I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Moderator: Moderators
I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Post #1Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Post #2I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.Mister E wrote:Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #3
I claim 'atheist' in response to claims for gods I'm aware of. If asked to clarify, I will admit to agnostic probably being more accurate. If pushed on the issue I will revert back to atheism, as I'm more certain no gods exist than I'm convinced I can't know or that gods do exist.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Post #4as an atheist, i.e one who does not hold a god belief, it is not up to me to define what is meant by the term. For all concepts of god with which I have so far been presented I can confidently claim to be ‘absolutely atheist’.Mister E wrote:Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?
For the concept of god as being an entity that kicked of existence then, for all intents and purposes, disappeared having nothing further to do wit its creation, then I am somewhat agnostic. Even with that I tend toward atheism as I see existence not as something with a beginning and end – that is an all to human concept – but as an eternally emergent ‘now’. As I have oft stated, there is no reason, for me at least, not to believe that the universe will and has, in some shape or form, always exist(ed).
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Re: I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Post #5goat wrote:Mister E wrote:Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?Why does the idea of an uncaused first cause fall under special pleading? I can understand how you could say that if a person claimed that "an anthropomorphic God could exist according to the idea of an uncaused first cause" would be fallacical, but not the idea on it's own.I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.
Re: I know this has most likely been posted before, but
Post #6Mister E wrote:I think the argument goes...goat wrote:Mister E wrote:Surely the logical outcome of contemplating whether any form of God can exist or not should leave atheists agnostic (using the cosmological argument of an "uncaused first cause" and the fact that we don't know whether the universe will eventually collapse in on itself meaning we cannot be certain that infinite regress is possible). So how can one be absolutely atheist?Why does the idea of an uncaused first cause fall under special pleading? I can understand how you could say that if a person claimed that "an anthropomorphic God could exist according to the idea of an uncaused first cause" would be fallacical, but not the idea on it's own.I think it is very unlikely for anybody to be an 'absolutely atheist'. The problem with the 'uncaused first cause' as evidence of God is that it is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading.'. However, I suspect that except for the most stubborn, the view point of most agnostics/atheists would be that there is insufficient information to accept any God/Gods.
The theist claims that all things need a cause therefore a god exists who caused. However this god does not need a cause.
The uncaused first cause is then a 'special plead' - all things need a cause exept god.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #7
Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?
That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.
That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #8
The idea of "God being an uncaused cause" still violates the premise that 'all things have a cause'. If one thing violates that premise, why can't more things violate that premise, and make that premise false?Mister E wrote:Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?
That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Post #9
This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.Mister E wrote:Oh right. But surely that God wouldn't need a cause since an uncaused... thing before a logical universe existed would be illogical and therefore have no problems with having no cause?
That would allow it to be omnipotent in a sense, too.
"Whatever you are totally ignorant of, assert to be the explanation of everything else"
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
William James quoting Dr. Hodgson
"When I see I am nothing, that is wisdom. When I see I am everything, that is love. My life is a movement between these two."
Nisargadatta Maharaj
Post #10
Because they are within our universe and our universe is logical. I mean "universe" as within logic/cause, not as within our perception of what exists, though. Why would something outside of logic have to follow any premises whatsoever?The idea of "God being an uncaused cause" still violates the premise that 'all things have a cause'. If one thing violates that premise, why can't more things violate that premise, and make that premise false?
False dilemma - the fact that we don't know whether the universe came into existance or not doesn't mean it can be overruled. Also, doesn't most popular physics support the universe coming into existence (Big Bang/"multiverse" theory)?bernee51 wrote:This itself is based on an unsupported assumption that the universe at some time did not exist.
Also, I noticed you said " For all concepts of god with which I have so far been presented I can confidently claim to be ‘absolutely atheist’ ". I know this is very pedantic, but a pretty common concept of God is "that which we cannot understand" (straight of Wikipedia). If you do not understand something for the entirety of your lifetime, then you cannot understand it, so it is therefore a concept of God.