Rational Theists and Rational Atheists of the World, Unite!

[Ahimsa]

Rationality and hope possess the potential to bring Atheists and Theists together to better our world. The New Atheists – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and company – miss something simple yet profound in their polemical attacks on Theists: the mystery of existence itself. We must start with this basic fact – the fact of existence. That there is an is. That there is a world, a universe at all. That there is something rather than nothing. Existence is a great, awesome, wondrous mystery.

In the face of this mystery, Atheists remain as stunned and speechless, as flabbergasted and inarticulate as Theists. From within the confines, within the perspective of our universe, solving this mystery is probably not even possible. All we can do is reach for answers, always seemingly just beyond our grasp.

And the Atheistic answers to this mystery are no more rational than the religious ones. Is it any more rational to assert that existence arose out of nothing or that existence has always existed than to assert that a divine intelligence – outside of time and space – created it? Science, in the end, cannot disprove the Theistic conjecture nor prove one of the Atheistic ones. We ought not therefore conclude that it is by definition irrational to confront this mystery and cast one’s lot with Theism. Theism and Atheism are equally reasonable beliefs.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ahimsa:
when people pose the question …

**“why is there something rather than nothing?” **

they are assuming that “no-thing” can exist. which is an impossibility because it is a logical contradiction.

there is no other option than for there to be something.

 

[Ahimsa]

when people pose the question …

**“why is there something rather than nothing?” **

they are assuming that “no-thing” can exist. which is an impossibility because it is a logical contradiction.

there is no other option than for there to be something.

That’s your assumption.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s your assumption.

its not an assumption, it is a literal logical contradiction violating the law of non-contradiction (A = not A). making the notion false.

 

[St_Francis]

We ought not therefore conclude that it is by definition irrational to confront this mystery and cast one’s lot with Theism. Theism and Atheism are equally reasonable beliefs.

Since there is nothing that we know of in the universe capable of creating it, there must be something outside the universe. That Being is Whom we call God.

Therefore it is more rational to be a theist than an atheist.

 

[Think_About_It]

its not an assumption, it is a literal logical contradiction violating the law of non-contradiction (A = not A). making the notion false.

This, I’ll bite: how is it a contradiction?

 

[Astrochemist]

Speaking from purely logical standards, that a contradiction arises from the statement “nothing exists” does not require that something exists. It simply requires that, for people to understand anything about the world, something must exist, and this is self-evident (after all, if nothing existed, what would be doing the understanding?).

Is it possible that “nothing is real”, without producing a contradiction? Yes.

Is it possible that “nothing exists”, without producing a contradiction? If you are talking about the logical function of “exists” then yes, there is a logical contradiction.

Nothing exists: “For all x, there does not exist an x”. This can be devolved to: “For all x, x (identity)” and “there does not exist an x such that x.” The second statement can be reduced to “for all x, not x.” These, combined, form a logical contradiction: “for all x, x and not x”.

 

[Astrochemist]

By the way, I agree with the OP who said that atheism is just as rational as theism.

I think that someone can be rational and wrong.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

This, I’ll bite: how is it a contradiction?

Astro just spelled it out better than i could.

 

[AntiTheist]

Since there is nothing that we know of in the universe capable of creating it, there must be something outside the universe.

False. It might be that the “stuff” that expanded into the current form of the universe has always existed; it might be that the “stuff” has expanded into other universes many times before and crunched back (though it looks as if this particular universe won’t be crunching); it might be that some natural force in some other universe gave rise to the “stuff” that expanded into our universe.

No one knows, and the only honest answer is to say, “I don’t know.” As an atheist, I claim that I do not know the answer and that I do not assume that there is a supernatural being simply because I want to fill in the gaps of my knowledge.

 

[Think_About_It]

Speaking from purely logical standards, that a contradiction arises from the statement “nothing exists” does not require that something exists. It simply requires that, for people to understand anything about the world, something must exist, and this is self-evident (after all, if nothing existed, what would be doing the understanding?).

Is it possible that “nothing is real”, without producing a contradiction? Yes.

Is it possible that “nothing exists”, without producing a contradiction? If you are talking about the logical function of “exists” then yes, there is a logical contradiction.

Nothing exists: “For all x, there does not exist an x”. This can be devolved to: “For all x, x (identity)” and “there does not exist an x such that x.” The second statement can be reduced to “for all x, not x.” These, combined, form a logical contradiction: “for all x, x and not x”.

Would you mind, for the sake of my igorance, putting that in written terms?

 

[Oreoracle]

Nothing exists: “For all x, there does not exist an x”. This can be devolved to: “For all x, x (identity)” and “there does not exist an x such that x.” The second statement can be reduced to “for all x, not x.” These, combined, form a logical contradiction: “for all x, x and not x”.

Well, I think we should all agree on what we mean by “x exists” first. Presumably, “x exists” (in the context of the physical universe) means “there is some physical object that satisfies the definition of x.” For example, when we say “a bachelor exists” we mean that there is some physical object that satisfies the definition of “bachelor”; that is, there is at least one unmarried man in the physical world.

If we can agree on that, then I don’t see the logical issue here. There’s no reason to suspect that it is impossible for there to be no objects to satisfy definitions. I suppose you could cite conservation laws of science and claim that matter and energy must always exist in some form, but that’s not a logical issue in itself. Also, that isn’t saying that the existence of matter/energy is necessary.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

False. It might be that the “stuff” that expanded into the current form of the universe has always existed; it might be that the “stuff” has expanded into other universes many times before and crunched back (though it looks as if this particular universe won’t be crunching); it might be that some natural force in some other universe gave rise to the “stuff” that expanded into our universe.

No one knows, and the only honest answer is to say, “I don’t know.” As an atheist, I claim that I do not know the answer and that I do not assume that there is a supernatural being simply because I want to fill in the gaps of my knowledge.

the universe has no existence apart from the contingent beings from which it is composed. ergo, the universe, as that collection of contingent beings, cannot be necessary.

so whether we want to say the universe is eternal or not, we still need a necessary being to account fo rthe existence of all these contingent beings.

the alternative, where in some self supporting arrangement of contingent beings came into existence without a cause, is a POOF! theory. which violates teh PSR (principle of sufficient reason) meaning that, poof! it just happened.** like magic**.

 

[Oreoracle]

the universe has no existence apart from the contingent beings from which it is composed. ergo, the universe, as that collection of contingent beings, cannot be necessary.

so whether we want to say the universe is eternal or not, we still need a necessary being to account fo rthe existence of all these contingent beings.

the alternative, where in some self supporting arrangement of contingent beings came into existence without a cause, is a POOF! theory. which violates teh PSR (principle of sufficient reason) meaning that, poof! it just happened.** like magic**.

I suppose we could all argue in circles about this for a week or more. However, the weakness of the cosmological argument remains: if God can exist for no reason, then the principle of sufficient reason is null. And if he exists for a reason, the cosmological argument alone does not tell us why he exists necessarily.

Sure, it sounds like a strong argument. If everything has a cause, then we end up with an infinite regression, which isn’t so much impossible as it is incomprehensible. We aren’t satisfied with that, so we might say that something is eternal. However, this leads us to an infinite regression into the past (or some other absurd statement like “x is not subject to time”) and contradicts our premise that everything has a cause. From there, it seems that there are only two ways out: we can either accept an infinite regression or we can do away with the principle of sufficient reason. In the end, we must either accept an infinite causal chain or we must concede that some things don’t have causes. Neither position seems very promising.

If we admit that some thing has no cause, then the principle of sufficient reason as a whole is moot. After all, if there is one exception to the rule, why can’t there be dozens? Or millions? A rule simply isn’t a rule if there are exceptions to it.

In short, both exits from this logical dilemma cause us to accept absurdities. I think any reasonable person would simply choose to withhold judgment on the issue.

 

[Oreoracle]

Since there is nothing that we know of in the universe capable of creating it, there must be something outside the universe.

This is a textbook example of the fallacious argument from ignorance. Just because we don’t know of a thing in the physical world that could have caused the physical world to exist does not mean that such a thing doesn’t exist.

 

[TheAtheist]

Ahimsa:
Ahmisa, i’m quite sympathetic to the viewpoint expressed above, namely because i’m practical.

Its just that a call for such cooperation can really only occur on an individual level.

It all depends on how one relates to the subject matter at hand.

Father Coplestone and Bertrand Russell were quite capable of having a discussion about religion and metaphysics over a bottle of port without resorting to the polemics deployed by debaters in this day an age.

You can argue partially that this is on the basis of culture, as modern life tends to be a bit more “loud.” But its more than that i think. Besides being gentlemen, i’d argue they were less allergic criticism of each others views.

But the personality that predominates in this day an age is not the seeker of truth, but the rhetorician. Some are here to defend their viewpoint from the hordes of destruction (as if the world depended on the conversation they are having this instant), others are of a “my tribe right or wrong” mentality, and still others simply like to debate.

Ultimately, it becomes a form of entertainment.

 

[Oreoracle]

Ultimately, it becomes a form of entertainment.

That’s probably the most honest thing I’ve heard all day. I salute you. :yup:

 

[Think_About_It]

Ultimately, it becomes a form of entertainment.

Agreed. It’s a great source of purpose (at least our sense of it) and pleasure to defend challenged claims. Even greater the pleasure is it to sharpen your teeth on the ignorant but cock-sure.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I suppose we could all argue in circles about this for a week or more. However, the weakness of the cosmological argument remains: if God can exist for no reason, then the principle of sufficient reason is null. And if he exists for a reason, the cosmological argument alone does not tell us why he exists necessarily.

G-d, defined as the being whose essence is existence, is necessary exactly because ‘nothing’ is a logical contradiction. without existence, there is ‘nothing’ which is an impossibility

Sure, it sounds like a strong argument. If everything has a cause, then we end up with an infinite regression, which isn’t so much impossible as it is incomprehensible. We aren’t satisfied with that, so we might say that something is eternal. However, this leads us to an infinite regression into the past (or some other absurd statement like “x is not subject to time”) and contradicts our premise that everything has a cause. From there, it seems that there are only two ways out: we can either accept an infinite regression or we can do away with the principle of sufficient reason. In the end, we must either accept an infinite causal chain or we must concede that some things don’t have causes. Neither position seems very promising.

im happy to accept an infinite chain of contingent beings, but without a necessary being no chain of contingent beings can exist.

consider an infinite chain of contingent beings, which comes into existence, all supporting each others existence. since they are contingent, they still require a necessary being to account for their existence…even if there is an infinite regression. other wise they would be necessary and unable not to exist. which rules out the universe as the necessary being, because all contingent beings of which the universe is composed, could conceivably fail to exist. there is no reason i know of that the big bang need occur at all.

If we admit that some thing has no cause, then the principle of sufficient reason as a whole is moot. After all, if there is one exception to the rule, why can’t there be dozens? Or millions? A rule simply isn’t a rule if there are exceptions to it.

In short, both exits from this logical dilemma cause us to accept absurdities. I think any reasonable person would simply choose to withhold judgment on the issue.

G-d, as the being whose essence is existence, has a reason for being, but not a cause.

the alternative is nothing, and thats an impossibility. it didnt bring G-d into existence from nothing, but rather that there is no such thing as nothing in the first place. there can only be G-d.

 

[Oreoracle]

G-d, as the being whose essence is existence, has a reason for being, but not a cause.

What exactly does it mean for something to have an “essence” of existence? You do know that it’s pointless to define something as necessary, right? Again, “x exists” simply means that there is some object which conforms to the definition of x. In that way, existence is a relationship between an object and its definition. Defining something as being existent is meaningless. For example, I could define “The Magical Martian Pinball Machine” as a pinball machine that exists on Mars. Could we then conclude that a pinball machine exists on Mars? The idea is ludicrous. Defining the Martian Pinball Machine as being necessary gives us the same result. Why should it be any different for your god of choice?

the alternative is nothing, and thats an impossibility.

You assert this confidently, but you haven’t offered any rationale to support it. Why must anything exist? If your answer relies on the contingency of entities, then I must ask you to also provide a rationale to support your assertion that those things might not have existed.

I’ll get you started with a scenario. I flip a coin and it lands on tails. How can I prove that it might have landed on heads instead? I could flip it again, but the conditions of that moment will be slightly different than the conditions of the last flip. I might flip the coin differently the next time, for example.