Problems and Questions in Atheism

[JohnMartin]

The aims of this thread.

The following thread is devoted to posing questions and problems in atheism.

Problems and Questions Posed.

Theism means concludes to God does exist, which is known through reason, whereby God is -

1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.

Atheism concludes to God does not exist. Therefore in accord with point 2 above, atheism either

1) affirms the existence of an uncaused cause, which is understood not to be God or

2) denies the existence of the uncaused cause, and thereby denies the existence of God as the uncaused cause.

Theism concludes that the uncaused cause, is pure act, without potency, which is God. In other words, God is act without limit, or infinite act.

Scenario 1- If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause.Question Scenario 2- If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause.

Alternatively, if atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, then atheism affirms only the existence of caused causes.acting now,such as A causes B causes C etc. This series in an ontological series whereby each member of the series acts now, to be caused and to cause another. But this series has no end, for each cause is a caused cause. This series is also inadequate to explain causation as each member of the series has the same deficiency of cause. For each member is dependent upon another member for a positive influence regarding the being of another, when each member of the series has the same deficiency in be. As the same deficiency exists in each member, then no member is a cause in the series.

Questionacting now can and does actually exist, then 1) such a series is infinite which concludes to a series with an infinite be, which is very close to the prime being of theism (which has an infinite being). Therefore atheism must posit a being very much like the prime, infinite being of theism to explain causation. In effect, atheism must posit a quasi-god, to explain causation. In doing so, atheism requires the existence of a false god in the place of the prime cause to explain causation. The infinite series of causes acting now is false for the reason stated above and also suffers from the problem of 1) its own contingency and 2) any lack of empirical or experiential evidence in its support, and 3) any superior explanatory value over the prime being of theism.

QuestionAnd 2 - Atheism means the prime cause does not exist, but then consequently an infinite series of secondary causes do exist. The infinite series of secondary causes is itself self-causing, which is analogous to the prime cause of theism, which is self-causing. Therefore atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, but posits the existence of self-sustaining series of caused causes. Therefore atheism requires a quasi-prime cause to account for causation, analogous to the real prime cause of theism. Atheism is therefore quasi theistic to have any explanatory value. But to be quasi theistic is not atheistic. Therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

QuestionAnd 3 Atheism requires an infinite series of caused causes, wherever there is a secondary causes acting now. For atheism requires that no cause be uncaused. Therefore because there are many causes acting now, there must be many infinite series of causes acting now. Therefore atheism requires many series with infinite being, which infers a form of quasi polytheism. Why? Theism concludes to one God who is infinite being. Polytheism concludes to many gods with each god having much being (or infinite being). As atheism requires many large beings to account for causation, atheism concludes to a quasi-polytheism. But quasi polytheism is not atheism, therefore atheism is self-contradictory.

Question Atheism and the problems associated with the denial of the Necessary Being.

Theism affirms the existence of God as the necessary being, therefore atheism denies the existence of the necessary being and concludes that every thing that exists is a contingent being. The following problems flow from this atheistic position.

1) A contingent being does not have being from itself, but is from the nature of contingent being, dependent in be upon another being. The contingent being must therefore be either

A) dependent upon another contingent being and so on, ad infinitum. Such a series cannot exist as each member of the series has the same lack of be.

Or

B) not dependent upon another and therefore have being for itself. But to have being from itself is only found in the necessary being, which nature is to be. And the being which has an identity of essence and being is God as concluded by theism.

If the atheist insists that the infinite series does exist, then the above same problems found in the theme of causation also exist for the problem of contingency, namely that atheism concludes to the contingent quasi god with an infinite being and contingent polytheism required to explain the existence of contingent beings.

QuestionQuestion The problems associated with the denial of the Necessary Being and the contingency of the universe.

Atheism denies the existence of the prime and therefore the supreme being. Yet the universe exists. The universe has very much being and is therefore a candidate for the supreme being. Pantheism concludes to the universe as the supreme being and atheism denies pantheism. The following problems arise for atheism when the existence of the universe is admitted.

The universe is either the prime being or not.

A) If the universe is the prime being, then it is self-caused. What is self-caused is an uncaused cause. But atheism must deny the existence of the uncaused cause (see arguments presented above); therefore atheism requires the existence of another cause outside the universe and so on. Therefore atheism cannot posit the existence of the self-causing universe without positing another, independent cause acting outside, or diverse from the universe.

Furthermore, if the universe is the prime being, then the universe is the prime being, composed of potency and act. Such is an error as shown above.

Or, B) the universe is not the prime being, and then atheism cannot posit the existence of the self-causing universe. Therefore atheism concludes the universe must be caused by another cause, distinct from the universe.

Therefore, atheism requires that because the universe exists, then a cause distinct from the universe must also exist to cause the universe and thereby save the conclusion of atheism, namely that all causes are caused causes. But the cause distinct from the universe is also caused and so on. Therefore atheism concludes to an infinite series of caused causes, which is a quasi-god which sustains the universe. Such a god has never been proven to exist and even if it does exist, contradicts atheism, which concludes to God does not exist.

Question Further problems associated with the contingency of the universe. QuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestionQuestion

The problem of affirming and denying the prime and secondary being.

1) Atheism denies the existence of the prime being. Therefore atheism affirms the existence of only secondary beings. But to be a secondary being, infers the being is dependent with regard to being upon another being. This means atheism affirms the existence of secondary beings, 1) which are really the prime being, which concludes to theism, or 2) are accounted for through dependence upon the prime being, which is theism. Either way, if a thing exists, atheism concludes to theism, if atheism claims to have any explanatory power concerning the existence of anything. As such, atheism is self-defeating and therefore always false.

The problem of the self contradictory conclusion regarding the denial of the necessary beingThe problem of the denial of God as the universal cause of being

3) Atheism concludes to no universal cause of being, for theism concludes that God is the prime, universal cause of being, which is denied by atheism. If there is no universal cause of being, then all being is only caused specifically, by each specific thing that exists. Therefore according to atheism, when a thing is in act, the thing causes itself to exist. But, as being is the prime perfection in things, then the being of the thing must be caused by

A) Another being which is itself being according to nature, for only being causes being. This other being is God, who is both ontologically prior to creatures and the universal cause of being. As atheism denies the existence of the prime being, which is ontologically prior to creatures, the being of creatures cannot be caused by God.

Or

B) The thing itself. As a cause has being, and the thing has being, for a thing to cause itself means the thing is a cause which is ontologically prior to itself. Such ontological priority means the thing must cause itself before it is in act. Therefore, both 1) the cause must exist before the thing exists, and 2) yet the thing must exist prior to its cause of being to provide the being of the cause of the thing. Such convoluted need for causation prior to the thing existing and the thing existing prior to its own cause of its existence indicates the atheistic need for specific things to cause their own existence is ontologically impossible.

Atheism is very problematic. In fact it seems atheism has no explanatory value and is also absurd. We shall see how the atheists answer the problems and questions posed above. I doubt there will be any compelling answers at all.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Theism means concludes to God does exist, which is known through reason, whereby God is -

1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.

Reason is the use of arguments to reach conclusions. Every argument rests on certain assumptions. I don't accept all of the the assumptions on which arguments for the existence of any of these 7 entities must rest.

Atheism is very problematic. In fact it seems atheism has no explanatory value

Atheism is not offered as an explanation for anything.

I doubt there will be any compelling answers at all.

If an answer has to change your mind in order to be compelling, then your doubt is probably justified.

[JohnMartin]

Reason is the use of arguments to reach conclusions. Every argument rests on certain assumptions. I don't accept all of the the assumptions on which arguments for the existence of any of these 7 entities must rest.

What do you not accept for God as the necessary being?

Atheism is not offered as an explanation for anything.

Atheism defaults to explaining the existence of the universe without a necessary being. As atheism cannot offer any reasoned explanation for how anything exists at all then atheism cannot provide any reasons for the existence of any thing whatsoever. Hence atheism is a non explanatory world view. Some have said atheism defaults to naturalist, materialism, whereby the only things that exist are natural, material things without any reference to any supernatural causes, or anything existing apart from the material universe.

Yet so, atheism cannot even account for any material thing, nor any natural cause for reasons given in the opening post. Atheism does not end with the denial of God as many atheists think, it does however begin with the denial of God as the prime being, and from there involves a world view that has no explanatory value whatsoever. For the atheist, God does not exist, hence according to the logic of atheism, nothing else can exist, yet we know things do exist. Therefore atheism must deny the value of reason to understand and explain reality. For atheism to be true, ultimately both reason and all being must be denied.

The atheist experiences the real, but has no explanatory value within his worldview, which means for the atheist to be consistent with his atheism, he must adopt something like a Hindu concepts of life whereby all reality is really only an illusion. But again, even this adoption of hyper skepticism regarding the nature of reality does not go far enough. For the atheist to be fully logical, he must also deny the existence of the illusion and any thought whatsoever. Atheism then concludes to a Helen Keller like existence which is almost completely detached from all sensed experience and following this, must embrace something like the equivalent of the Buddhist, black nothingness of Nirvana in this life, which excludes all thought.

That's where atheism goes . . . to the present nothingness of no sensed experience and no thought. Of course, nobody can live this sort of life, hence the practical witness of atheists living and thinking is very strong evidence against atheism.

Please understand I do not say the above to be offensive, or to infer atheists are stupid. Many atheists are very smart. Nevertheless, atheism as a world view does have its own interior logic which arrives at a zero sum for being, which concludes to a zero sum for knowledge and any thought. If atheism is true, then logically nothing exists, which includes no thought.

If an answer has to change your mind in order to be compelling, then your doubt is probably justified.

My doubt is justified.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Further Problems for atheism on the theme of the cause of being of things.

[JohnMartin]

Reason is the use of arguments to reach conclusions. Every argument rests on certain assumptions. I don't accept all of the the assumptions on which arguments for the existence of any of these 7 entities must rest.

How can atheism explain causation without any uncaused causes?

JM

[JohnMartin]

Further Problems with Atheism

[Doug Shaver]

What do you not accept for God as the necessary being?

I see no reason to believe that any being is necessary.

[Doug Shaver]

Atheism defaults to explaining the existence of the universe without a necessary being.

Not just because you say so. Atheism does not default to explaining anything.

[Doug Shaver]

How can atheism explain causation without any uncaused causes?

It can't, but it doesn't need to. When I want to explain causation, I use philosophy, not atheism.

[37818]

I see no reason to believe that any being is necessary.

Please qualify what you mean. Being to say an existence or being to say a personage. If you mean even the necessity of mere existence please explain.

[JohnMartin]

It can't, but it doesn't need to. When I want to explain causation, I use philosophy, not atheism.

How can philosophy explain causation without an uncaused cause, as required by atheism? Or, how can philosophy explain causation, with all causes being caused causes.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Atheism defaults to explaining the existence of the universe without a necessary being.

Not just because you say so. Atheism does not default to explaining anything.

Atheism defaults to explaining everything without a prime being, prime mover, prime cause, necessary being, and unordered orderer, for atheism denies the existence of the prime being, unmoved mover, uncaused cause, necessary being, and unordered orderer. For reason to explain the nature of say motion, without an unmoved mover, means reason must include the conclusion of atheism that there is no unmoved mover.

Atheism purports to explain the errors of theism, but of course does not.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
What do you not accept for God as the necessary being?

I see no reason to believe that any being is necessary.

Without the necessary being there is no reason for any thing to exist. Hence the necessary being is required to explain how things exist. The necessary being is being by nature, which means the necessary being is that which must be, and therefore does not receive its being from another cause. The contingent are from themselves indifferent to be, so there is another cause acting within the contingent thing, keeping the thing in existence. That cause is the necessary being. The necessary being causes the being of creatures, and without such a cause, creatures would not exist. The causation of the creatures being by the necessary being is termed, the power of God.

To say all things that exist are only contingent means there is never enough causation in any thing that exists. Therefore there is no causal reason for anything to exist, yet things exist. Atheism concludes to a inexplicable power within all things existing, for which there is no evidence, in an attempt to account for how things exist. Such of course means atheism logically concludes to all things existing via a power within things that is unreasonable, hence the phenomena of reality exists due to an in comprehensible, mindless superstition.

Atheism removes the ultimate reason of be of all things. Hence reason cannot explain how anything exists, and must substitute the power of God acting in all things, with a power from each individual thing causing each thing to actually exist. This power acting in each things must be -

1) a power that causes the be of the thing, as an alternative explanation for the power of God.

2) a power that is ontologically prior to the thing existing. Such is not possible, for such a power can only be caused by God, who is being, ontologically prior to all creatures.

3) a power that is universal, because it always causes being which is universal. But a power that is also only ever specific, because it only causes the being of this particular creature and not the other creatures. Yet somehow does also cause the being of other specific creatures. Such a power does not exist within creatures, but must proceed from the divine power, as the universal cause of being.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

Please qualify what you mean.

What part of "no reason" do you not understand?

[Doug Shaver]

How can philosophy explain causation without an uncaused cause, as required by atheism? Or, how can philosophy explain causation, with all causes being caused causes.

Nothing is required by atheism per se.

Any cause must occur temporally before its effect. The universe is everything that exists, including time. It follows that there was no time when the universe did not exist. Therefore, the universe cannot have had a cause.

Atheism does not default to explaining anything.

Atheism defaults to explaining . . . .

No matter how many times you repeat this assertion, it is not true.

Without the necessary being there is no reason for any thing to exist.

The necessary being is being by nature, which means the necessary being is that which must be, and therefore does not receive its being from another cause.

That is what Aristotle said, or something like what he said. I do not agree with Aristotle.

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
How can philosophy explain causation without an uncaused cause, as required by atheism? Or, how can philosophy explain causation, with all causes being caused causes.

Nothing is required by atheism per se.

Atheism says God does not exist. Theism says God is the prime cause. Hence atheism says the prime cause does not exist. Which is the same as saying the uncaused cause does not exist. For atheism to be true, atheism then requires reason to explain causation via only caused causes, without reference to the uncaused cause. If philosophy discusses causation, by reference to the uncaused cause, the atheist must protest that such discussion is not rational and demand that philosophy restrict any genuine discussion to only caused causes. Hence atheism, as a denial of the uncaused cause, forces any reasoned discussion on the nature of causation to only caused causes.

Any cause must occur temporally before its effect.

Denied. A cause must only be ontologically prior to the effect. A cause is usually temporally before its effect, but a cause may also be simultaneous with its effect. For example, being is ontologically prior to essence, but being is also simultaneous with the effect of making the essence exist in the concrete. A man has being, whereby being is ontologically prior to the essence of man as rational animal. The man then has the act to be, whereby the act of be, plus the essence cause together to cause the nature of man in the concrete.

The universe is everything that exists, including time.

This would have to be proven. Even so, if it is true, doesn't your position conclude to pantheism rather than atheism? After all, pantheism says the universe is the greatest being and is therefore God.

It follows that there was no time when the universe did not exist.

Again, this is not proven. There is time wherever there is change, for time is the numbered measure of change. If there is change with regard to things that do not have a body, then there is time in according with change of spirits. As God and angelic spirits exist, then there is the time of eternity for God and the time of aeveternity for angels.

Therefore, the universe cannot have had a cause.

Your conclusion does not follow from your argument. Anyway the universe is merely a contingent being, and therefore must require a cause to keep it in existence.

Quote Originally Posted by Doug Shaver
Atheism does not default to explaining anything.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Atheism defaults to explaining . . . .

No matter how many times you repeat this assertion, it is not true.

If atheism is a negation of a being, then it follows that reality must be explained without reference to the negated being. Atheism negates the being of God, hence atheism concludes that to explain reality, no reference to God is required. If I negate the existence of man, I am an ahumanist. If I want to explain reality, I must then proceed to do so without reference to humanity.

Atheism denies the existence of God, and consequently the existence of the supernatural life of God. Hence the atheist must use reason to explain reality apart from God, or any intervention by God, such as miracles. Atheism then sets limits to what can be known by reason about reality, for atheism does not permit one to reason that an event occurred whereby there are causes that have a principle in God and are then supernatural. For example, if one sees a report of the multiplication of loves by Jesus, the atheist must approach the text to explain the event with natural causes. Such as, the event may be explained as an invention of the author etc. If atheism is denied, and theism is affirmed, the multiplication of loves by Jesus can be considered as a real event caused by God.

The principle of sufficient reason is given in the OP of the proofs for the existence of God thread, as a logical consequence of the principle of non contradiction.

he principle of sufficient reason is proven as it is a version of the principle of identity.

Reason of be is "that whereby a thing is"
But "that whereby a thing is" is "that without which the thing is not".
For if "that whereby a thing is" is not "that without which the thing is not", then the same is together:
That without which a thing is; and that whereby it is.
Which is contradictory.
Therefore reason of be is "that without which a thing is not".
But if a thing is without "that without which it is not", then contradiction is had, because then the same thing together:
Is without something;
And is not without the same.
Therefore if a thing is without a reason of be, then contradiction is had.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
The necessary being is being by nature, which means the necessary being is that which must be, and therefore does not receive its being from another cause.

That is what Aristotle said, or something like what he said. I do not agree with Aristotle.

But you wont be able to prove otherwise. Hence atheism is merely an unreasoned belief.

JM

[Doug Shaver]

The principle of sufficient reason is given in the OP of the proofs for the existence of God thread, as a logical consequence of the principle of non contradiction.

The principle of noncontradiction is an axiom of logic. The PSR is not consequence of that principle. It is an assumption independent of any of the axioms of logic.