"Atheism is more 'logical' than theism" - Defend this statement (experience, atheist)

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

This still assumes the Aristotelian compartmentalisation of causality. Note that 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' makes no specific demand upon the need for a 'substance' for the efficient cause to act upon to produce an effect.

Such a precept would clearly not be contradictory to the concept of the whole potentiality for creation lying fully within the being of the causal prior itself.

You've addressed your own argument here in your previous comment regarding the philosophical contention that surrounds derivative metaphysical theses.

Note also that the metaphysical justification for a cause for a contingent universe is not specifically undergirded via a refutation of the Aristotelian model of causality. It is underpinned directly via a truth value commitment to a discrete, more basic, and more easily defensible, ontological precept.

Your theistic ontological precept requires compartmentalisation of causality (Your God is ontologically seperate from that which he suspposedly caused). I never argued that the efficeint cause must be a 'substance' to act upon something to produce an effect - another irrelevant mischaracterization. The problem lies in your efficient cause since it is immaterial in nature and must act upon nothing to bring about an effect. You can add all the adjectives and qualifiers you like to this potentiality but still with potentiality an effect does not make. Saying something has the potential, even 'the whole potentiality', to act on nothing in order to produce something is still illogical.

You also think that matter/energy must be contingent upon something non-material to account for its existence That only works if it is by necessity contingent on something non-material. No model suggest such a thing and hiding in your metaphysics as if this does us any good in knowing whether this is true or not is futile.

This does not need to be defended because it is a truism. How can the universe, defined as space-time and its contents (in other words the sum total of the material world), be causally prior to its own existence?

This reminds me of one of Baron Munchausen's tall stories in which he claims to have pulled himself (and his horse) out of a swamp by his own hair.

In other words, it would be metaphysically absurd. One can assert that there may be some 'substance' that is causally prior to the material world (indeed, and the substance of a personal being may also qualify for this), but to call this 'material' too would be a semantic contrivance.

My point was simply that in physics there is nothing that requires a non-material efficient cause. If you are going to talk about the material world having a point were we start the causal chain (that is that which we can determine through physics) then appealing to the physics authorities is not a fallacy. Note that having a point at which we are not capable of going beyond does not necessitate that beyond that point is the non-material - it is just the point at which we begin the causal chain. An this is only if the Standard Big Bang Model is correct - which I reject. Although note that matter/energy can be eternal with the BB or without this model.

Cosmology is qualified as far as providing a description of the universe up to its past-boundary. However, anything beyond that, including discussions regarding the nature and property of the cause of the universe, is the realm of metaphysics, not physics.

Correct, and this is where you have to retreat to and hide even though you explcitly talk of this material universe in relation to your theism. How is it that you are able to describe something, as if you actually have knowledge of it, beyond the boundary of your own material existence and any material existence, is without explanation other than wishful ontological musings about non-material beings that are constructed into a logical statement that has no correspondence to reality.

At the end of the day, metaphysics is an wholly different specialty to cosmology. The methodology and range of knowledge required to address events 'causally prior' (cf. temporally prior) to the past boundary, is a world apart from those needed to address events that follow from the past boundary.

Ironically, you have yet to make any logical sense regarding this metaphysical being's causal relation to matter/energy or given any metaphysical theory of causation that entails your theism. You have only posited, out metaphysical thin air, a being as a non-material efficient cause of an material effect. Whoopi! Back to square one!

So you are an atheist yet believe in a causal prior to the natural world? Either your ontology is off-kilter or you are within the minority of atheists who do not commit to the position of naturalistic realism.

I beleive that matter/energy are eternal and change form. On the BBM the present form's beginings can be detected at the boundary point (the planck length) - the starting point of the causal chain - but not necessitating a prior non-material cause - it may be an indeterminate cause but that would not be the causal chain that we are speaking of when we start from the boundary point of the expansion. Change does not necessitate non-eternality and neither does an indeterminate state from which the causal chain begins - that state can very well be the efficent cause in some material form/state that is different from that which we measure causally. Matter/energy are not static and this does not mean that it cannot be eternal. Anyway, Like I said I tend to think that the BB is not the right model - I think red shift is more likely something other than expansion (possibly intrinsic - See Halton Arp).

[lkb0714]

It is logical to not believe in things for which their is no direct evidence.

You can argue semantics, and quibble over definitions all you like but whatever you call it I lack a belief in god(s). There is a real difference between lack of belief and belief in a negative condition.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Hi Mircea.

These are the problems with your arguments and criticisms:


1. It may be true that you don't care about academic definitions, but it does not follow from this that no one cares. This is a weak, and somewhat self-centred, inference by induction.

Let's create a nonsensical definition, then crow-bar people to fit into the definition, in spite of the fact that they do not fit.

That's what Liberals do, by the way.

Put another way, why would you allow others to define who you are (especially an Academician)?

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

It just so happens that the OP is formalised upon the specialty definition.

But the specialty definition is irrelevant, of no utility, and has no practical application in reality.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

If you have a problem with it, and cannot defend the proposition that the specialty definition is wholly irrelevant (it clearly isn't, given that the existence of academia is an ontic truth) all you need do is move on and ignore the thread.

Humans are inherently flawed -- not to mention biased -- thus any definitions created by humans are flawed.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

2. You make an inference from the historic failures of academia regarding the propositional content of the knowledge once promulgated, to challenging the semantic commitments of said academia. This is non sequitur.

No, it's factual....and it implies that one of the redeeming values of science is that it is ultimately self-correcting. That is, the truth is eventually discovered or learned, whether people like the truth or not.

Like the other poster, I'm not big on the Big Bang Theory, or String Theory for that matter. Since I've been alive the size of "the Universe" has grown considerably, more than doubling in size. However, I recognize that the true size of the Universe cannot be known, since the technology to correctly determine the size does not exist.

If "it" was an atom, say a plutonium atom, then so far science has figured out that we are in a neutron....or maybe a proton....but we don't know how large it is and we still are not aware of the other 238 particles that make up the nucleus, or that we're even in nucleus, and that there are other things orbiting the nucleus.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

It would be akin to arguing that the symbolic denotation of numerical values used by scientific specialties is irrelevant given that scientific specialties have historically suffered a litany of failed hypotheses and theories.

Well, no, because mathematicians created numbers, not scientists. There is a difference between math and science, and that difference is very real.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

3. The concern with non-theism suffering a plurality of sub-categories is not best analogised with or countered by appealing to the plurality of arguments for theism

And yet theism suffers from multiple pluralities, not to mention multiple gods.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

The rest of your comments are irrelevant to the OP, or to my subsequent posts; such as allusions to theology rather than philosophy, your life story and personal moral ontology.

Yes, because "I can't comprehend or know how the universe was created, so it must have been a god" is completely logical.

Last night I had some egg yolks sitting in a Pyrex bowl over steam. After pouring clarified butter into it, lo and behold it turned into a sauce, specifically to wit: Bearnaise Sauce (well, I did whisk it until I collapsed from exhaustion and had a stroke).

I don't know how that happened, so it must be a god-thing, right? A god thing came down from the Heavens gracing my presence to turn butter and egg yolks into a sauce (almost like Jesus turned water into wine) and then this god-thing even seasoned the sauce for me with just an hint of red wine vinegar, white pepper corns, tarragon and red onions (I cheat and don't use shallots).

And the rest of my comments were relevant, since I was doing you a favor.

You cannot argue theism from a textual basis, regardless of the text you employ (Book of Mormon, Qoran, Talmud, christian bible, Hindu texts etc), since those works are inherently contradictory and illogical.

You cannot argue theism from a theistic basis, due to the fact that many Atheists -- such as myself -- are morally superior to the various deities such as Jesus, Yahweh, Allah (which is like Yahweh in a Falafel instead of a Matzo Ball), or any other of theory various deities; and thus it is illogical for a morally superior being such as myself to worship a morally inferior being like the current line-up of competing deities in the modern world.

You cannot argue theism from religious basis, since religions and religious beliefs are fragmented, proving that theism is neither universal nor logical.

So I'm sure as you know, the only option you have left is to disingenuously artificially construct a nonsensical definition that is inherently flawed, and has no practical application, and thus no universal application.

And so Atheism is more logical than theism.

Theism is illogical because humanity derives no benefit. If fact, no life forms or organisms derive any benefit from theism or any deity associated with theism. Even if you could prove theism, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter --- best case scenario is the agnostic position, in which case the deity is True Neutral and doesn't give a damn if you exist or not, and since there's no Afterlife, one cannot be punished or rewarded for the position they chose in life.

And, yes, the deity would be True Neutral. All of the Laws of Physics and Natural Laws and even the Law of Economics is about neutrality -- achieving balance or harmony, or some form of equilibrium (and none of those things rises to the level of "equality").

Matter and energy are interchangeable --- equals balance, harmony or equilibrium.

Everything in the universe cancels everything out, so a deity would have to consist of matter or energy in excess of what already exists in the Universe, creating an imbalance, which is not logical.

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

I'm glad you oppose abortion, however.

I'm only partially opposed (no pun intended).

Logically...

Mircea

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

And making the same errors too, it seems.

and the same evasions, misrepresentation, fallacies and irrelevancies,it seems, despite them having been shown up

So you claim an absence of belief in theism, of the agnostic variety - check.

Not quite - see below

And, once again, follow that immediately with an implicit truth value claim that refutes your alleged claim to agnosticism. Deja vu!

I fail to see what applying admittedly human logic - but what else can we use - you use it! - has to do with agnosticism about god - claims. Will you at least explain something,rather than just make an apparently false claim or assertion and ingore calls to substantiate it?

Am I under obligation to address repetitions of the same defective arguments over and over again? No. I'm not going to hold your hand through this more than once, especially when it is clear your problem here is attitudinal. When you've settled down and cleared your head, you can actually think about the points raised here and address the majority of the points in your preceding post in your own time.

Nice way of evading having to address being called on demonstrated fallacies, misrepresentations and irrelevancies.

I clearly have no beef with the truth of logic. My concern is that your somewhat naive brand of evidentialism ("believing in the truth of P without sense evidence is 'illogical' [sic]") both misrepresents and serves to undermine the truth of logic, given that logic is a priori knowledge, and no logical rule expresses your belief, as quoted here, to be a "logical" truth.



You do recall that the topic of this thread concerns the logical defences of atheism, not theism? I'm under no obligation to provide an argument for theism on a primary basis.

I certainly do - But the fact is that you have been trying to undermine it and despite your attempts to confuse the issue above (by apparently choosing to misrepresent the logical imperative to not believe god - claims that have no evidential basis with a disbelief in theism ) you have made no case other than to misrepresent what I say, drag in irrelevant arguments about epistemology, force on me views I do not hold and evade each and every question I put plus put forward some fallacious arguments, you haven't done anything to show that atheism is not as I have shown it to be - more in accordance with logic than theism.

This attempt to prove God is at least an attempt in that direction. Though of course it is not what the title of the thread asks atheists to do.

Moreover, you do realise that the metaphysical principle "from nothing, nothing comes" is one of the most central and crucial a priori commitments of science? Indeed, if one challenges the truth of this principle, one is implicitly claiming that it is perfectly reasonable to settle unresolved empirical problems via an appeal to "nothing". In that case, one can imagine the following absurdity:

A: "Interesting, there seems to be an unexplained microbial growth in the Q sample".
B: "What do you think caused it?"
A: "I have reason to suspect that it may be a contaminant, but I'm more inclined to believe nothing caused it".
B: "That's fine, because 'nothing' is clearly a cogent and substantive explanation of this anomaly. Good work!"

Clearly not the science I'm familiar with.

It is obtuse of you ('village theism', possibly ) to argue that the conditions that obtain here on earth - where everything that occurs is assumed to have a cause, also applies to the cosmos, about which we really do know very little. You will also be aware that since all of something appears to be nothing that has the ability to effect the appearance of being something, your metaphysical principle is not worth a damn - especially since postulating something (as I believe Shiloh argued above) must have caused the something, then something must have causes that something.And,if you come out with some theist 'eternal uncaused something' then that rather scotches your own metaphysical principle, doesn't it?

The fact is that we are speculating about unknowns and attempts to apply human terms of reference to it - and I mean philosophical speculations here - are futile. We can only say 'we don't know' and so we are right back at agnosticism - the only logical response to which is not to believe what we don't know.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

Firstly, remember that it is the philosophical definition of atheism I have alluded to from the very beginning. Dictionaries carry additional popular-level definitions beyond specialty usage, but such definitions are not pertinent in academia, and in this case, entail several problems that render their usage troublesome in polemic.

What's troublesome about definitions which accurately describe how people use words?

1. The three subtypes one can choose from carry substantively different burdens of proof and argumentative/counter-argumentative leverage. They are not nuanced differences; the choice you commit to radically alters the strategies available to you in defending a polemical claim regarding the truth of theism, and opens you up to different methods of criticism.

It's the very least of debate formality to clarify what position it is that you are actually defending, especially so when the choice you make commits the debate to such foundationally different pathways of discussion.

If a person is atheist, you know they lack beliefs in gods. What more do you need to know? Can you present any reasons they should reconsider that lack of belief, or are you just here to try to make non-believers defend claims that you are manufacturing for them?

2. In Arequipa's case, by rejecting the philosophical definition of atheism on the one hand, while committing to statements such as 'there is evidence of the absence of God' on the other, he/she very competently manages to disqualify himself/herself from all three choices that are available.

Pretty normal when you try and stuff people into small, convenient boxes. Oh well, that's a problem when you rely on philosophy texts to define the world for you.

Note also that such a position is self-referentially incoherent: The statement 'there is evidence for the absence of God' implicitly commits you, in truth value terms, to the proposition 'God does not exist'. ie. The very denialist definition of atheism that is being rejected.

Nope you're confusing evidence with concrete proof.

Yet another problem is that the arguments given to substantiate your claim that 'absence of evidence' is 'evidence of absence' do not qualify for the exclusion criteria for the rule.

In other words, the counterposition epistemology is all over the place, often self contradictory and deeply problematic. In addition to the points made previously, defining one's terms clearly may help to reconcile these problems.

So then in your opinion, how should the fact that there is a complete lack of evidence for an alleged omnipotent entity sway one's beliefs on the subject?

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

If belief in P without evidence is "illogical", then belief in the truth of logic is itself illogical,

Nope, we have evidence of logic working.

Of course, belief without evidence is not contradictory to logic (the axioms of classical logic, the logical rules of inference and derivative laws). If you disagree with me, go ahead and state any logical law that expressly forbids belief in the absence of sense evidence. There are absolutely none.

What it actually contradicts is not "logic", but "logical positivism", a form of hard empiricism that used to be the most popular formalised variation of verificationism. Nowadays, it is more or less universally regarded to be synonymous with philosophical ignorance; and summarily abandoned even by its foremost historic proponents.

I'm always amused how far believers have to go to make belief in god seem reasonable. Here we see serious argument that it is logical to just believe stuff at random. And that using empirical evidence is not logical. How much other nonsense like this must one accept to try and rationalize a belief in gods?

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by MissionIMPOSSIBRU

So you claim an absence of belief in theism, of the agnostic variety - check.

Nope, I'm sure he believes theism exists.

Hey, if you're going to be ultra-pedantic to try and prove a point, be sure to do it consistently.

I clearly have no beef with the truth of logic. My concern is that your somewhat naive brand of evidentialism ("believing in the truth of P without sense evidence is 'illogical' [sic]") both misrepresents and serves to undermine the truth of logic, given that logic is a priori knowledge, and no logical rule expresses your belief, as quoted here, to be a "logical" truth.

Please demonstrate that logic is an a priori knowledge.

You do recall that the topic of this thread concerns the logical defences of atheism, not theism? I'm under no obligation to provide an argument for theism on a primary basis.

Sure, but the most basic defense of atheism is "there's no reason to accept theism is true". If you want to deny that defense, you'd better have something better than "is too!".

Moreover, you do realise that the metaphysical principle "from nothing, nothing comes" is one of the most central and crucial a priori commitments of science?

Even if this were true, and it isn't, you'd now have the burden of proving that nothing was all that existed prior to the big bang. Have fun with that.

Indeed, if one challenges the truth of this principle, one is implicitly claiming that it is perfectly reasonable to settle unresolved empirical problems via an appeal to "nothing".

In that case, one can imagine the following absurdity:

A: "Interesting, there seems to be an unexplained microbial growth in the Q sample".
B: "What do you think caused it?"
A: "I have reason to suspect that it may be a contaminant, but I'm more inclined to believe nothing caused it".
B: "That's fine, because 'nothing' is clearly a cogent and substantive explanation of this anomaly. Good work!"

Clearly not the science I'm familiar with.

Just because something may be a reasonable explanation in some cases doesn't mean it's a valid one in all cases. Or more simply, using your "logic" :

A: "Interesting, there seems to be an unexplained microbial growth in the Q sample".
B: "What do you think caused it?"
A: "I have reason to suspect that it may be a contaminant, but I'm more inclined to believe God caused it".
B: "That's fine, because 'God' is clearly a cogent and substantive explanation of this anomaly. Good work!"

Clearly not the science I'm familiar with. And it is interesting how God and "nothing" seem perfectly interchangeable in this case. Funny coincidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

That was a tough one It is obvious we have a trained philosopher on our hands and I am certainly not. But it isn't the case that I just use 'common sense' as another philosopher called it in my arguments. That is a very unreliable method and part and parcel of the fallible human perception about which philosophers make a big deal.

The (practical rather than intrinsically true) fact is that scientific validation of evidence has repeatedly corrected errors of speculation (including religious ones) and logic is the best set of mental tools we can devise to hack the truth out of raw data. It doesn't take a genius to work out that, if you look at two rocks and then move so that one is hidden behind the other, you KNOW that there are still two rocks and can predict that the other rock will reappear when you move again - and so it does, showing that no unexplained entity has flown off with it. This is intrinsic, basic logical truth and arguing that building up the rules from such a basis is merely a human convention is really neither helpful, relevant or true.

Thus, the simple logical construct on the basis of what we atheists say atheism is, (and never mind that there are other definitions out there), is that if you don't know whether there is an apple in the box, it is logically correct to say 'I don't know'. It is logically incorrect to say that one believe there is an apple there or to say that one believes that there isn't one. It IS logically correct - in fact it is mandatory by the rules of sound logic - to say that one does not believe in the claim that it is there.

That does not make the belief in the apple false nor imply that that the person who does not believe is claiming that the belief is false - only that it is (given a lack of apple evidence one way or the other) logically incorrect - clearly logically incorrect - false to assert that there is an apple there.

The same is true of god -claims and our pal the OP surely must see this and, while my lack of expertise in philosophical matters such as epistemology, verificationalism, many worlds theories and the hard question, makes me a layman, wide open to academic scorn, it seems to me that the simple logical position in response to the OP is correct.

It also seems clear to me that the OP's claim that I am saying that the belief in the apple is not true or false is not correct, and a trained philosopher must know that. Therefore it follows that this particular argument is shown up by my bucolic and clumsy rule -of thumb atheist reasoning as unsound and either there is something wrong with philosophy, with the poster's head or with the poster's integrity.

That is apart from, KC,as you said, the alarmingly loose terminology 'absence of belief in theism' which in some ways is near enough to let pass and in other ways dead wrong. It is hard to avoid the idea that either the acquisition of philosophical jargon does not guarantee clarity of thought or that someone is trying it on.

It may look as though I am simply trying to win by tossing out accusations of trickiness but that isn't it at all. I really do see many - a preponderance in fact - of flawed and irrelevant arguments and what appear to be crafty traps laid to wrongfoot me. It also looks as though our poster has acted as though I had fallen into them and I had to remind him that I hadn't.


Now it all seems pretty clear to me, but perhaps Gaylen, who is one philosopher I trust, (others have made me very wary, as a philosopher who is also a god -believer is a toxic mixture indeed) could give his view - I am willing to collate the points if needed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let me further look at this point of the OP's (Brother mission impossible) since I let it lie as I needed to consider it.

"I clearly have no beef with the truth of logic. My concern is that your somewhat naive brand of evidentialism ("believing in the truth of P without sense evidence is 'illogical' [sic]") both misrepresents and serves to undermine the truth of logic, given that logic is a priori knowledge, and no logical rule expresses your belief, as quoted here, to be a "logical" truth."

Now I am sure that this is wrong. Believing in the truth of 'p' without 'sense evidence' (by which OP means any evidential support one way or the other) has got to be logically unjustified. It is surely wrong to say that undermines the truth of logic. And 'a priori' knowledge needs some explanation. A priori knowledge of what? That logic is sound? The way logic works? Evidence to which logic is applied? The knowledge of the claim? Clearly the remark "serves to undermine the truth of logic, given that logic is a priori knowledge" requires substantiation and is so broad and loose in its possible applications that it is hard to avoid the supposition that it is intended to gain ground by trickery.

Evidently our poster is using Fitch's knowability thesis and that is debated and it's not clear from what I have read whether it argues that all truths can be known or that they can't. I find that just muddies the logical waters with some unhelpful and impractical theories. If you don't know something you don't know it - whether or not it can be known.

Finally, let's take " and no logical rule expresses your belief, as quoted here,( "believing in the truth of P without sense evidence is 'illogical - 'p' being any claim unsupported by evidence ) to be a "logical" truth.

well, let's see.

It is actually hard to find a formal explanation of why believing something to be true without evidence is logically invalid - evidently because it is so bloody obviously false that it doesn't need saying. Instead we get a lot of examples about believing something on the basis of inadequate evidence.

We get the fallacy of appeal to tradition. ad populum, circular arguments, appeal to Faith - as poor evidence for a belief as distinct from a fallacy of NO evidence for a belief. To which is appended 'Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true (or false) because it has not been proven false (true) or cannot be proven false (true)'

So can we take it that it is logically wrong to believe a claim on the basis of inadequate, irrelevant or unreliable evidence, let alone no evidence at all? I think we can. So while OP may be technically correct in that there is no formal logical rule saying this, it is as utterly false to imply that I am wrong to state it as a reliable logical assumption as to say that it is wrong to deny that the sky is made of pizza simply because no science book formally says that it isn't.

I say again someone is either being very wrongheaded or very crafty.

P.s
Since it is often denied by theists the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

proving non-existence: when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, etc.). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims. (Common fallacies)

Stanford has an article on the theory of justification which is interesting but for the purposes of assisting you an I fellow posters, to decide what claims are worthy of credit and which are not, is profoundly unhelpful and best left to the philosophers arguing the validity of belief -systems in their ivory tower.

P. ps. "evidence is 'illogical' [sic]")" apart from being what miss.Impossible wrote himself. if he lifted 'illogical' from some post of mine, why the [sic] as though it was mis-spelled? I checked it and it looked Ok. Is this just another bit of dishonest craftiness?

[Bob-Man]

This is why I just cannot be atheist. I value logic, reason, and common sense a lot, but there are just some things and events that happen that just cannot be explained, no matter how much logic or reason one can use. Sometimes, people can get too reasonable, and start overthinking and reaching.