There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM
- Thread starter MrAnderson9
- Start date
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey saint
I have no political agenda to debate evolution.
I'm looking at your history right now.
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Independent Centrist
- May 19, 2019
- 3,886
- 4,315
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Wow, there is a lot of debate over semantics in this thread. I think the OP should simply be rephrased: Can someone who believes that there is no God provide a logical argument that supports that belief?
Personally, I hold no such belief. However, from a different discussion, I derived the following flawless, inescapable proof that God does not exist:
- Given a sequence of cause and effect, there must be a first cause.
- If God exists, then God must be the first cause.
- God must be conscious and intelligent.
- The first cause cannot itself be caused, and cannot contain a sequence of cause and effect.
- Conscious thought requires a sequence of cause and effect.
- God cannot be conscious.
- God does not exist.
Well, it's possible that there might be a flaw... or several... in there someplace. In fact, some of the atheists around here would probably be happy to point out the flaws in the first assumption. Okay, so it's a flawed mess, I'm not persuaded by it, and I'm embarrassed to bring it up. But it was pretty effective when using the (flawed) assumptions that were introduced in that other discussion.
And maybe it could be refined....
Personally, I hold no such belief. However, from a different discussion, I derived the following flawless, inescapable proof that God does not exist:
- Given a sequence of cause and effect, there must be a first cause.
- If God exists, then God must be the first cause.
- God must be conscious and intelligent.
- The first cause cannot itself be caused, and cannot contain a sequence of cause and effect.
- Conscious thought requires a sequence of cause and effect.
- God cannot be conscious.
- God does not exist.
Well, it's possible that there might be a flaw... or several... in there someplace. In fact, some of the atheists around here would probably be happy to point out the flaws in the first assumption. Okay, so it's a flawed mess, I'm not persuaded by it, and I'm embarrassed to bring it up. But it was pretty effective when using the (flawed) assumptions that were introduced in that other discussion.
And maybe it could be refined....
Upvote
0
Caliban
Well-Known Member
- Jul 18, 2018
- 2,575
- 1,142
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Married
Problem 1. The first premise assumes the universe in not eternal. Why assume that? If energy cannot be created or destroyed (The First Law of Thermodynamics) it is plausible that energy itself is eternal and any premise including a first cause is rejected.
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey
I found it intriguing that you also say this about your own assumption.
Yttrium - "Okay, so it's a flawed mess, I'm not persuaded by it, and I'm embarrassed to bring it up. But it was pretty effective when using the (flawed) assumptions that were introduced in that other discussion."
How was this flawed assumption effective against what?
Pls excuse me, however im not familiar with how a flawed assumption can be effective?
I assume you use these meanings within your argument. Please correct me of I'm wrong.
The meaning of cause in context here "a person or thing that gives rise to an action,"
The meaning of effect in context here "the state of being or becoming operative."
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
His wisdom
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 2:6
For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
1 Corinthians 1:25
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Is God conscious?
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”
John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Could you pls explain why this is so?
Why does conscious thought require a sequence of cause and effect?
If we assume that God - the cause - cannot be 'caused' and can not contain a sequence of cause, and effect. Then it's safe to further assume another assumption.
God apparantly cannot be conscious.
Then, If we assume that God - the cause - cannot be 'caused' and can not contain a sequence of cause, and effect. We assume God cannot be conscious and based on this assumption we further assume God cannot exist
So, if we assume these things which lead to more assumptions it is safe to further assume more assumptions.
What is the core of your argument?
Cheers
Upvote
0
Yttrium
Independent Centrist
- May 19, 2019
- 3,886
- 4,315
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Single
Hey hey
How was this flawed assumption effective against what?
Pls excuse me, however im not familiar with how a flawed assumption can be effective?
There was a lengthy discussion attempting to prove the existence of God. The OP made a number of shaky assumptions, including the one about an initial cause that could itself not be caused. I was actually using his own flawed assumptions against him.
If the first cause was itself caused, then it would not be the first cause. If it contained a sequence of cause and effect, then any cause past the first of those causes would not be a first cause, so only the first of those causes counts as the first cause, and the sequence is not contained in it.
Consciousness is a string of thoughts. Our minds receive input from our senses, and react to it.
We conclude that God cannot exist. We use a sequence of logic to derive a conclusion, starting from a set of assumptions. However, the conclusion reached by any sequence of logic at best is only as good as the underlying assumptions. If the beginning assumptions are fundamentally flawed, then the conclusion is not going to be very useful.
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey @Yttrium my dear.
I'm just mucking around with the fabulous @Nihilist Virus. I have not forgotten about you or the things you say.
I can't wait to continue this discussion with you. I'll get back to you real soon cherub.
I hope you had a great day and a great weekend. God bless you and your family my dear.
I'm just mucking around with the fabulous @Nihilist Virus. I have not forgotten about you or the things you say.
I can't wait to continue this discussion with you. I'll get back to you real soon cherub.
I hope you had a great day and a great weekend. God bless you and your family my dear.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
It's like asking.... Replace [God] with [teapot]....
Can any [a-teapot-ist] provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no [teapot orbiting earth]?
[answer] Lack in evidence to support the claim. Hence, many doubt the positive claim that there is such a teapot in orbit.
I'll give this a twirl...
Believers in god(s) will often resort to the notion of a first cause - ala 'God'. This begs a fundamental question...
If 'God' was the creator of 'anything' and 'everything' yet to come, then what once did God dwell upon, within, or other, before creating 'anything' and 'everything' to come? Or, did God once somehow rule and exist in absolute 'nothingness'?
Upvote
0
Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
To paraphrase Scott Clifton,
It is said that God created the universe as an act of will. But why is his will effective? Is it because he wills that his will is effective? But why is that effective? Does he will that it is effective when he wills his will to be effective? Does he will that it is effective when he wills for it to be effective for his will to be effective? ...
Upvote
0
Redac
Regular Member
I usually go with the ontological causal series regarding first cause rather than the temporal one many atheists use, but okay.
One would only call something other than the material universe 'nothingness' in an absolute way if one already assumes that there is, in fact, nothing else but the material universe.
As for what God was doing 'before' creation: I'm sure you're aware that 'before' isn't really correct here, since it uses temporal language for something outside of time. That said, it's often speculated that 'before' creation God simply existed in eternity past, if you will -- existing in perfect love and joy, as is His nature.
Upvote
0
Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
I see no way to draft such an argument without redefining causality, or rendering the definition of causality incoherent, or else simply special pleading.
True... but by questioning this you're effectively suggesting that things can possibly exist apart from being created by God, and you're on the brink of rendering his existence moot. I don't know how it is you could say that certain realms or universes exist without God's touch but yet our universe as it is must have been divinely created ex nihilo.
Why would a being who exists in perfect love and joy create Satan, filth, disease, and human beings?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Well, give me an example of anything outside of the conclusion of materialism (exclusively), besides a mere <blank assertion> (exclusively), and I'm all ears
Okay. But again, unless you have something to offer, besides a blank assertion of a possible invented alternative realm, for which we can all contribute, other than blankly/blindly, then I'm not sure where this line of 'reasoning' could go -- productively?
And then He decided to knowingly, at some point, create 'chaos'. Got it
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have read a number of your posts but not all so this may be a repeat clarification. Are you able to tell me what your understanding of the conclusion of materialism is?
Do you subscribe to the believe that nothing exists outside of the space time continuum and everything is a result of material interactions?
Upvote
0
cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
Time, space, matter, and energy all fall within this 'known' arena. This includes consciouness, photons, quarks, etc....
I'm not declaring an assertion that this is ALL that 'exists', and that nothing outside of these variables is all that <can> exist. However, I have not seen demonstration to anything outside 'materialism.'
Are [you] able to present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion)?
Upvote
0
In your definition of materialism you include consciousness. What are your reasons for considering consciousness as part of the material realm?
Does that mean you believe that something outside of the material realm could exist?
I would be happy to provided information on my conclusions when I can confirm that I fully comprehend your position as I do not want to simply proclaim my own conclusions without taking the time to understand yours.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
cvanwey
Well-Known Member
- May 10, 2018
- 5,165
- 733
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Skeptic
- Marital Status
- Private
I wanted to also highlight this 'attribute' as part of the 'material' realm. Meaning, consciousness manifests from the brain.
It means what I stated prior, that "I have not seen demonstration to anything outside 'materialism.' " Just like I have not seen sufficient demonstration for the assertion of alien sightings, haunted houses, ghosts, etc...
Great. Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
