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.
If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, but denies the uncaused cause is God, then we have the following statements that atheism requires to be true.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - T
2. God does not exist. T
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - T
4. The uncaused cause that exists is a limited act. - T
5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - T
6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. T
However, the following arguments show lines 1 to 6 are false. The lines showing where lines 2-6 are false are given in brackets, for example (2), (3) and so on.
God is pure act.
But atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore pure act (which is act without potency) does not exist.
Therefore everything that exists is composed of potency and act.
Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
Yet when potency and act are found united in a thing, the unity is not caused by the diversity of potency and act, but by another cause of the unity.
But what is caused by another is not an uncaused cause.
Therefore an uncaused cause which is limited does not exist. (4)
Consequently, an uncaused cause which is unlimited, does exist.
What is unlimited is pure act.
As the unlimited act exists, then the being which is pure act, exists.
As pure act exists, then God exists. (2)
As pure act is act without potency, pure act us unreceptive.
What is unreceptive is ontologically prior to all.
What is ontologically prior to all is uncaused.
What is uncaused and pure act is being.
As being causes being then pure act causes being.
What causes being is a cause.
Therefore pure act is the uncaused cause. (3)
Furthermore, potency is the cause of a limit of act.
Act is the cause of the act.
Therefore what is limited is in act from act and in limit from potency.
Therefore a limited thing is composed of act and potency.
According to atheism and theism an uncaused cause exists.
If the uncaused cause is limited, then the uncaused cause is composed of act and potency.
Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency and act are diverse causes within a thing found united.
And what are from themselves diverse and yet found united are from themselves not the cause of unity, but diversity.
Therefore a thing with metaphysical parts of act and potency is caused by another cause as the cause of the unity of potency and act.
Therefore an uncaused cause, which is limited by potency, is a caused cause.
(Which implies according to atheism, that an uncaused cause is not the prime act). (1)
Yet what is both an uncaused cause and a caused cause is ontologically both A and not A.
And what is both A and not A is ontologically absurd, for a thing is always one with itself and not the negation of itself.
Therefore a limited, uncaused cause is both logically and ontologically false. (1 and 4)
As the statements 1) The uncaused cause is limited by potency, and 2) an uncaused cause is composed of potency and act, follow from the false statement, the uncaused cause that exists is a limited act (4), then (5) and (6) are also false.
Therefore statements (1)-(6) above as required by atheism to be true are all false.
Therefore if atheism requires the uncaused cause to be limited, then atheism is false.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - F
2. God does not exist. F
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - F
4. The uncaused cause that exists is then a limited act. - F
5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - F
6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. F
Question If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, how can atheism be true if lines 1-6 are all false?
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. A cause is defined as that which has a positive influence according to the being of another. An effect is defined as that which is positively influenced by the being of another.
A series of caused causes without an uncaused cause can be either
1 Circular, such as A causes B causes C causes A. But such as series is inadequate to explain causation, for the same inadequacy is exists in each member of the series, making the series an ontological fiction.
2 An infinite series of 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.
Question If atheism affirms either a circular causation, or an infinite series, how does atheism resolve the problematic nature of such series exposed above?
If it is objected that an infinite series of causes acting 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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi theism as exposed above?
And 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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi theism as exposed above?
And 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 If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi polytheism as exposed above?
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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the necessary being, how are the problems exposed above resolved?
If the atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, then atheism concludes to both -
A) A contradiction concerning the nature of a contingent being, which both cannot exist from itself and is said by atheism to exist from itself. A contingent thing cannot exist from itself as being is the prime perfection, which actualizes the thing. The being of the contingent thing must therefore be caused by another cause prior to the being of the contingent thing, which is itself being. The being which causes the being of contingent things is God, who is both being by nature and the universal cause of being.
B) A mindless superstition which posits a cause within all contingent beings to self-cause existence, even though existence is the prime perfection of things and therefore cannot be self-caused by things which have, or participate in existence. All being in all things within the universe becomes an inexplicable, irrational, brute fact, which is not explainable within atheism.
Question If atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, how does atheism resolve the above problems?
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 If atheism proposes that the universe exists, how does atheism account for the existence of the universe?
If atheism does not admit to the existence of the universe, how does atheism account for the existence of anything at all?
If atheism cannot account for the existence of anything at all, isnt atheism anti scientific, and irrational? Please explain.
Further problems associated with the contingency of the universe.
1) The universe is either contingent or necessary. If contingent, then from the nature of contingency, it is dependent upon the necessary, which is God. If the universe is necessary, then the universe is the prime being, and therefore God. Either way, if the universe exists, either pantheism is true, or another species of theism is true, and atheism is excluded.
To account for the existence of anything requires an account of the existence of the contingent. Another way of saying this is that things which have limited being, participate in being, rather than exist from the nature of the thing. That which is had by participation is had through cause and not from essence. For example the man sees by participating in the act of sight. Therefore sight is caused by the eye. The man exists by participating in the act of being. Therefore the mans existence is caused by the cause of being, which is that which is being and therefore the universal cause of being (God).
Question If atheism proposes to explain the existence of the universe how does it do so by explaining the distinction of being had by participation and essence as exposed above?
2) The universe is either the prime being and therefore pantheism is true, or the secondary being, and therefore dependent upon another cause (another form of theism) for its existence. Therefore for atheism to posit the existence of the universe, atheism must conclude to a species of theism. In other words, to account for the universe, atheism must posit the universe is either self-contained regarding being, and therefore concludes to pantheism, or is not self-contained and therefore concludes to another being, which is greater than the universe, which is the supreme being. Such a being is either the true god of theism or the false pseudo god of atheism. Either way, if the universe exists, atheism concludes to a form of theism. If the universe exists, then atheism is always false. The universe exists, therefore atheism is always false.
Question If atheism accounts for the existence of the universe, how does it do so without concluding to a form of theism?
3) Atheism denies the existence of the supreme being. Yet the universe exists. The universe is either supreme or not. If it is, then pantheism is true. If not then there is a being greater than the universe which is God. Either way, if the universe exists, then the supreme being exists, contrary to the conclusion of atheism. The universe exists, then the supreme being exists and atheism is always false.
Question If atheism asserts the universes existence is true, how is atheism also true, in opposition to the problem exposed above?
4) If the universe exists then atheism must conclude to a form of theism to account for being, or a form of mindless superstition. As atheism denies theism, then it concludes to mindless superstition, therefore atheism is equivalent to mindless superstition. As a denial of theism or the affirmation of mindless superstition are always false, then atheism is always false.
If the universe exists then a form of theism follows as demonstrated above. If the forms of theism are denied, then atheism concludes to a power within things that exist, which is not explainable through reason. To posit such power in things is superstition. Therefore atheism is superstitious. What is superstitious is contrary to reason and always false. Therefore atheism is false.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, with all the problems exposed above, how does atheism avoid being superstitious?
5) If atheism affirms the existence of the universe, then atheism must conclude to a cause of the universe. That cause of the universe is a being, which is prime. The prime is either a false god of a false species of theism, such as pantheism, polytheism, or monism, etc as exposed in arguments given above. Yet all forms of false theism, presuppose the only true species of theism, namely monotheism. Therefore, if atheism proposes to account for the existence of the universe, atheism must proximately conclude to a false species of theism, which in turn ultimately concludes to the only true species of theism, in monotheism.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, how is atheism not always false by always concluding to a prime cause, which is only really prime, when accounted for by monotheism?
6) 5) If atheism affirms the existence of the universe, then it must A) affirm the existence of a prime being, or B) not. If affirm, then atheism concludes to monotheism, which concludes to atheism as false. If atheism denies the prime beings existence, then atheism concludes to the prime being is a non being. Atheism then seeks to account for the existence of the universe whereby the ultimate cause of the universe is nothing. Therefore atheism concludes to the ultimate being is nothing, and all being comes from nothing. Such a conclusion is self evidently absurd and a denial of the absurdity leads to a blind faith in the superstitious power of nothing to cause everything.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, whereby the prime being is really nothing, how does atheism avoid the absurd conclusion of all power in the universe is ultimately derived from the non power of nothing?
Other Problems for Atheism
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 being
2) Atheism says the necessary being does not exist. Atheism means the necessary being, which has a nature which is being, does not be. This means atheism concludes to the being which must be, does not be. Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. What is self contradictory is false. As atheism is self contradictory, atheism is false.
The 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
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.
If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, but denies the uncaused cause is God, then we have the following statements that atheism requires to be true.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - T
2. God does not exist. T
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - T
4. The uncaused cause that exists is a limited act. - T
5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - T
6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. T
However, the following arguments show lines 1 to 6 are false. The lines showing where lines 2-6 are false are given in brackets, for example (2), (3) and so on.
God is pure act.
But atheism concludes that God does not exist.
Therefore pure act (which is act without potency) does not exist.
Therefore everything that exists is composed of potency and act.
Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
Yet when potency and act are found united in a thing, the unity is not caused by the diversity of potency and act, but by another cause of the unity.
But what is caused by another is not an uncaused cause.
Therefore an uncaused cause which is limited does not exist. (4)
Consequently, an uncaused cause which is unlimited, does exist.
What is unlimited is pure act.
As the unlimited act exists, then the being which is pure act, exists.
As pure act exists, then God exists. (2)
As pure act is act without potency, pure act us unreceptive.
What is unreceptive is ontologically prior to all.
What is ontologically prior to all is uncaused.
What is uncaused and pure act is being.
As being causes being then pure act causes being.
What causes being is a cause.
Therefore pure act is the uncaused cause. (3)
Furthermore, potency is the cause of a limit of act.
Act is the cause of the act.
Therefore what is limited is in act from act and in limit from potency.
Therefore a limited thing is composed of act and potency.
According to atheism and theism an uncaused cause exists.
If the uncaused cause is limited, then the uncaused cause is composed of act and potency.
Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
For potency and act are diverse causes within a thing found united.
And what are from themselves diverse and yet found united are from themselves not the cause of unity, but diversity.
Therefore a thing with metaphysical parts of act and potency is caused by another cause as the cause of the unity of potency and act.
Therefore an uncaused cause, which is limited by potency, is a caused cause.
(Which implies according to atheism, that an uncaused cause is not the prime act). (1)
Yet what is both an uncaused cause and a caused cause is ontologically both A and not A.
And what is both A and not A is ontologically absurd, for a thing is always one with itself and not the negation of itself.
Therefore a limited, uncaused cause is both logically and ontologically false. (1 and 4)
As the statements 1) The uncaused cause is limited by potency, and 2) an uncaused cause is composed of potency and act, follow from the false statement, the uncaused cause that exists is a limited act (4), then (5) and (6) are also false.
Therefore statements (1)-(6) above as required by atheism to be true are all false.
Therefore if atheism requires the uncaused cause to be limited, then atheism is false.
1. An uncaused cause composed of act and potency exists as the prime act. - F
2. God does not exist. F
3. Therefore the uncaused cause is not God. - F
4. The uncaused cause that exists is then a limited act. - F
5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - F
6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. F
Question If atheism affirms the existence of the uncaused cause, how can atheism be true if lines 1-6 are all false?
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. A cause is defined as that which has a positive influence according to the being of another. An effect is defined as that which is positively influenced by the being of another.
A series of caused causes without an uncaused cause can be either
1 Circular, such as A causes B causes C causes A. But such as series is inadequate to explain causation, for the same inadequacy is exists in each member of the series, making the series an ontological fiction.
2 An infinite series of 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.
Question If atheism affirms either a circular causation, or an infinite series, how does atheism resolve the problematic nature of such series exposed above?
If it is objected that an infinite series of causes acting 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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi theism as exposed above?
And 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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi theism as exposed above?
And 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 If atheism denies the existence of the uncaused cause, how goes atheism explain the consequence of having to posit a problematic, quasi polytheism as exposed above?
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.
Question If atheism denies the existence of the necessary being, how are the problems exposed above resolved?
If the atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, then atheism concludes to both -
A) A contradiction concerning the nature of a contingent being, which both cannot exist from itself and is said by atheism to exist from itself. A contingent thing cannot exist from itself as being is the prime perfection, which actualizes the thing. The being of the contingent thing must therefore be caused by another cause prior to the being of the contingent thing, which is itself being. The being which causes the being of contingent things is God, who is both being by nature and the universal cause of being.
B) A mindless superstition which posits a cause within all contingent beings to self-cause existence, even though existence is the prime perfection of things and therefore cannot be self-caused by things which have, or participate in existence. All being in all things within the universe becomes an inexplicable, irrational, brute fact, which is not explainable within atheism.
Question If atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, how does atheism resolve the above problems?
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 If atheism proposes that the universe exists, how does atheism account for the existence of the universe?
If atheism does not admit to the existence of the universe, how does atheism account for the existence of anything at all?
If atheism cannot account for the existence of anything at all, isnt atheism anti scientific, and irrational? Please explain.
Further problems associated with the contingency of the universe.
1) The universe is either contingent or necessary. If contingent, then from the nature of contingency, it is dependent upon the necessary, which is God. If the universe is necessary, then the universe is the prime being, and therefore God. Either way, if the universe exists, either pantheism is true, or another species of theism is true, and atheism is excluded.
To account for the existence of anything requires an account of the existence of the contingent. Another way of saying this is that things which have limited being, participate in being, rather than exist from the nature of the thing. That which is had by participation is had through cause and not from essence. For example the man sees by participating in the act of sight. Therefore sight is caused by the eye. The man exists by participating in the act of being. Therefore the mans existence is caused by the cause of being, which is that which is being and therefore the universal cause of being (God).
Question If atheism proposes to explain the existence of the universe how does it do so by explaining the distinction of being had by participation and essence as exposed above?
2) The universe is either the prime being and therefore pantheism is true, or the secondary being, and therefore dependent upon another cause (another form of theism) for its existence. Therefore for atheism to posit the existence of the universe, atheism must conclude to a species of theism. In other words, to account for the universe, atheism must posit the universe is either self-contained regarding being, and therefore concludes to pantheism, or is not self-contained and therefore concludes to another being, which is greater than the universe, which is the supreme being. Such a being is either the true god of theism or the false pseudo god of atheism. Either way, if the universe exists, atheism concludes to a form of theism. If the universe exists, then atheism is always false. The universe exists, therefore atheism is always false.
Question If atheism accounts for the existence of the universe, how does it do so without concluding to a form of theism?
3) Atheism denies the existence of the supreme being. Yet the universe exists. The universe is either supreme or not. If it is, then pantheism is true. If not then there is a being greater than the universe which is God. Either way, if the universe exists, then the supreme being exists, contrary to the conclusion of atheism. The universe exists, then the supreme being exists and atheism is always false.
Question If atheism asserts the universes existence is true, how is atheism also true, in opposition to the problem exposed above?
4) If the universe exists then atheism must conclude to a form of theism to account for being, or a form of mindless superstition. As atheism denies theism, then it concludes to mindless superstition, therefore atheism is equivalent to mindless superstition. As a denial of theism or the affirmation of mindless superstition are always false, then atheism is always false.
If the universe exists then a form of theism follows as demonstrated above. If the forms of theism are denied, then atheism concludes to a power within things that exist, which is not explainable through reason. To posit such power in things is superstition. Therefore atheism is superstitious. What is superstitious is contrary to reason and always false. Therefore atheism is false.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, with all the problems exposed above, how does atheism avoid being superstitious?
5) If atheism affirms the existence of the universe, then atheism must conclude to a cause of the universe. That cause of the universe is a being, which is prime. The prime is either a false god of a false species of theism, such as pantheism, polytheism, or monism, etc as exposed in arguments given above. Yet all forms of false theism, presuppose the only true species of theism, namely monotheism. Therefore, if atheism proposes to account for the existence of the universe, atheism must proximately conclude to a false species of theism, which in turn ultimately concludes to the only true species of theism, in monotheism.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, how is atheism not always false by always concluding to a prime cause, which is only really prime, when accounted for by monotheism?
6) 5) If atheism affirms the existence of the universe, then it must A) affirm the existence of a prime being, or B) not. If affirm, then atheism concludes to monotheism, which concludes to atheism as false. If atheism denies the prime beings existence, then atheism concludes to the prime being is a non being. Atheism then seeks to account for the existence of the universe whereby the ultimate cause of the universe is nothing. Therefore atheism concludes to the ultimate being is nothing, and all being comes from nothing. Such a conclusion is self evidently absurd and a denial of the absurdity leads to a blind faith in the superstitious power of nothing to cause everything.
Question If atheism posits the existence of the universe, whereby the prime being is really nothing, how does atheism avoid the absurd conclusion of all power in the universe is ultimately derived from the non power of nothing?
Other Problems for Atheism
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 being
2) Atheism says the necessary being does not exist. Atheism means the necessary being, which has a nature which is being, does not be. This means atheism concludes to the being which must be, does not be. Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. What is self contradictory is false. As atheism is self contradictory, atheism is false.
The 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
Comment