? To say that a god is responsible for the existence of the universe is vacuous without knowledge of god’s nature and the method used in creating existence. If god is to serve as a causal explanation, we must have knowledge of god’s attributes by virtue of which he has the capacity to create matter from nonexistence, and knowledge of the causal process involved in creation, by virtue of which god is designated as a cause. If, as you assert, the existence of the universe requires a causal explanation, the positing of a transcendent first cause or god does not provide us with this explanation. Your solutions, as a theist, consists of saying: An unknowable being using unknowable methods “caused” the universe to snap into existence. This, remember, is offered as an explanation, as a rational solution to an apparent problem. This is supposed to resolve one’s intellectual doubts about the mystery of existence. To say that god caused the universe to exist is to argue that man can never comprehend the existence of the universe. You, as a theist, demand a causal explanation of the universe and then fail to provide an explanation. Even if a supernatural being did exist, the “problem” of existence would be as puzzling as before. After all, how did it create existence from nonexistence? “Somehow” is not an explanation, and “through some incomprehensible means” is a poorer explanation still. You are trapped in a dilemma of your own making–the “mystery” of existence–and you must confront an unintelligible universe. . . .

 

[James_Kanatous]

**3) Are the premises of the first cause argument true? Does the universe require causal explanation?

In considering your causal argument as a whole, one contradiction immediately stands out. The first premise of your argument states that everything must have a cause, and the conclusion asserts the existence of an uncaused supernatural being. But if everything must have a cause, how did god become exempt? The contradiction in your causal argument stems from its basic flaw: its demand for a causal explanation of the universe, the totality of existence.

When one asks for the cause of something, whether it be an entity or event, one is asking for the entity or action of an entity (prior event) that caused it. Causal explanation is possible only within the context of existence. Accordingly, your causal argument drops the epistemological context that gives meaning to the concept of causality. “What caused the universe?” is an absurd question, because before something can act as a cause, it must first exist-i.e., it must first be a part of the universe. The universe sets the foundation for causal explanation and cannot itself require a causal explanation.

Furthermore, the primacy of existence is illustrated in science by the principle that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The universe, then, has always existed and always will exist. You’ll probably find this difficult to accept, and argue tooth and nail that god makes the universe easier to understand. Yet, while you complain of difficulty accepting the notion of an eternally existing universe, consider your alternative. You demand that I must conceive of a supernatural, unknowable, eternally existing being, and, moreover, that I must conceive of this being creating matter from the void of nonexistence. It is strange that those who object to the idea of eternal matter display little difficulty in accepting the creation of something out of nothing. While the idea of an eternal universe may be initially difficult for you to assimilate, your alternative is an exercise in fantasy.

Until you are able to discuss causality in terms of nonexistence, your demand for a cause of the universe will remain nonsensical–and you will be unable to escape the contradictory nature of your causal argument.**

 

[James_Kanatous]

**4) If you have not understood the major fallacy within your argument thus far, you may argue, without a first cause of change, there would be no second cause, third cause, or presently existing causes. But since causal processes are presently occuring, there must have been a first cause in time.

This rejoinder is partially correct. Without a first cause, there cannot be a second cause, third cause, and so on. In other words, without a first cause, we cannot assign a numerical designation to each causal process. This does not entail, however, that causal interactions could not presently exist.

In order to assign a numerical designation (such as a second, tenth, one thousandth) to any causal process, one must presuppose the existence of a first cause. After all, to call something the tenth cause means that there were nine causes preceding it, so there must have been a first cause in this series. Consequently, this tactic, since it relies on the prior acceptance of a first cause, must be rejected as blatant question begging.

From the fact that causal series extend infinitely into the past, it follows that we cannot assign sequential numbers to each causal process. But it does not follow from this that causality cannot occur. The issue of numerical designations is irrelevant to causality.

Therefore, your first cause argument must be rejected as muddled, contradictory and, at times, simply irrelevant. If you wish to defend the rationality of your alleged beliefs still, you must look for support elsewhere. And, if you happen to find what you think to be support, then I encourage you to present it to me and I shall dissect and refute it with invincible logic. I’m not being pompous–I’m being realistic. Theism is, after all, rationally indefensible.**

 

[Charbrah]

The first cause argument relies on the existence of a NECESSARY being, a thing that exists NECESSARILY, which means that it cannot caused something and then go out of existence. So, if there are contingent things, there has to be a necessary thing, which exists necessarily: this argument does not prove the existence of the Western God, just proves the existence of something necessary.

 

[James_Kanatous]

The first cause argument relies on the existence of a NECESSARY being, a thing that exists NECESSARILY, which means that it cannot caused something and then go out of existence. So, if there are contingent things, there has to be a necessary thing, which exists necessarily: this argument does not prove the existence of the Western God, just proves the existence of something necessary.

Of course it does…

Remember, the causal argument presupposes that there must be a first cause, without logically proving it. It’s blatant question begging.

The major question should be, “Why must there be a first cause?” Or, "Why is it impossible for the universe at large to be infinite?"

Presupposing that there was a first cause will get you nowhere. Mr. Aquinas didn’t understand that.

 

[trogiah]

No one seemed to like my first thought so let me try a different angle.

To say “The world is beautiful, therefore it must have made by a being that is good.” is to make a god out of beauty.

To say “The world is rational therefore a it must have been made by a rational being” is to make a god out of rationality (reason?)

and so on.

If the choice we face is either “I have considered the facts and applied reason and I have come to the conclusion that God does exist” or “I have considered the facts and applied reason and have come to the conclusion that God doesn’t exist”

• then I must conclude that God doesn’t exist.

(Now remember I said ‘If’)

I put my faith in existence, reality, and truth. My experience in living and in learning convinces me that the Voice of existence, reality, and truth was the Voice that Moses heard with varying degrees of clarity. It is the Voice that called Abraham from his father’s house. It is the same Voice that the prophets heard and tried to relay to the people of Israel. It is the same Voice that Jesus came to know the way an only and most beloved son knows his own father.

I think some far more important questions than the question “Does God exits?” ( I know some reknowned theologians have written enormous books on that question) are questions like this:

Is reality fair and just or is it unfair and unjust?

How can we get to know existence better and life our lives more in harmony with it?

Our responses to these questions will potentially give us much more life and save us from a great deal of mental gymnastics.

Any thoughts?

-Jim

 

[buffalo]

Of course it does…

Remember, the causal argument presupposes that there must be a first cause, without logically proving it. It’s blatant question begging.

The major question should be, “Why must there be a first cause?” Or, "Why is it impossible for the universe at large to be infinite?"

Presupposing that there was a first cause will get you nowhere. Mr. Aquinas didn’t understand that.

Do we agree the universe began to exist?

 

[squirt]

Hi Jim,

Interesting post.

trogiah:

Is reality fair and just or is it unfair and unjust?

Well, reality is. And we have to deal with being thrust into it through no choice of our own. I don’t know how to judge whether ‘reality’ is fair or unfair, just or unjust?

How would you suggest that one tackles such a problem?

How can we get to know existence better and life our lives more in harmony with it?

How do we get to ‘know’ existence better? Do you know before answering your question that existence is something worth being in harmony with?

What if getting to know existence leads to something like: “Life sucks and then you die?” Is that something you can harmonize with?

 

[James_Kanatous]

buffalo:

Do we agree the universe began to exist?

Of course, we do not. In order for your causal argument to be valid, you would have to logically prove that the universe requires causal explanation–that it began to exist. However, you cannot. Any attempt to argue for the notion of a finite universe is futile.

Why must there be a first cause?

What is the first cause?

How did this mysterious ‘cause’ form matter from non-matter?

These are questions to ponder, and are but a few of the major questions that destroy the concept of a finite universe, of a first cause, and of god, by indirectly demonstrating the invalidity and unintelligibility of such notions.

 

[buffalo]

Of course, we do not. In order for your causal argument to be valid, you would have to logically prove that the universe requires causal explanation–that it began to exist. However, you cannot. Any attempt to argue for the notion of a finite universe is futile.

Why must there be a first cause?

What is the first cause?

How did this mysterious ‘cause’ form matter from non-matter?

These are questions to ponder, and are but a few of the major questions that destroy the concept of a finite universe, of a first cause, and of god, by indirectly demonstrating the invalidity and unintelligibility of such notions.

So the universe exists with no beginning? therefore no cause?

You convinced me! Is it expanding or contracting?

 

[James_Kanatous]

buffalo:

So the universe exists with no beginning? therefore no cause?

You convinced me! Is it expanding or contracting?

**Yes. The universe, at large, exists with no beginning, and correspondingly, no end. It always was, and always will be. **

Many cosmologists are in agreement that the universe is currently expanding, and has been for quite some time–they say about 10,000 million years approximately. They say that the universe began expanding from an infinitesimally small fireball. One day the ball erupted and began to expand, thus designating the beginning of time–the beginning of the universe. However, most cosmologists are also in agreement that eventually the universe will get to a point where it will stop expanding, and begin to contract until it becomes an infintely dense, yet infinitely small, piece of matter again. It is, then, believed that it will begin to expand and contract again, without end. You may think of the universe as an infinite regression of expansions and contractions, an oscillating universe. Our universe is one sequence, within an infinite series, and therefore has an infinite chain of cause and effect interactions. There was no first ‘cause’, for matter (energy) is neither created, nor destroyed.

 

[pnewton]

**Yes. The universe, at large, exists with no beginning, and correspondingly, no end. It always was, and always will be. **

I have always believed that atheism requires more blind faith than any other religion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Some of this is a bit unreasonably sneerish toward St. Thomas, is what I think.

St. Thomas, in fact, does know that his ‘proof’ does not work given the assumption that the universe always existed.
I was once given the proofs of St. Thomas and when I noticed the fallacies, began bothering priests about it.
One day, I was introduced to a priest who supposedly had the answer, and he handed me a pamphlet containing quotes from St. Thomas where, to my surprise, St. Thomas admitted that the proof does not work if the universe is assumed to always have existed.
In other words, St. Thomas worked out his proofs with known assumptions, and re-worked them with others.
At the time his causality argument was popularized, the scientific understanding did not have Newton/Einstens etc. concepts.
Generally an object set in motion would be observerd to stop (today’s friction), or stop falling when it hit the ground (Teleological). The things in the sky were not understood yet, exactly.
It is not surprising that, due to these common experiences, his proof from causes would eventually become popular.
It is not fair to say that his arguments were fallacious in the context of the science of his day, even if the way of stating it assumed some common sense of his day which is now rejected.

Is it possible to show the neccesity of a first cause in terms of the logical science of today?

I think so.

The best of scientific advancement has led to concepts like density (which is clearly not infinite in the local sense in our real universe), conservation of matter, energy, and Entropy.

That third one is the universe killer.

No experiment, not even of Einstein’s caliber has ever shown the law of Entropy (third law of thermodynamics) to be incorrect.
In every chemical change, or physical change, and reaction, there is an irreversable component.
This law means that in any closed experiment, ever conducted, that any machine which does not receive energy from the outside will eventually cease to function (although it will still exist matter is not created or destroyed… ).
The energy will still be present, but unable to drive the machine any furthur.

No perpetual motion machines.

If the universe, which has a finite density, had been around forever it (as a machine) should have stopped functioning already.
Hence, it is illogical to say that the universe has been around forever.

The measurable density of the universe makes the size of the universe irrelevant. Make many small (closed) experiments. Have them running in parallel, all of them will stop.
Join them pair wise, they still stop.
Join all of the experiments to make a universe any size.
It will still stop.
The relitive uniformity, (finite density), of the universe makes the outcome certain.

So, there does (at least) have to be a point source of inexhaustable energy supply to posit that the universe has always existed, or one must speculate that the known laws of the universe change at some point to suit ones philosophy.

The former has not been found yet, and the latter is pure pride.
(Who knows, though, someone MIGHT discover an experiment…)

In any event, the universe does have a source of some kind, or the third law of thermodynamics is wrong (which is absurd).
And the source, logically, must have always existed…

St. Thomas was no Newton, but he didn’t do too badly.

 

[trogiah]

squirt:

Hi Jim,

Interesting post.

Well, reality is. And we have to deal with being thrust into it through no choice of our own. I don’t know how to judge whether ‘reality’ is fair or unfair, just or unjust?

How would you suggest that one tackles such a problem?

How do we get to ‘know’ existence better? Do you know before answering your question that existence is something worth being in harmony with?

What if getting to know existence leads to something like: “Life sucks and then you die?” Is that something you can harmonize with?

The way I tackle the problem is this:

The greatest commandment states we should love the Lord, our God, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. Having accepted earlier (I am speaking for myself) that “Lord God” is how I address reality, I interpret the greatest commandment as stating we should accept reality as being just and fair. On a practical level it makes sense. what is the point of shaking our fists at the stars in the sky in outrage and telling them they are out of order. Will they change position?

We get to know existence (could I call such knowledge “wisdom”) by seeking such knowledge. By reflecting on our life experience and by looking around for ways to make sense out of that experience.

If a person’s consideration of their life leads them to the conclusion that “life sucks and then you die”, then the sooner they know that the better. I believe a person can redirect their life so that their life can have hope, meaning, and purpose.

The first beatitude says "blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

I understand this to be saying that when a person comes to the realization that they have followed a path that leads to nothing (such a realization will without doubt leave them “poor in spirit”) they can still find hope in knowing that their is a right path to follow. A path that leads to harmony with reality, the path (as named in the new testament) of the kingdom of God.

-Jim

 

[AnAtheist]

squirt:

One of the problems (especially on forums) seems to be that Catholics often to point out a particular atheist who happens to be a jerk and say: “See what awful people atheists are” And atheists look at a particular Catholic who doesn’t take the same approach to solving problems as he or she does and say “Look, these theists are incoherent.”

Then the herd mentality of us against them kicks in …

Good answer. Forums like this could be used to broaden one’s own perspective, to understand what other people believe or think.
That does not mean to change one’s views.
Esp. in this thread it is obvious that atheists and catholics share exactly the same prejudices about each other. Like being close-minded, not accepting evidence, being unmature, being evil, …

What can we learn from that?