Is Atheism Logical?

[FLovell]

Claiming to know the absolute truth about god is illogical. This applies to atheists and theists alike. However, logical people will agree that the chance of god existing is extremely low.

I agree, except in the case of any putative supernatural creator god defined/described to possess logically contradictory properties/attributes (f'instance, a god who is defined/described to be [a] always merciful, and [b] sometimes unmerciful, or, [a'] all-knowing, and [b'] sometimes doesn't know everything, and so forth); to the extent that we know anything at all, we know there does not actually exist any object or being possessing logically contradictory properties/attributes. At least, in my (feeble, admittedly fallible) present thinking, I know there does not actually exist any object or being for which both X and not-X is true.

-- Frank

[FLovell]

[quote=Oolon Colluphid;2712778]...There are logically coherent arguments for the existence of God...

Are there any logically coherent arguments for the existence of God which are successful (that is, which employ only sound premises and no logical fallacies)?

-- Frank

PS: Is this a dialogue thread that is restricted for the participation only of atheists? If so, I'd like that confirmed/clarified so I can bow out, for as a rule I (an atheist) only have time for Internet dialogue that can be accessed and considered by theists (as I explained in a recent post here; I limit my arguments with my fellow atheists to one closed group I've long participated in). THANKS in advance to anyone who can clarify this question for me.

[CamyCamy]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Mountain Man

Welcome to TheologyWeb. Before posting in any forum, please read the forum guidelines post that is stickied at the top of every forum. It would inform you that, for instance, Naturalism 101 is intended for non-theists only.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Stabbytheclown]

• Edited by a Moderator •

How on earth do you figure that out?

[bridgeforsale]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: sc_q_jayce

Naturalism 101 threads are for non-theists only.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[FLovell]

* edited by a moderator *
Moderated By: Mountain Man

Welcome to TheologyWeb. Before posting in any forum, please read the forum guidelines post that is stickied at the top of every forum. It would inform you that, for instance, Naturalism 101 is intended for non-theists only.

* moderator notice *

Well, that finally anwers my question -- this is an area for dialogue just between fellow atheists, not theists allowed.

Bummer.

Not that I don't enjoy dialoguing with fellow atheists -- I do, and I do that on other websites dedicated to atheist-atheist dialogue -- but respecting the question of whether there is any objective reason for believing a supernatural creator God exists, we are all in essential agreement! So I will withdraw from this tread of dialogue.

If there is another active thread of dialogue here on Tweb having the same essential focus-of-subject as this one but which also has the participation of theists too, please let me know, THANKS!

-- Frank

[bridgeforsale]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Theist cleanup...

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Griggsy]

Fr. Griggs alone here has objurgated theism such that one can view it as the scam of the ages! Begged questions, guesses and it must be's underpin it. As the two threads on ignosticism reveal, God is a square circle- no there there!
So, t'is a matter of conveying this to every one else. The evangel of naturalism gives that more abundant life.
Whilst logic is the bane of theism, atheism relies on it.
Yea, atheism is logical. Now some argumentation is faulty, but we ever correct that whilse theists just dig one hole after another for themselves.

[FLovell]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

An atheist doesn't have to know there is no God in order to not believe any God exists. I am an atheist because I lack theistic belief in the existence of any God, not because I know that no God exists. There may indeed be a God out there somewhere about whom I simply have no objective knowledge nor any personal-purely-subjective-knowledge-of-my-own either.

In short, I am an atheist of the agnostic variety -- agnostic because I lack knowledge of any God (that is, I do not know nor claim to know whether or not any God exists), and an atheist because I lack theistic belief in any God (just the way that something asymmetrical lacks symmetry).

"Agnosticism" is every bit a logical as the phrase "I don't know" -- namely, it is PERFECTLY logical, for anyone who does not know whether of not any God exists.

But "agnosticism" is about lack of knowledge, not about lack of belief -- (people believe in the truth of ALL MANNER of things they do not know to be true -- think about it.

Hope that helps. -- Frank

[Griggsy]

Oolon Olophid, however, if we ignostics are right, He is as a square circle- no there ther- so He cannot exist!

[FLovell]

Oolon Olophid, however, if we ignostics are right, He is as a square circle- no there ther- so He cannot exist!

Yes, there are some descriptions/definitions of (alleged) God the non-existence of which we can know -- namely, any (alleged) God whose description/definition assigns to that God logically contradictory properties/attributes. We know that no such God exists because to the extent we can be said to truly know anything, we know that no object or being which is simultaneously both X and not-X can even possibly exist.

And so, respecting the existence of any (alleged) supernatural creator God whose description/definition does NOT assign to that God contradictory attributes/properties, I am an agnostic atheist (in that I do not claim to know that said God does not exist, but I nonetheless also do not believe that said God exists, which leaves open the possibility that that said God does exist but I simply have no objective and no personal-purely-subjective knowledge about said God's existence).

But respecting the existence of any (alleged) supernatural creator God whose description/definition DOES assign to that God contradictory attributes/properties, I am a gnostic atheist (in that I do claim to know that said God does not exist, period, end of that said God's "story"). And so should everyone be.

That's MY (feeble, fallible) present position on this at any rate, and for now I'm stickin' with it.

-- Frank

[zorathruster]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

First primary method: Self contradicting definition. for example: if we define a god as all red and all blue that is a contradiction in the definition. Thus this specific type of god does not and cannot possibly exist. Many definitions of god are contradictory. Specifically the dilemma of omnipotence and loving. If he is all loving and omnipotent and there is evil in the world, obviously a god cannot be both. If loving and omnipotent and evil exists he cannot be as described. Once theists begin trying to define god they necessarily limit him. A god cannot be evil and good, he must be either or.

Frequently as theists describe god they hit a bump and at that point (catholics anyway) begin to use the word "mystery". At that point, mystery has a meaning, which is unknown. They must at that point cease further descriptions because mystery by definition is "unknown". Any definition that includes such a tactic has as much a probability of characteristics totally different than expressed because a god then by definition is a "mystery". Can't be both known and mysterious.

As for the origins of the universe. YOu need more physics. Specifically, the temperature of a vacuum. Temperature can be measured which means there is something occurring in the void. This something is currently postulated as Hawking Radiation. It is the sizzle between the dimensions as they bang into each other. Also observed at the event horizon on a black hole. This implies before the big bang these "membranes" were banging and wave theory says in any active surface there are additive waves that occationally create large waves called rogue waves. Without a universe if two rogue waves hit each other there would be an overlap of the dimensions. The lack of pressure means the fizzle of loop type particles would explode into being and the dimensions would push an entire universe into being while maintaining their previous integrity. After the universe explodes into being we would still observe the effects previously mentioned.

All that is in it. The observed progression of the universe is toward greater complexity. Stars initially formed and fuzed hydrogen into helium but more important the heavier elements. Iron, carbon, oxygen... After about three solar cycles, 3 times sun formation, heavy element formation, star goes supernova and blasts all that "star stuff" out into the local area eventually planets of heavier elements start forming. Odds come into play and eventually a planet with earthlike qualities begin to show up. The heavy elements are what is critical.

The evolution of life follows a similar path. Simple toward more complex. Starts out single cell, some get eaten and can't be digested others might invade and cant kill the host. Complex cell formation with Mitochondria appear. Multicell organisms appear. Fish, animals, and eventually an animal is so inept with a lack of survival features that it can develop brains instead of capitalizing on some other survival tactic. Brains will lead to the emergence of hardwired intellegence, and eventually that substrate will expand out into the galaxy. Simple to greater levels of complexity. Seems to be a recurring theme.

Look for recurring patterns...that is actually what humans are very good at.

[robertb]

As some of you know my faith in the Bible is pretty much gone.
But I do think there might be a God. I cannot get over the complications of the Universe and all that is in it.

So my question is:

How does an atheist know there is no God?

Is Agnosticism more logical? I think it might be.

Thanks for your time.

I assume that prior to your fall, you probably were quite happy not believing in a multitude of gods, for one reason or another.

Would you say that, during your days as a believer, that you were agnostic towards Zeus or did you simply know that Zeus does not exist?

As has been stated, there is nothing illogical about lack of belief in any specific god, when one can examine the supposed characteristics of the being in question and make a determination as to it's probability, or lack thereof.

On the other hand, to make any definitive statement with regards to all possible gods would be much more difficult and will usually lead to the default and, in my mind, more rational position of agnosticism.

So it is not really a case of one or the other. It is, more or less, situational.

[Griggsy]

Strong atheism is not dogmatic as it means only that there is no evidence for Him and with ignosticsm as part of it, then how could one even approach making sense of Him [ See the ignostic-Ockham, where I'll engage om questioning my form of it [igtheism].
The it must be [those theological it must be's- an intlelligence behind all is the arguments from beauty and pareidolia, which I describe elsewhere here.
Dr. Quentin Smith -yes!

[Griggsy]

Of ocurse atheism is logical as it defeats theism - that series of begged quesions.