Proof Against Atheism

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

To anatheist,

You have an unanswered question on the table -

So anatheist - do you believe you are the highest authority?

Authority on what?

To know what’s best for me - certainly YES.
In my area of expertise I claim higher authority than most others.
In all other cases, certainly not, as there are surely better qualified people than me.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Authority on what?

To know what’s best for me - certainly YES.
In my area of expertise I claim higher authority than most others.
In all other cases, certainly not, as there are surely better qualified people than me.

Yes, because you created yourself or yes because you believe your limited knowledge has convinced you?

 

[AnAtheist]

buffalo:

Yes, because you created yourself or yes because you believe your limited knowledge has convinced you?

Who else in this world should know better than me, what’s good for me?

 

[Grendel]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming in to being

This is an assumption based on internal observations of our universe. Humans do not have a frame of reference to objectively analyze the universe, so you can’t prove that this is a universal (no pun intended) rule.

Also, this is only a proof of a creator. The word “god” is defined as an object of worship. Hypothetically, someone could believe in a creator, but not support the worship of the creator. By definition, this person would be an atheist.

 

[buffalo]

Who else in this world should know better than me, what’s good for me?
[/quote]

Me.

 

[David_Brown]

buffalo:

The answer is in the question. We possess a minute amount of knowledge. It applies to all.

Ok but I still don’t see the answer. If we all have so little knowledge how is that worse for the atheist? Wouldn’t it condemn all our thoughts as being based on so little knowledge?

Maybe I am just dense today.

David

 

[buffalo]

David Brown:

Ok but I still don’t see the answer. If we all have so little knowledge how is that worse for the atheist? Wouldn’t it condemn all our thoughts as being based on so little knowledge?

Maybe I am just dense today.

David

Yes. Our limited knowledge can draw us to false conclusions. Revelation keeps us going in the right direction.

 

[Maranatha]

Grendel:

This is an assumption based on internal observations of our universe. Humans do not have a frame of reference to objectively analyze the universe, so you can’t prove that this is a universal (no pun intended) rule.

The premise stands because if we find something that had no cause, then we have found the first cause.

Grendel:

Also, this is only a proof of a creator. The word “god” is defined as an object of worship. Hypothetically, someone could believe in a creator, but not support the worship of the creator. By definition, this person would be an atheist.

As stated in the thread we are discussing Theism and Atheism. Use what ever term you feel comfortable with.

 

[David_Brown]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming in to being

This is an assumption based on internal observations of our universe. Humans do not have a frame of reference to objectively analyze the universe, so you can’t prove that this is a universal (no pun intended) rule.
…
.

This is close to Hume’s point in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion , especially in Parts 5 and 7. There and elsewhere in the dialogue Hume claimed (among other things and in paraphrase):

(1) We assume “Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence” because it is consistent with (based on) our experience. We have and can have no a priori certainty for it.

(2) We have no experiences of universes being formed (assuming they are) and can’t be sure the rule which fits our experience of other things fits it. To claim that is does or that it must goes beyond our experience–and therefore what we can justify about the world.

(3) Having no experience of universes being formed we have no way to know that our universe is the best possible one, or even a good one. It could have been made by “several deities.” It could have been “botched and bungled” until it happened to “stick.” It could have been made by an old decrept god before he died or even by an “infinite spider.” We lack the relevant experince (or “frame of reference” in your words).

You had a good point.

David

 

[David_Brown]

Maranatha:

The premise stands because if we find something that had no cause, then we have found the first cause.

I think Grendel had a legitimate point. One with a fine, respectable philosophical pedigree and one that is often made by contemporary atheists, scientists, and philosophers.

To ressolve the problem her point raises by saying “The premise stands…” seems a bit perfunctory and raises a few questions itself:

(1) The phrase “if we find something that has no cause” implies that we could “find” such a cause. How? What kind of investigation could lead to this “finding”? Further, how would we recognize that something thus found has no cause? We could ask it, but it might lie; we may not see a cause, but there could be one we don’t see, etc. Isn’t such a cause postulated (perhaps required by logic) to avoid the problem of an infinite regress of causes? In that case the cause is inferred and not srictly speaking found–such a cause would remain basically unidentified except as the first cause.

(2) If we could get around that nest of problems, how would we know that a particular “something that had no cause” was the right thing? Just because some x has no cause, why must it be the right cause to explain the universe? Why can’t there be more than one uncaused thing? Why must an uncaused thing be a cause of anything else? Don’t we have to assume far more about the “something that had no cause” than we can justify by our experience or by a need to avoid an infinite regress?

Isn’t there a reasonable skepticism possible here? (Hume might say that skepticism here is reasonable.)

David

 

[Maranatha]

David Brown:

I think Grendel had a legitimate point. One with a fine, respectable philosophical pedigree and one that is often made by contemporary atheists, scientists, and philosophers.

To ressolve the problem her point raises by saying “The premise stands…” seems a bit perfunctory and raises a few questions itself:

(1) The phrase “if we find something that has no cause” implies that we could “find” such a cause. How? What kind of investigation could lead to this “finding”? Further, how would we recognize that something thus found has no cause? We could ask it, but it might lie; we may not see a cause, but there could be one we don’t see, etc. Isn’t such a cause postulated (perhaps required by logic) to avoid the problem of an infinite regress of causes? In that case the cause is inferred and not srictly speaking found–such a cause would remain basically unidentified except as the first cause.

(2) If we could get around that nest of problems, how would we know that a particular “something that had no cause” was the right thing? Just because some x has no cause, why must it be the right cause to explain the universe? Why can’t there be more than one uncaused thing? Why must an uncaused thing be a cause of anything else? Don’t we have to assume far more about the “something that had no cause” than we can justify by our experience or by a need to avoid an infinite regress?

Isn’t there a reasonable skepticism possible here? (Hume might say that skepticism here is reasonable.)

David

Thanks David for all your replies. I was a bit curt yesterday because of a lack of time to play. Perhaps I’ll have more today.

I was dismissive of the argument yesterday because it used one of the common atheist arguments to refute proofs for theism. One common argument against theism proofs is the denial of reality or the denial of how we observe reality to work. Can we prove conclusively that reality is real? Can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that reality is real?

While the logic arguments denying the basics of reality are valid, please examine the effects. Theists affirm reality and then use reason and logic to prove God. To undermine these proofs atheists use reason and logic and then raise doubts about reality. Which is more reasonable? What type of psychological pathology wants to deny the existence of God so much that they are willing to deny reality?

 

[David_Brown]

Maranatha:

Thanks David for all your replies. I was a bit curt yesterday because of a lack of time to play. Perhaps I’ll have more today.?

Thank you. I hope you do have more time (I will have to get ready for the new term in a couple of weeks, so I won’t have much more free time myself). I would be very interested to hear more.

Maranatha:

I was dismissive of the argument yesterday because it used one of the common atheist arguments to refute proofs for theism. One common argument against theism proofs is the denial of reality or the denial of how we observe reality to work. Can we prove conclusively that reality is real? Can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that reality is real?

Yes, it is. If the atheist wants to be a bit humble, I think they could make a good argument. They would have to give up scientism, etc. to do it, of course, which would make them more agnostic.

Maranatha:

While the logic arguments denying the basics of reality are valid, please examine the effects. Theists affirm reality and then use reason and logic to prove God. To undermine these proofs atheists use reason and logic and then raise doubts about reality. Which is more reasonable? What type of psychological pathology wants to deny the existence of God so much that they are willing to deny reality?

True. However, arguing from the effects in that manner seems to be a pragmatic argument. Pragmatic arguments tend to be weak when dealing with metaphysical questions as they lend themselves to discussion of phenomena (I think William James would be an example of this, but if not there are others). The atheist (or agnostic) has at least two lines of response:
(1) They can deny the range of reason you (those kind of arguments) assume. Limiting it to phenomena or limiting it to what is empirically graspable, perhaps even denying reason a priviliged place (making it one of many things), for example.
(2) They can deny the rationality of the universe. While admitting that parts of the universe appear rational or open to reason, they can point to the irrational ascpets of the universe (in quantum physics, the randomness of evil, etc., for example).

Neither line is particularly pleasant, and the atheist (agnostic) would have to give up a lot, but those lines of argument are available and people do avail themselves of them.

David

 

[twiztedseraph]

I remember being able to convince a friend quite quickly that she wasn’t an aetheist but an agnostic as she couldn’t know whether God existed or not.

This can be done quite easily. Just follow this pattern:

TS(twiztedseraph):Gee you look great in that dress today Lala.
Lala: Thanks!
Ts:If you don’t mind me asking, whats your belief system?
Lala:Not at all, I’m an aetheist.
TS:So Lala, out of say the 100% of all knowledge ever made known in the Universe, from big band to this very moment, how much would you say you have?
Lala:Ummm less than 1% I guess.
Ts:So would it be reasonable to infer that in the over 99% of knowledge left over there is more than sufficient proof of the Supreme Being?
Lala:Why yes, I suppose, but it just doesn’t make sense, I believe in science and the Big Bang and all that jazz.
TS:Hmm, but for the Big Bang or even evoloution to be plausible all the elements would have to be perfectly intune and set out. I mean in a junk yard are all the parts needed to build a limo, but if a whirlwind passes through, you don’t see a limo, you see a mess.
Lala:Well I guess there could be a “Supreme Being” that made everything or put all the ingredients there, but I don’t believe in Jesus, I mean a carpenter…Puhleaze!
TS:Would you say it’s historically bogus to believe in Jesus?
Lala:Yes, I would!
TSespite the fact that there’s more historical proof for the existence of Jesus then there is for Julius Ceasar?
Lala:Whoa look at the time, I got to get to my tutor, see you round Seraph.
TS:Bye Lala.