Why atheism doesn't make any sense

hey Afallucco
thats a good quote. My own reasoning for why people need to discuss a topic that seems it can never be simply and throughly described, is that people look for there meaning it different ways i.e. religion, and the only logical conclussion ive come to is, to each his own. Other then that, i dont believe any debate is useless if an individual can take some own meaning and change his ideas. The change is what really should be looked forward to. With constant change, it helps people gain knowledge of themselves and that also seems like a good reason to talk about such matters.

[/Something can't come out of nothing...]

the statement above is what atheists base their argument on, if something or someone or anything cannot come out of nowhere, where did this inteligen being come from. if this inteligent being created everything what or who created them?

just for the record im not an atheist, im just being fair



"the purpose of education is to fill an empty mind with a open one" -unknown

William;28071 wrote:

Are you really suggesting that disbelief is a function of ego, that Atheists don't believe in God because they won't/can't tolerate the idea that there might be someone/something better than they are?

Even if that is true, and that is the cause of the atheist's disbelief, what has that to do with the atheist's reasons for his atheism. Suppose we discovered that every atheist had a disbelief gene which caused him to tend to disbelieve in God. The theist would still have to consider the atheist's arguments, wouldn't he? That the atheist has a disbelief gene doesn't mean he isn't right, anyway, and that he doesn't have good reasons for his disbelief.

There is a difference between cause and reason.

Okay, let's first make sure we use the same definition here. By atheists, I mean people who believe that God doesn't exist. By God, I mean a conscious, intelligent creator of our universe.

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid. Something can't come out of nothing. It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

Don't agree with me? Just think about it, it's purely illogical. It's even more illogical than believing the earth is flat. Just -think- about it. It's totally impossible for me to understand how people have actually thought this thing through and settles on that explanation. To believe that your awareness is merely electrical impulses, that it ceases to exist as soon as your brain stops functioning. As if you yourself is just some illusion.

However, if you look at it the opposite way, that matter and universal laws and energy patterns were created by a mind, the only constant thing that exists, what we really are, there are no philosophical paradoxes left. At least for me. If someone still disagree, I might as well give up, I can't explain it any better than this. I just don't get how people can believe that God doesn't exist.

If would prefer to have a weak and loving god then a strong and hateful one.

Aristotle worked out that there were three Laws of Logic the formal explanation is as follows:

1. A=A: The Law of Identity. A table is a table because it just is so.

2. Not (A and not A): The Law of Non-Contradiction, if I am being boring, then it is not the case that this talk is not boring

3. A or not A: The Law of the Excluded Middle, if you have two contradictory properties i.e. green and not green, all things are either one of the two, green or not green, and certainly not both.

Any argument that contradicts the above needs to be discarded.

A great example of how you can use logic to reason correctly is in maths. For example, we all know that if 2 x X = 20, X must be 10; if you tried to argue it any other way, you would conflict with the Laws of Logic. However, any which way you turn around the equation, with a logical argument, will always lead to a truthful answer, as the premise is correct.

This is very powerful because we can establish truthful propositions in logic that can only be refuted should their premise or the deductions from them fall foul of one of Aristotle's a-priori laws of logic. Not only are the truths of mathematics rooted on the a-priori, so are the truths of the human sciences. For example; the Austrian polymath Ludwig Von Mises shows in his masterful book Human Action (1949) how all the laws of economics can be deduced from the axiom that humans act purposefully. As Mises shows, in order to be, we act purposefully. Not being, we would not act, indeed we would not exist. We act upon satisfying our most urgent needs first, then our second most urgent needs, and so on a so forth. Ranking preferences, with the most urgent needs/demands being satisfied first, the least urgent, the furthest away in time. From this hierarchy we derive the law of demand, the downward sloping demand curve, the law of diminishing marginal utility (see here for a good illustration) and on and on it goes. Lord Lionel Robbins in the masterful 1932 book, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science shows in very clear terms how all the laws of Economics are derived from the a-priori thought process. No data of experience is needed to establish that a demand curve is always downward sloping. This has real meaning in life and imparts upon how man acts in society. Experience cannot refute these laws although many modern economists will produce sets of statistical data that seem to contradict some of the Laws of Economics, but in reality, they have just got whatever they are trying to correlate wrong. A-priori knowledge contains real truths that are not just meaningless tautologies.

To try to refute it, you cannot, as you act purposefully to do so. Just as Pythagoras's Theorem is implied in the concept of a right angle triangle-and we knew about the concept of the right angle triangle before Pythagoras "discovered" his Theorem, so, to do the laws of economics flow from the one irrefutable axiom that humans act purposefully. It is a bit like saying Darwin "discovered" the Theory of Evolution, when what he actually did was articulate it and find very plausible data sets to help explain it to the sceptical mind. Evolution was always there.

For all positivist science, it seems to rely on the very negative contention that the existing state of understanding is correct only because nothing has refuted it. This does not mean that what the laws that science rest on may well be truthful, full stop and unqualified. If Euclidian geometry is tautological, as a positivist would argue, it can tell us nothing useful about the world we experience. For example, in engineering, the laws of Euclidian Geometry applied to construction. The fact that you would not want to knowingly walk on a bridge not constructed within the confines of the laws of Euclidian geometry, as it would fall down, implies that these laws have a great benefit to our understanding of the world and are not mere tautological propositions that can deliver up no knowledge capable of being acted upon. Likewise, the Laws that govern how this paper has been written on a computer, or transmitted via the internet to someone-else will not be capable of disproving and are therefore un-scientific, they are right otherwise this would never be written and transmitted.

My contention is that God exists a-priori and that Dawkins in his dismissal of the cosmological argument of Aquinas in particular, shows his lack of understanding of that argument and the distinction between a-priori and a-posteriori knowledge.

Dawkins summarizes (page 77) three of the "five proofs" of Aquinas as "all involve an infinite regress - the answer to a question raises a prior question, and so on ad infinitum." In his own words, he proceeds to list the three as follows;

1. The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
2. The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical thing existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

He continues: "All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God."

So to Dawkins, it is an "unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress." He does not say why. Why, Richard, is it unwarranted? If it is so self-evident (and needs no further explanation to his readers) that this is unwarranted, why is it not stated? I suspect it is because Dawkins does not know.

In the physical universe no physical property is infinite. If this was the case, only it would exist. It does not, as you and certainly I exists along with countless other physical things. So how did we come into existence?

The Unmoved Mover of Aristotle (introduced to us specifically in his Metaphysics Book VI, X1, XII and in Physics, Book VII and VIII) comes into play here. The human mind cannot conceive of anything physical without postulating another physical cause for that thing. Cause and effect are a category of the human mind: absent it, and you have no human mind. All material things have cause and effect; one physical thing bounds another physical thing with nothing being infinite. If nothing is infinite, there simply must be a first cause. Therefore logic clearly dictates that the first cause, if it cannot be physical or material, must be immaterial. We call this God.

Unless you are prepared to boot out Logic as a valid system for ascertaining truth, then you cannot escape the undeniable existence of God.

Perhaps Anthony Flew, whom Dawkins questioned in his book, realised this line of logic when he converted to a belief in a Deity.

An article Dawkins sites in The God Delusion says the following (from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 25, Number 2):

Flew's Flawed Science

by Victor J. Stenger

"Fortunately, we can avoid an infinite regress. We can just stop at the world. There is no reason why the physical universe cannot be it's own first cause. As we know from both everyday experience and sophisticated scientific observations, complex systems develop from simpler systems all the time in nature - with not even low intelligence required. A mist of water vapor can freeze into a snowflake. Winds can carve out great cathedrals in rock. Brontosaurs can evolve from bacteria.

And our relatively complex universe could have arisen out of the entity that is the simplest and most mindless of all - the void."

I cannot see how Stenger avoids an infinite regress. The void then becomes the causeless cause, the prime mover or indeed God. Out of the causeless void comes the universe. I cannot throw out the category of my mind that only allows me to understand, or see the world in terms of cause and effect. Like Aristotle, I cannot throw out or suspend logic on this point. I may have reasoned illogically but am certainly unaware of the error. I may have misread Aristotle, but again, cannot see why.

In The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins (page 467-468), he says, "Heredity began as a lucky initiation of an autocatalytic, or otherwise self-regenerating, process. It immediately took off and spread like a fire, eventually leading to natural selection - and all that was to follow."

So for Dawkins, the initial replicator that kicks it all off is self-causing. I postulate, like Aristotle, that this line of reasoning does not conform to the laws of logic and must therefore be discarded. God (immaterial and unmovable) is the initial cause. What its purpose is is indeed another argument. Applying the method of the physical sciences will not answer the question "is God a delusion?" Only logic will answer that and it is purely a cognitive process of logical deduction.

Okay, let's first make sure we use the same definition here. By atheists, I mean people who believe that God doesn't exist. By God, I mean a conscious, intelligent creator of our universe.

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid. Something can't come out of nothing. It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

Don't agree with me? Just think about it, it's purely illogical. It's even more illogical than believing the earth is flat. Just -think- about it. It's totally impossible for me to understand how people have actually thought this thing through and settles on that explanation. To believe that your awareness is merely electrical impulses, that it ceases to exist as soon as your brain stops functioning. As if you yourself is just some illusion.

However, if you look at it the opposite way, that matter and universal laws and energy patterns were created by a mind, the only constant thing that exists, what we really are, there are no philosophical paradoxes left. At least for me. If someone still disagree, I might as well give up, I can't explain it any better than this. I just don't get how people can believe that God doesn't exist.

In this kind of debate I would say it is a difference of opinion, beliefs and understanding.

A real factor of how we understand something like a supreme being and no supreme being is the definition of what we understand based on what is fact and what is theory.

If you say that fact is the proof of what exists and what doesnt well then of course the existence of a supreme being is not true.

If you say that facts based on historic archives is the proof of what exists and what doesnt then yes a supreme does exist but there's no proof supporting it. This is when faith comes in which is another argument.

The point I am making is that if you believe that facts are proof of what exists and not facts based on historic archives then that is your opinion but atheism has no choice to accept the theory of a supreme being because that's what atheists beleive: what they beleive is proved and what is not proved is researched until a conclusion is made. If that conclusion denies something, atheists mainly accept to acknowledge that something is not proved and is only a theory. As for the religious beleivers, they must accept that proof is what we base life and education upon.

So in a way, both atheists and religious people have something to agree on while they discuss issues of god.

My opinion: Is conciousness simply electrical signals in the brain or is it god given (A soul). It is proved that electrical signals give conciousness to the brain and it is a theory that conciousness is god given, it's just not proved yet. So both arguments are legitimate. To prove that it is god given is when we die, unfortunatley there is no way to prove it in life.

Why this is discussed: I mentioned that there is no way to prove it so why discuss it? Maybe to convince the other argumentor with reason and logic: Religious people would say that proof would be through miracles, complexe life impossible by random mutation, natural selection and god appearences. Atheists would say that design by a supreme being is impossible, evolution has been proved etc.

Maybe it is discussed to better understand your own beleifs or to simply know what you beleive in.

My opinion: Is conciousness simply electrical signals in the brain or is it god given (A soul). It is proved that electrical signals give conciousness to the brain and it is a theory that conciousness is god given, it's just not proved yet.

Reply to krumple: Well I assumed that I didnt need to specify that god needs to be proven first but I can see your point, it is a kind of double theory which then makes my argument an awkward mix, like teena said.

Okay, let's first make sure we use the same definition here. By atheists, I mean people who believe that God doesn't exist.

By God, I mean a conscious, intelligent creator of our universe.

Can one believe in what they have not known or in what they have known?

The reasoning is really simple. It boils down to this, consciousness can't suddenly come out of a universe that is dead. Intelligent can't suddenly appear out of a universe that is stupid. Something can't come out of nothing. It doesn't make any sense that consciousness, your Self, the experiencer, can come simply out of electronic passages in the brain.

Don't agree with me? Just think about it, it's purely illogical.

A true agnostic states that if such a thing as a god exists, then it can be found and experienced like any thing else. Also, one only knows about this god commensurate with that experience.

The fact is, delusion and belief are not the same--one simply has a world full of delusional people who think that words determine reality and not reality demand a convention of names.

Krumple, you are quoting the original post as if it were my post, look at the orginal once again, and look at my additions, keep them separate. thank you. j.c.

Your reasoning is flawed....Consciousness is a biological happening of chemical reactions in the brain. The whole entire process involves biological matter and electrical impulses created out of the chemical break down or biological materials. Consciousness requires all these things or else it doesn't arise at all.