Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems and Questions in Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
    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.
    This reflects a better understanding of how logic works.

    John Martin commits numerous fallacies and argues theistic presuppositions as if they are proven or objective facts
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-20-2016, 06:05 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
      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.
      The PSR is a principle, dependent upon the principle of noncontradiction, and a consequence of that principle as shown in post 14. You have merely asserted the PSR is an assumption, without presenting any evidence.

      JM

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        This reflects a better understanding of how logic works.

        John Martin commits numerous fallacies and argues theistic presuppositions as if they are proven or objective facts
        And your fallacy is to agree with an assertion made without argument, and to make your own assertion without evidence.

        JM

        Comment


        • #19
          I think the major problem is that JohnMartin is treating atheism as he would any other religion, expecting it to provide answers for The Questions. If one finds the arguments for religion(s) unconvincing, then it would be acceptable for one to call oneself an atheist, and one would not have made any conclusion as to whether a god or gods exist (aka negative atheism). On the other hand, if one thinks that the argument for the absence of a god or gods is convincing, then it is not necessary for one to affirm or deny anything with regard to the existence of the universe/cause, as they are separate, although connected, issues. In the absence of a convincing argument, "I don't know" is an appropriate response.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
            I think the major problem is that JohnMartin is treating atheism as he would any other religion, expecting it to provide answers for The Questions.
            I have concluded from my own reading, exposure to atheistic arguments and logical argumentation in favor of theism that atheism is merely a human opinion devoid of any reasoned merit. One cannot arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist. Try it for yourself with a simple categorical syllogism, and see if you can conclude to - Therefore God does not exist.

            Taken to another level, atheism may become dogmatic unbelief, whereby theism is simply not intellectually entertainable, even though atheism can never be proven. We see this amongst prominent atheists such as Hitchens, and Dawkins.


            If one finds the arguments for religion(s) unconvincing, then it would be acceptable for one to call oneself an atheist, and one would not have made any conclusion as to whether a god or gods exist (aka negative atheism).
            No, this would only lead to agnosticism. For one to conclude to atheism a reasoned proof for the non existence of God must be made.

            On the other hand, if one thinks that the argument for the absence of a god or gods is convincing, then it is not necessary for one to affirm or deny anything with regard to the existence of the universe/cause, as they are separate, although connected, issues. In the absence of a convincing argument, "I don't know" is an appropriate response.
            'I don't know' is agnostic. Even so, if you admit the universe exists then you have to get around pantheism before you say I don't know.

            My points about atheism placing demands on philosophy of causation remain. Atheism says there is no uncaused cause, hence any philosophy about causation must only ever discuss caused causes. This is simple enough to understand.

            JM

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
              And your fallacy is to agree with an assertion made without argument, and to make your own assertion without evidence.

              JM
              Which fallacy? Maybe one you made up!??! Agreeing nor disagreeing with someone is not a fallacy.

              You most definitely need to take a couple courses in the Philosophy of Logic.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
                What part of "no reason" do you not understand?
                OK. You have no reason for it.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  OK. You have no reason for it.
                  Explain 'no reason.' It appears that Doug has described several reasonable reasons why atheists believe what they do.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    I have concluded from my own reading, exposure to atheistic arguments and logical argumentation in favor of theism that atheism is merely a human opinion devoid of any reasoned merit. One cannot arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist. Try it for yourself with a simple categorical syllogism, and see if you can conclude to - Therefore God does not exist.

                    Taken to another level, atheism may become dogmatic unbelief, whereby theism is simply not intellectually entertainable, even though atheism can never be proven. We see this amongst prominent atheists such as Hitchens, and Dawkins.
                    I agree that it is not possible to conclude that God does not exist based on formal logic. However, I don't base what I believe about religious matters on formal logic, I base it on what conclusion the evidence indicates.

                    No, this would only lead to agnosticism. For one to conclude to atheism a reasoned proof for the non existence of God must be made.
                    I consider agnosticism a type of atheism, but I will concede that for the sake of argument. Do you also believe that a reasoned proof for the existence of God must be made for one to conclude to theism?

                    'I don't know' is agnostic. Even so, if you admit the universe exists then you have to get around pantheism before you say I don't know.

                    My points about atheism placing demands on philosophy of causation remain. Atheism says there is no uncaused cause, hence any philosophy about causation must only ever discuss caused causes. This is simple enough to understand.

                    JM
                    Atheism does not claim there is no uncaused cause, only that if there is an uncaused cause, it is not a god. Obviously, atheists reject the Kalam argument.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      The aims of this thread.

                      The following thread is devoted to posing questions and problems in atheism.
                      My expectation is that the 'problems' here will be like the 'problems' that JM thinks he has found in heliocentrism, relativity, calculus and Newtonian mechanics: they're problems in his own understanding that evaporate when the correct definitions/data/calculations/observations are used.

                      Problems and Questions Posed.

                      Theism means concludes to God does exist, ...
                      No it doesn't. Theism means belief in one or more gods. It does not require the belief to be a logical conclusion, nor is it specific to JM's God. JM has fallen into the classic apologist blinkeredness of trying to address 'theism' and 'atheism' while ignoring any religious beliefs other than his own. Thus any 'problems' or conclusions he reaches will only apply to his specific beliefs, not to theism or atheism in general. He's doomed to failure before he's gone more than 5 words.
                      ... which is known through reason, ...
                      Again, no it isn't. Theism almost never results from reasoning, and certainly doesn't in JM's case. His reasoning is a prop for already held beliefs, not the basis for those beliefs.
                      ... whereby God is -

                      1 the unmoved mover
                      2 the uncaused cause
                      3 the unperfected perfector...
                      This phrase is unique to JM, and does not mean what JM seems to think it does, unless his God really is a bit rough around the edges.
                      4 the unordered orderer
                      5 the necessary being
                      6 the universal cause of being
                      7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.
                      That does not follow. It possible for a being to produce something more powerful than itself. JCB have been doing it for years.

                      Atheism concludes to God does not exist.
                      No it doesn't. Atheism is not limited to JM's religion, and (using JM's terminology) does not conclude that God does exist.

                      Since JM is using his own private definition of atheism, it's unlikely that any of his 'problems' are relevant to actual atheism, even if they don't contain his typical massive flaws. For the rest of this post I'll use 'JM-atheism' to refer to JM's private definition
                      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.
                      Atheism does neither of these. JM-atheism doesn't either, since a JM-atheist could affirm the existence of an uncaused cause which is understood to be God, but not accept that God is the supreme being.

                      Even after redefining 'atheism' to suit his argument JM fails to understand his own definition.
                      Theism concludes that the uncaused cause, is pure act, without potency, which is God.
                      No it doesn't. Thomism might (though I doubt it), but theism in general does not.

                      From this point on I'll just take it as read that JM's claims apply only to JM-theism and JM-atheism and note where, if ever, his claims apply to actual theism and atheism. Otherwise I'll try and work within his definitions (with suitable SHEF precautions).
                      In other words, God is act without limit, or infinite act.

                      Also, JM's use of 'potency' is suspect. If he's using the normal definition he's just described his God as impotent, which is unlikely, so he probably has some private definition of 'potency' which he hasn't shared.
                      No, that doesn't mean the same thing - an uncaused cause is not necessarily unlimited.
                      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
                      False. The uncaused cause could be unlimited but not God. Since JM's definition of 'God' does not include being unlimited, this can be possible even if God exists and even if it is conceded that it is not possible for two discrete unlimited entities to exist simultaneously.
                      5. The uncaused cause is limited by potency. - T
                      False for the same reason.
                      6. Therefore uncaused cause is composed of potency and act. – T
                      This can't be true since it is gibberish. JM apparently has his own private definition of 'act' as well, since the only non-temporal definition of 'act' as a noun is 'pretence, masquerade, charade' which is incompatible with the previous statements.
                      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.
                      False. (X in Y, !X) -/-> !Y. Something else that is pure act could exist.
                      Therefore everything that exists is composed of potency and act.
                      False if pure potency can exist. I've no idea whether it can, since JM is using his own personal private definition for 'potency', but regardless the logic is flawed.
                      Yet what is composed of potency and act is caused by another.
                      For potency causes potency, and act, act, which are then diverse causes.
                      If potency causes potency, and God lacks potency, but potency exists, then God is not the only uncaused cause.
                      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)
                      Sure it does. If act causes act and potency causes potency, there must be at least two uncaused causes, and at least one of them must be limited.
                      Consequently, an uncaused cause which is unlimited, does exist.

                      What is unlimited is pure act.
                      But not necessarily the other way around. Pure act is not necessarily unlimited.
                      As the unlimited act exists, then the being which is pure act, exists.
                      As pure act exists, then God exists. (2)
                      False. Pure act that is not God may exist. This satisfies the scenario under examination.

                      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.
                      False. Pure act/being may cause being. It may not.
                      What causes being is a cause.
                      Therefore pure act is the uncaused cause. (3)
                      False. Pure act is therefore a cause, but not necessarily an uncaused cause. If act causes act, then why can't pure act can cause pure act?
                      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.
                      Unless it's an uncaused cause. Nothing so far has shown that an uncaused cause must be unlimited, and if there are many uncaused causes - and again nothing has been produced to suggest otherwise - they would logically be limited. This whole line of argument is assuming a single unlimited uncaused cause because that's what JM believes. Apparently he isn't capable of considering alternatives.
                      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.
                      Yet another unnecessary concept is being introduced. I can't help but feel that this whole extended argument could be reduced down to three or four lines of symbolic logic that would make it obvious even to JM where he has gone wrong, if only he was capable of understanding symbolic logic.
                      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.
                      No. This whole thing is a futile exercise in circular argumentation and assuming the conclusion. Stripped of the excess verbiage the argument becomes:
                      1. A limited uncaused cause would have potency and act.
                      2. Anything with potency and act must be caused
                      3. Therefore there can be no limited uncaused cause.

                      But #2 is never justified. The extended arguing serves only to conceal that fact in a jungle of verbiage.
                      (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.
                      Basic failure of logic here. Something that follows from a false statement may be true. In fact all true statements follow from false statements, since a false statement can lead to any conclusion at all.

                      Also JM has got lost in his numbered statements here: the original #2 was about the existence of God, not about act and potency. I suspect, but can't be sure, that JM has forgotten that his bracketed numbers were references to his original 6 lines, and is now using them as references to the lines they are attached to.

                      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?
                      Answer - JM-atheism can't be true if lines 1-6 are all false. But lines 1-6 are not all false - JM's logic is full of holes - so JM-atheism can still be true.

                      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.
                      No it isn't. Argument rejected immediately because it relies on redefining the words used.
                      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.
                      Why is it inadequate? JM doesn't say. This argument is no more than 'I don't like it'.
                      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.
                      So?
                      This series is also inadequate to explain causation as each member of the series has the same deficiency of cause.
                      And again JM's argument is no more than 'I don't like it'. No actual inadequacy has been shown.
                      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?
                      Answer - There is no problem that needs resolving.

                      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).
                      No it isn't. This is utter crap. An infinite series of events and an intelligent being of infinite power share only the word "infinite". JM has excelled himself here. He might as well be arguing that 'Big Yellow Taxi' and a yellowhammer are the same thing because they share the word "yellow".
                      Therefore atheism must posit a being very much like the prime, infinite being of theism to explain causation.
                      Bovine faeces.
                      In effect, atheism must posit a quasi-god, to explain causation.
                      Still bovine faeces.
                      In doing so, atheism requires the existence of a false god in the place of the prime cause to explain causation.
                      Even if JM-atheism did posit such a quasi-god to explain causation, it wouldn't be a false god, it would be a real one. JM's 'argument', if it even deserves the name, is simply that any god other than the one he believes in is false therefore JM-atheism is false. This wouldn't convince a five-year-old. Or JM himself.
                      The infinite series of causes acting now is false for the reason stated above...
                      The only reason given was that 'JM doesn't like it', which isn't enough to reject anything.
                      ...and also suffers from the problem of 1) its own contingency...
                      Not necessarily a problem
                      and 2) any lack of empirical or experiential evidence in its support, ...
                      Just like JM-theism.
                      ... and 3) any superior explanatory value over the prime being of theism.
                      But JM's prime being of theism doesn't have any superior explanatory value over an infinite series of causes. The two are equally explanatory. Once again JM's reason for rejecting JM-atheism is purely that he doesn't like it.

                      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?
                      Answer - it is neither problematic no quasi-theistic.

                      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.
                      And 'Big Yellow Taxi' is analogous to a yellowhammer, and John Martin lives in a clay ball under some guttering.
                      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.
                      Yes it is. Being quasi-theistic means being apparently but not actually theistic, i.e. being atheistic (but looking theistic).
                      Therefore atheism is self-contradictory.
                      The actual conclusion has nothing to do with atheism (or even JM_atheism), and a lot to do with JM's inability to form logical arguments.

                      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?
                      Answer - the same way it did before.

                      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.
                      Not if a single cause can produce multiple effects. Apparently JM doesn't understand branching. Perhaps his mind is on a higher plane.
                      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...
                      Infinite causal chains still aren't beings, no matter how much JM would like them to be.
                      ... to account for causation, atheism concludes to a quasi-polytheism. But quasi polytheism is not atheism, therefore atheism is self-contradictory.
                      Quasi-polytheism is by definition not polytheism, so could be JM-atheism and there is no contradiction.

                      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?[/quote]Answer - by noting that quasi-polytheism is by definition not polytheism.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                      seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Continued...

                        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.
                        No it doesn't. Denying the existence of God is not the same as denying the existence of all other possible necessary beings.
                        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 the same sufficiency of be, whatever 'be' is.

                        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,...
                        Unsupported assertion.
                        ... which nature is to be.
                        And another.
                        And the being which has an identity of essence and being is God as concluded by theism.
                        Yet again JM's 'refutation' of atheism consists solely of saying'atheism is wrong because it differs from 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?
                        Answer - The same way that they were for causation: by noting that an infinite series of errors is not the same as an infinitely stupid apologist.

                        If the atheism insists contingent beings exist from themselves, ...
                        False. They exist from their infinite predecessors.
                        ... 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.
                        Argument by 'my-theory-is-true-so-yours-is-false' notes, rejected and laughed at: :point:

                        B) A mindless superstition which posits a cause within all contingent beings to self-cause existence,
                        JM can't even refute JM-atheism without inventing straw-man versions of it!
                        ... 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?
                        Answer - by noting that this is a loaded question, that JM-atheism does not actually insist that contingent beings exist from themselves, and that therefore there are no problems that need resolving.
                        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.
                        Correct.

                        Therefore, atheism requires that because the universe exists, then a cause distinct from the universe must also exist to cause the universe...
                        Also correct.
                        ... and thereby save the conclusion of atheism, namely that all causes are caused causes.
                        Not correct. That is not a conclusion of atheism, or even of JM-atheism.
                        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.
                        Not content with claiming that an infinite series of events is a quasi-god, JM is now claiming that an infinite series of events is now God.

                        JM's argument in a nutshell:
                        1. Atheism says God doesn't exist.
                        2. Therefore something other than God must exist.
                        3. But "something other than God" is like "God".
                        4. Therefore God exists and atheism is wrong.

                        Question – If atheism proposes that the universe exists, how does atheism account for the existence of the universe?
                        "We don't know. Nor do you."

                        If atheism does not admit to the existence of the universe, ...
                        Rest of this section deleted as being too ridiculous to even quote.

                        Further problems associated with the contingency of the universe.
                        Are these going to be the same (non-)problems written slightly differently?

                        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.
                        No, we have struck an even deeper vein of stupidity.
                        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 man’s existence is caused by the cause of being, which is that which is being and therefore the universal cause of being (God).
                        Great. So anything at all is taken by JM as proof of the existence of God.

                        For example the pig oinks by participating in the act of generating noise. Therefore noise is caused by the pig. The pig exists by participating in the act of being. Therefore the pig’s existence is caused by the cause of being, which is that which is being and therefore the universal cause of being (God)
                        For example the appendix bursts by participating in the act of inflammation. Therefore a burst appendix is caused by inflammation. The appendix exists by participating in the act of being. Therefore the appendix’s existence is caused by the cause of being, which is that which is being and therefore the universal cause of being (God)
                        etc etc etc

                        Of course all the above is dependent on JM's peculiar theism, so all JM is doing is saying: Atheism. But theism. Therefore theism.

                        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?
                        Answer - atheism does not explain JM's gibberish, nor does it need to.

                        [quote]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,...
                        Not necessarily
                        ... which is the supreme being.
                        Or not. 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.
                        If this is true, then why bother with any of the rest?

                        Of course it's not true. It's either a variation of the Sir Humphrey Appleby fallacy:

                        Something must have initiated the universe.
                        God is something.
                        Therefore God initiated the universe.


                        or a mental fixation/total lack of imagination:

                        Something must have initiated the universe.
                        "God".
                        Therefore God initiated the universe.


                        Question – If atheism accounts for the existence of the universe, how does it do so without concluding to a form of theism?
                        Answer - by not being so thoroughly braindead that no possibility other than "God" can be even considered.

                        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?
                        Answer - by not being so thoroughly braindead that no possibility other than "God" can be even considered.
                        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.
                        So atheism is false because a denial of theism is false? And JM thinks this is even remotely close to being a valid argument? He's even dumber than I thought.

                        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?
                        Answer - by not being subject to JM's insane oozlum-bird-like logic.

                        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.
                        Uh, what? I don't think I've ever seen such a blatant example of begging the question.
                        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?
                        Answer - because JM stating that monotheism is true has no effect on reality.
                        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.
                        Utter piffle. This is akin to saying that if a broken window wasn't an act of God it must have no cause at all.
                        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?
                        Answer - by not being restricted to JM's idiotic belief that anything that isn't his God must be non-existent.

                        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.
                        No, it means that atheism concludes that the so-called necessary being which doesn't actually exist doesn't actually exist.
                        Such a conclusion is self-contradictory. What is self contradictory is false. As atheism is self contradictory, atheism is false.
                        JM-atheism is not self-contradictory, it merely contradicts JM-theism. JM obviously can't tell the difference.

                        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.
                        So either God causes everything or everything causes itself? JM can't even think of any other possibilities? Furrfu.
                        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,...
                        Why can't it be the Great Green Arkleseizure or the giant mutant star goat?
                        ... 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.
                        This applies to any uncaused cause - so much for God then.

                        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.
                        I doubt JM will find anything I've said compelling.

                        It's enough to note that every single one of his problems reduces to one of
                        - atheism contradicts theism, therefore theism
                        - I can't think of anything other than God, therefore theism
                        - I prefer theism, therefore theism
                        - Atheism uses the same terms as theism, therefore theism
                        and of course
                        - Theism, therefore theism
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                          Further Problems for atheism on the theme of the cause of being of things.

                          If an infinite series of caused causes exist as to account for the existence of many things, then how does atheism account for the cessation of things existing? After all, things change from not existing in act, then existing for a time in act, then cease to exist. For example a block of wood does not exist, then exists for a time, then ceasing to exist.
                          Ye gods. Apparently in moonbatmetropolis wood doesn't come from trees and get eaten away by bacteria, it magically appears in timber yards and poofs out of existence with a quiet 'pop' from dumpsites.

                          Once again the most rational explanation is that JM is an institutionalised inmate who is never allowed out of his cell.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                            I think the major problem is that JohnMartin is treating atheism as he would any other religion, expecting it to provide answers for The Questions.
                            I think the major problem is that JM is a blithering idiot who has no understanding of logic, reasoning or how to form a coherent argument, while at the same time believing himself to be smarter than Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, NASA and 99% of the world's population including everyone who works in relevant fields.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Which fallacy? Maybe one you made up!??! Agreeing nor disagreeing with someone is not a fallacy.

                              You most definitely need to take a couple courses in the Philosophy of Logic.
                              You agreed with another who merely asserted without evidence. You thereby made a judgement with a lack of evidence. Take the course yourself.

                              JM

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post
                                Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
                                I have concluded from my own reading, exposure to atheistic arguments and logical argumentation in favor of theism that atheism is merely a human opinion devoid of any reasoned merit. One cannot arrive at the conclusion that God does not exist. Try it for yourself with a simple categorical syllogism, and see if you can conclude to - Therefore God does not exist.

                                Taken to another level, atheism may become dogmatic unbelief, whereby theism is simply not intellectually entertainable, even though atheism can never be proven. We see this amongst prominent atheists such as Hitchens, and Dawkins.

                                I agree that it is not possible to conclude that God does not exist based on formal logic. However, I don't base what I believe about religious matters on formal logic, I base it on what conclusion the evidence indicates.
                                Religion is a matter following from the existence of God. Religion should also be based upon evidence and argument as you say.


                                No, this would only lead to agnosticism. For one to conclude to atheism a reasoned proof for the non existence of God must be made.

                                I consider agnosticism a type of atheism, but I will concede that for the sake of argument. Do you also believe that a reasoned proof for the existence of God must be made for one to conclude to theism?
                                Yes, if you want your conclusion to be based upon reason. You can also believe in God as an opinion without reason, but such an opinion I not against reason. Atheism is against reason.

                                'I don't know' is agnostic. Even so, if you admit the universe exists then you have to get around pantheism before you say I don't know.

                                My points about atheism placing demands on philosophy of causation remain. Atheism says there is no uncaused cause, hence any philosophy about causation must only ever discuss caused causes. This is simple enough to understand.

                                JM
                                Atheism does not claim there is no uncaused cause, only that if there is an uncaused cause, it is not a god. Obviously, atheists reject the Kalam argument.
                                Atheism opposed theism. Theism concludes to the uncaused cause, which atheism must oppose. I have argued that for atheism to say the uncaused cause exists, but is not God, the reasoning must be false in the opening post.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                21 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                415 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X