There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[Uber Genius]

Just as Boggosian misrepresent the definition of faith to create a strawman, he misdefines the definition of atheism in a ill-conceived attempt to avoid the appearance of a knowledge claim.

As Randall Rouser points out in the fifth installment of his whithering critique of Boggosian's "Manual for Creating Atheists,"

"Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2003), Julian Baggini defines atheism as “the belief that there is no God or gods.” (3) The “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” defines atheism as “the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Countless other standard reference works (e.g. Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy) reproduce the same basic definition. And a consultation of that l’enfant terrible of encyclopedias, Wikipedia, yields the following: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”

 

[Uber Genius]

I haveput great effort and research into helping atheists articulate their knowledge claims. I have pointed them to resources and specific examples of arguments. I have also responded that instead of assuming atheists don't have any coherent arguments due to New Atheist propaganda, that Christians should familiarize themselves with sound atheistic and agnostic arguments.

Yet the New Atheism is strong with several out here. It is an inpenetratable shield set against reason, research,mane discussion. It is a fundamentalists atheism that refuses to reason and relies, as all fundamentalists do, on propaganda.

Instead we see efforts to misrepresent philosophy, logic, history, and basic definitions in pseudo intellectual replies (that don't fool anyone who has had one semester of college).

I'm am forced to ignore those who consistently demonstrate propaganda rather than engagement.

 

[Freodin]

So rinse and repeat?

Really.

I did get the logic right or didn't? I'm confused. You have made both claims.

No. You made a claim about a certain fallacy. You gave a correct answer for this fallacy. You misattributed this fallacy to the statement that you quoted.

It is a logic fail when you cannot use the correct logical syllogism.

Why should I except a nonstandard definition that I have described in detail as being incoherent?

Because it is a valid and useful. And quite often used by the very people it defines.

As for your "in detail description" of why it is incoherent... it is quite possible that I missed it. I don't have the patience to read most of your posts beyond the initial insults.

Propaganda.

See? It is much more efficient to put the insults at the end of the post. It helps people reading your self-gratifications.

But don't worry. You won't have to read any more of my "propaganda" aimed at you.

 

[Uber Genius]

Strange, I posted some of the best resources in support of atheist claims days ago and no "likes" from the likes of atheists.

I posted arguments from two of these resources yesterday, still no "likes" from atheists.

Wonder why?

Theists out here, atheism could be true despite the inability of atheists to demonstrate any justification of their claims. Just as the theists who can't justify their position in no way attenuate the theistic inference.

I highly suggest all Chrisians invest the effort to engage atheistic arguments deeply. We have the Ray Comfort approach that is no better than the anti-intellectual new atheists responses.

William Lane Craig routinely takes the New Atheists apart systematically. But he also deals with the serious claims by the likes of jl Mackey, jh Sobel, Kai Neilsen, Graham Oppy, Michael Ruse, Quinten Smith and other intellectually sound atheist philosophers (who's work appears to have escaped the atheist and "seeker" community out at this apologetics forum).

 

[Uber Genius]

No. You made a claim about a certain fallacy. You gave a correct answer for this fallacy. You misattributed this fallacy to the statement that you quoted.

It is a logic fail when you cannot use the correct logical syllogism.


Because it is a valid and useful. And quite often used by the very people it defines.

As for your "in detail description" of why it is incoherent... it is quite possible that I missed it. I don't have the patience to read most of your posts beyond the initial insults.


See? It is much more efficient to put the insults at the end of the post. It helps people reading your self-gratifications.

But don't worry. You won't have to read any more of my "propaganda" aimed at you.

Please for the last time do some research.

Stop pretending.

Use the resources I gave on is site days ago.

Study and demonstrate some passing interest in justifying your claims.

I can't hold your hand any more than I already have.

When you have an argument like the one's I posted by all means share it.

Until then I'm done with your Orwellian game.

"Ignored." For faking knowledge, new atheist propaganda, and intellectual laziness.

 

[Freodin]

Sure there is something to "argue" about, because what Christians are doing specifically (and not as basic theists do) is to prompt those who are not yet Christian to consider the veracity of accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. The atheism/theism issue is just a side-note for Christians, at least it should be. And in which case, atheists do have something to argue over: i.e. why they don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, along with explaining why they deny that the Bible and the presence of Jewish people and/or Christian people 'count' as some form of evidence(s) ...

Then why are you here (in this thread)? The OP made it quite clear what he wanted to discuss, and it is not converting unbelievers to Jesus Christ by pointing out that Christians exist.

You may scoff that mathematics and logic "work"... but that doesn't make you blameless when your approach obviously does not work.

Really, what isn't working here is the arrogant, self-righteous, insulting approach that UberGenius and - in a lesser way - you show here.

I don't know if that is meant to be the "new" Christian Apologetics methods... driving people away so that they don't ask questions... but it is not a way I want to go.
I offered what I consider a logical reason to support atheism, only to have it ignored. I don't need that.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Uber Genius]

Nothing here about a zero energy state universe though. The idea you are referencing says the universe as it exists had a beginning, not say, that it lacked energy at any point.

There needs to be a "before" the universe for your idea to make sense, which is not shown by the universe beginning.

What you're referencing though is not "settled science" exactly:

Cosmic Questions - Guth: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Guth calls it an open question.

Please stop mischaracterizing the professionals.

Wow.

I said standard model - you suggest I claim "settled science" which is not a scientific term. You just made that up.

Stop faking it!

No space
No time
No energy
No matter.

Hawking’s 2012 ‘birthday party’ conference Vilenkin presented a new paper on two of the latest alternative models that some had hoped would put an end to the idea of the universe having a beginning. But again even these new models failed to avoid a finite past. According to Vilenkin, “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

That is the standard model.

Guth is one of the co-developers of BGV theorem.

"All evidence," by a non-theist cosmologist and to date no one has brought any.

Making your alternative inference an argument from ignorance (Atheism of the gaps).

For more see:

Why Physicists Can’t Avoid a Creation Event,” New Scientist [January 11, 2012]).


Then you switch gears to a philosophical claim about time.

Both scientists (field of cosmogony) and philosophers recognize the a sufficient cause is needed to create time ,space,matter, energy.

Two reasons are generally discussed:

How can nothing, no space, no time, no laws of nature, no matter, no energy, produce anything?

And then the point that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

The only one I know who denies that claim (besides you) is Larry Krause.

Stop faking that you understand the science.

Do the research and ask whynEinstein and Edington, Holye and their peers were so frantic about the philosophical ramifications of the Big Bang theory? Why they spent their careers driving towards eliminating a theory that had a beginning?

Option 2- skip the research,misrepresent your knowledge by using Pseudoscientific terms and keep up with the new atheist propaganda instead of engaging the evidence.

I would be stunned if any atheist/agnostic chose option 1 on this forum.

 

[bhsmte]

Lots of projection being displayed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then why are you here (in this thread)? The OP made it quite clear what he wanted to discuss, and it is not converting unbelievers to Jesus Christ by pointing out that Christians exist.

You may scoff that mathematics and logic "work"... but that doesn't make you blameless when your approach obviously does not work.

Really, what isn't working here is the arrogant, self-righteous, insulting approach that UberGenius and - in a lesser way - you show here.

I don't know if that is meant to be the "new" Christian Apologetics methods... driving people away so that they don't ask questions... but it is not a way I want to go.
I offered what I consider a logical reason to support atheism, only to have it ignored. I don't need that.

Thanks for your time.

...when last I checked, the post to which you are now responding was directed at Dogma HUNTER, rather than yourself. Personally, I can very well understand some portion of why atheists say they don't 'believe,' and as I've said elsewhere, I actually empathize to some extent if we consider some notions that Kant reasoned, along with those of Jesus and Paul.

 

[Uber Genius]

...when last I checked, the post to which you are now responding was directed at Dogma HUNTER, rather than yourself. Personally, I can very well understand some portion of why atheists say they don't 'believe,' and as I've said elsewhere, I actually empathize to some extent if we consider some notions that Kant reasoned, along with those of Jesus and Paul.

see post #151

As to your Kantian reference on the epistemic limits of man in general (such as our inability to perceive no space, or no time) I am not sure:

A. We have any atheists who have read philosophers period out on this forum

B. How Kant plays into arguments for Atheism but perhaps we are talking about Romans 1.

Finally I take it that belief in God(s)'and beleif there is no God(s), are roughly the same doxastically. However, epistemically I find that the atheists on this thread have utterly failed to justify their knowledge claims (mistakenly and dogmatically clinging to the false notion that they aren't making a knowledge claim).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

see post #151

As to your Kantian reference on the epistemic limits of man in general (such as our inability to perceive no space, or no time) I am not sure:

A. We have any atheists who have read philosophers period out on this forum

B. How Kant plays into arguments for Atheism but perhaps we are talking about Romans 1.

Finally I take it that belief in God(s)'and beleif there is no God(s), are roughly the same doxastically.

While I'm definitely not going to side with atheists on the epistemic quandry in which we all can find ourselves, I probably should say that I think you and I come at this problem a bit differently.

Admittedly, Kant does take a stance on epistemology that is a bit more problematic than that of Paul, but even if we take into account the things Jesus and Paul said, the result is only slightly less problematic than what Kant would impute to the problem. Regardless, I don't think that Jesus, Paul or Kant reflect much in the way of any kind of Direct Realism when it comes to the subject of being able to have faith in God (Christ).

I'd put this epistemic problem in terms which infer that we all deal with Representational Realism, but of a kind that sits halfway between MODERN and POST-MODERN views on it all.

So, I can go with you halfway ...

One source from which I take my epistemic P's and Q's is the book, The Bible and Epistemology (eds. Mary Healy & Robin Parry).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Just as Boggosian misrepresent the definition of faith to create a strawman, he misdefines the definition of atheism in a ill-conceived attempt to avoid the appearance of a knowledge claim.

As Randall Rouser points out in the fifth installment of his whithering critique of Boggosian's "Manual for Creating Atheists,"

"Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2003), Julian Baggini defines atheism as “the belief that there is no God or gods.” (3) The “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” defines atheism as “the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” Countless other standard reference works (e.g. Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy) reproduce the same basic definition. And a consultation of that l’enfant terrible of encyclopedias, Wikipedia, yields the following: “Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.”

And yet, it seems as though the word "atheist", to everyone who calls themselves one here on these forums (and every atheist I personally know), uses the definition that defines it as "a lack of belief in a god or gods". A definition that you can find in countless sources.

Cherry picking what you want the definition to be just because you're angry that the atheist makes no claim that has a burden of proof is simply sour grapes...

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I haveput great effort and research into helping atheists articulate their knowledge claims. I have pointed them to resources and specific examples of arguments. I have also responded that instead of assuming atheists don't have any coherent arguments due to New Atheist propaganda, that Christians should familiarize themselves with sound atheistic and agnostic arguments.

Yet the New Atheism is strong with several out here. It is an inpenetratable shield set against reason, research,mane discussion. It is a fundamentalists atheism that refuses to reason and relies, as all fundamentalists do, on propaganda.

Instead we see efforts to misrepresent philosophy, logic, history, and basic definitions in pseudo intellectual replies (that don't fool anyone who has had one semester of college).

I'm am forced to ignore those who consistently demonstrate propaganda rather than engagement.

Actually, what's happening is you are incessantly harping on an irrelevant definition of 'atheism' that you've talked yourself into, and getting frustrated with us for not following you down your path of self-congratulation for your imagined expertise on the subject.

I would say you are the most cluelessly arrogant person I have ever encountered, but I *technically* met Donald Trump in 1998.

 

[quatona]

And yet, it seems as though the word "atheist", to everyone who calls themselves one here on these forums (and every atheist I personally know), uses the definition that defines it as "a lack of belief in a god or gods". A definition that you can find in countless sources.

Cherry picking what you want the definition to be just because you're angry that the atheist makes no claim that has a burden of proof is simply sour grapes...

By his definition, hardly anyone he´s talking to here, is an atheist. So the purpose of his definition seems to be able to avoid communicating with those he pretends to respond to, and to evade their actual points.
Funny that that´s the same guy who opens those "tricks people play" threads.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet, it seems as though the word "atheist", to everyone who calls themselves one here on these forums (and every atheist I personally know), uses the definition that defines it as "a lack of belief in a god or gods". A definition that you can find in countless sources.

Cherry picking what you want the definition to be just because you're angry that the atheist makes no claim that has a burden of proof is simply sour grapes...

I always get a kick, when certain christians have this strong need, to define what atheism means, to atheists. Quite telling.

 

[bhsmte]

By his definition, hardly anyone he´s talking to here, is an atheist. So the purpose of his definition seems to be able to avoid communicating with those he pretends to respond to, and to evade their actual points.
Funny that that´s the same guy who opens those "tricks people play" threads.

Like i said, lots of projection.

 

[variant]

Wow.

I said standard model - you suggest I claim "settled science" which is not a scientific term. You just made that up.

Stop faking it!

No space
No time
No energy
No matter.

That's not what the theory you were quoting demonstrates even if entirely true. Again. I asked you to stop misrepresenting people.

Nothing about the universe "having a beginning" suggests that all of those have to have some point where they simply don't exist.

A universe that is infinitely expanding requires a beginning according to the scientists you quoted and that does not imply any of the conditions you just imposed aside from "no matter" which is entirely implied by forcing the universe to exist as a point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure there is something to "argue" about, because what Christians are doing specifically (and not as basic theists do) is to prompt those who are not yet Christian to consider the veracity of accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Then it is theistic claims, christian ones in particular, that are being argued about.
It's theism that requires arguments, not atheism.
The point exactly.

The atheism/theism issue is just a side-note for Christians, at least it should be.

Which doesn't matter at all, to the concepts of the burden of proof, positive claims, the nature of evidence etc.

And in which case, atheists do have something to argue over: i.e. why they don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior

Again, what is being argued about in that case, are claims of theism. In atheism, there is nothing to argue about. There are no claims there. There is nothing that requires any convincing or belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Since the atheist/seekers are struggling to understand the difference between "Knowing" and "Beleiving"

I understand the difference just fine, thank you.

It's the people who continue to pretend that agnosticism is some "third stance" on claims of theism, which is mutually exclusive with theism and atheism, who don't understand the difference I'ld say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...but Uber, don't you know that math and science "works" and that is all the knowledge we need?

It certainly looks like it's the only knowledge that is actually usefull, when attempting to explain reality.

I know of no other method that is as succesfull as science.
You are welcome to share it, if you know of such a method.