Atticus_Finch

Atheism is logically inconsistent. "Atheism" is the belief that there is no god and no supernatural phenomena. Therefore, atheists must believe that all phenomena have materialist explanations.

Here is the problem. Logically, all phenomena must have a cause. Even if one believes in the Big Bang it just begs the question: Where did the matter which caused the Big Bang come from? There is no logical answer for that question which relies solely on a materialistic explanation. If you do not have a proven answer to that question then you must, logically, accept the possibility that a divine being is the first cause. Therefore, in a nutshell, atheism, the firm belief that there is no god, is logically inconsistent.

Let me answer the common response in advance. Atheists often counter that god is not a satisfactory answer for the "first cause" because it begs the question of who created god. This is not a logical inconsistency for theists because they are not constrained by the requirement that all phenomena have materialistic explanations. Therefore, theist can remain logically consistent because they accept the supernatural as a possible explanation for phenomena, including the eternal existence of God.

Finch.

Godless Sodomite

Perhaps you should spend some time reading the site before you start tilting at straw men. I'm sure others will join me in jumping all over you, but to be brief:

1) You are equivocating atheism and metaphysical naturalism. Atheism may be a lot of things, but it is NOT logically inconsistent since it is merely a lack of belief in various god-systems that have been asserted (see number 2).

2) Atheism is a statement regarding belief in god--we have none. It isn't a positive statement asserting that god does not exist. "God" is such an ill-defined term that it isn't very meaningful for anyone to say affirmatively that god does not exist. To the extent that theists proclaim their deities to have attributes that can be examined and falsified when compared to the real world, yes, many gods have been disproved and, in fact, do not exist.

3) Before we even begin hypothesizing about gods, you need to demonstrate why matter cannot have always existed in some form and needs a creator. You create a problem and then offer a faulty solution that explains nothing (don't solve a mystery with a mystery).

And I'm not even going to touch the fact that once you assume the supernatural, then you really can't make knowledge statements about anything.

-Jerry

Vorkosigan

Therefore, atheists must believe that all phenomena have materialist explanations.

This is incorrect. To give one example, some Confucian skeptics believe that there are no gods, but accept the supernatural origin of the world in the great undifferentiated chi. Many atheists believe in some form of the supernatural.

Let's make it a formal statement: all metaphysical naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists. Sounds like you want to argue against MN, not atheism.

Don't worry about it, this is a common confusion.

Therefore, in a nutshell, atheism, the firm belief that there is no god, is logically inconsistent.

Look, we got a whole page on the TAG <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/transcendental.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Why don't you review it?

Also, you might want to look into the definitions of weak atheism, strong atheism, and agnosticism. See
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/about.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Happy reading!

Michael

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

turtonm,

Thank you for the link re TAG. I will review it. I do not have time for a response now but will get back to you.

Finch

Orpheous99

I see that you are yet another theist which doesn't understand, or even worse abuses the concept of logic.

DarkBronzePlant

Atticus,

Please re-read the following bit that you posted:

That's about the only accurate assertion you made in your original post. Atheism = a theism = no god. Any other attributes you've mentioned are irrelevant to atheism.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: DarkBronzePlant ]</p>

Atticus_Finch

In response to Godless Sodomite

You stated,

"You are equivocating atheism and metaphysical naturalism. Atheism may be a lot of things, but it is NOT logically inconsistent since it is merely a lack of belief in various god-systems that have been asserted"

Atheism is defined by Websters as "The denial of the existence of God." Therefore, it is not merely the denial of any particular god but rather any god.

You stated,"Before we even begin hypothesizing about gods, you need to demonstrate why matter cannot have always existed in some form and needs a creator."

I disagree. My point is that you must accept god, defined as a divine, eternal being, as a possibility unless you can demonstrate that matter HAS always existed without a creator. By the way, please explain what possible theory you accept as to matter's existence without god.

Finally, if your "atheism" accepts non-materialistic explanations for phenomena, explain what possible basis exists for those explanations.

By the way, how does one do those neat quotes from a previous post that I see everyone doing?

Finch

WJ

Jerry's interpretation of atheism is incorrect. Atheism, like theism makes a possitive logical assertion about a belif system everytime an attempt is made to objectivfy it. There is no difference.

The only difference is that atheism is in denial from an rationalist/epitemological standpoint, of claiming to know the truth, by default-taking a position on it- about essences and existence of Being. In simple english, the Atheist cannot logically justify his own existence, let alone the denial of a supernatural one. In that regard, the original post is correct; atheism is logically inconsistent with the truth's of unknown phenomenon viz. existence and Being.

The Atheist should not say anything at all about it, in theory. Saying something about it (postulating)only weakens their case. To them, God doesn't exist, so why should they make any logical statements at all, except for that one (that God doesn't exist.)?

Good post AF!

Walrus

sidewinder

Why is Websters Dictionary the final authority on the definition of atheism? I think #2 of Godless Sodomite's post more clearly defines and explains atheism.

1. It can be accepted as a possibility along with the possibility that matter has always existed without a creator. What is the evidence that this divine, eternal being created the universe? Is it basically the argument that something cannot come from nothing?

2. Why do you feel it's necessary to find an explanation for the existence of the universe outside of the universe?

3. Even if one could accept that this divine, eternal being existed, what evidence is there to prove that this being is the God of your religion, which means this God will only provide an eternal reward for the followers of your religion?

I think it's up to each individual to research and decide how they interpret the phenomenal world. I accept no non-materialistic explanations because they are not necessary. I realize there are things about the universe which science cannot explain but I think science will continue to make significant progress as human history moves along and will be able to provide explanation for many of the current "mysteries" of the universe. Even if they don't find an explanation within 100, 200, or 500 years, or ever, there is still no reason to explain these "mysteries" with the existence of a divine, eternal being.

Darwin's Finch

Atticus: Perhaps I'm still a cup of coffee short of a functioning brain, but could you please explain more fully why you think that positing a god short circuits the infinite regress associated with the first cause argument? It seems to me that you have adopted an arbitrary resting place.

You had written: "Logically, all phenomena must have a cause."

I take it then that you would not ascribe any phenomenal attributes to this god but would argue that it/he/she exists outside of space-time. I agree that this is a legitimate logical possibility but fail to see how one can then make any coherent statements about such a being. Faced with the mystery that is existence (and we are all agnostics in this respect) why is the more parsimonious stance unacceptable?