Some questions to clarify atheism.
Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?
1 the unmoved mover
2 the uncaused cause
3 the unperfected perfector
4 the unordered orderer
5 the necessary being
6 the universal cause of being
7 the prime being and therefore the supreme being.
If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.
If no, then atheism requires that -
1 there is no unmoved mover, and consequently all motion is explained according to moved movers.
2 there is no uncaused cause, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.
3 there is no unperfected perfector, and consequently all perfection is explained according to perfected perfectors.
4 there is no unordered orderer, and consequently all order is explained according to ordered orderers.
5 there is no necessary being, and consequently all being is explained as contingent being.
6 there is no universal cause of being, and consequently all causation is explained according to caused causes.
7 there is no prime being and therefore there is no supreme being, and consequently all being is explained according to secondary being.
As such, consequent to atheism's conclusions, that all motion, causation, perfection, order, and being is without a prime, how does the atheist explain such? For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?
Atheism either affirms or denies the existence of an infinite being. If affirmed, how does atheism explain the existence of an infinite being without reference or any implication that such a being is God? If denied, how does atheism arrive at the conclusion that an infinite being cannot exist?
If atheism requires there to be no being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that no being is beyond the universe?
Also following this question, how does atheism refute pantheism, which says the universe is self sustaining, and therefore God?
If atheism permits there to be a being beyond the universe, how does atheism prove that such a is not God?
JM
“Does atheism conclude to the existence of 1-7 below?”
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between “Does atheism conclude X” and “Do people who happen to be atheists conclude X”. Atheism doesn’t conclude any of those, because atheism isn’t a conclusion about anything really. But individuals who happen to be atheists can believe all of them for whatever reason.
“If yes, how does atheism conclude to all of 1-7 above as ". . . is not God". For example 1) the unmoved mover is not God, 2) the uncaused cause is not God? etc.”
Rather strange question. So you define the word “a god” to mean those seven things? Don’t gods have to be personal thinking beings? There are tons of things that could fit all or some of those that aren’t personal thinking beings and as such are not gods. Someone could easily believe that material exists, and it just exists for no reason with no cause, it just does so as the most default state of existence, and therefore material is the “uncaused cause” or the “necessary being” which I know tons accept.
“If no, then atheism requires that [there is no 1 through 7]”.
That is false. I just flipped a coin, and I am holding it now. Have you concluded that it is heads? You haven’t? Okay. So you have concluded that it is NOT (!) heads? What has made you conclude that it was NOT (!) heads? I am of course just using your flawed logic against you and holding it up as a mirror for you to see the flaw. The fact is, we often have no reason to believe things either way, even when there are only two options. Belief is about one single thing at a time, and you either believe it or you don’t. And if you don’t believe it, that does not imply that you believe it’s false.
“For example, if all causes are caused causes, how is the existence of causation explained?” First of all, sometimes things are what they are for no explanation. Second of all, how do you explain that a god exists rather than not? That has no explanation. Nobody made this god, this god wasn’t a product of any mechanism or process. This god just exists for no reason with no cause and with no explanation. He just does. Nothing made him exist, and nothing could have prevented his nonexistence. He just happens to exist. No reason. Just does so. This is the consequences of your belief. Not being able to explain something is just a mathematical necessity. Unless we go back into infinite regress, there will be something that exists and exists the way it does for no reason with no cause with no explanation. So there will necessarily be something we are not required to explain. If you disagree, you better be prepared to explain why God exists rather than not, and why God has the traits and qualities he has rather than some other ones.
The rest is technically just repeating what I’ve already said. All of this rests on a misunderstanding in belief positions. You either believe something or you don’t. Those are the only two options. I don’t believe that any gods exist. That does not imply that I believe there are no gods.
If you ask someone if they know that a god exists, and they say “No”, are they thereby saying “I know there are no gods”?
If you ask someone if they believe that a god exists, and they say “No”, are they thereby saying “I believe there are no gods”?
Even though they are exactly (!!!) the same thing, and even though you will most probably get the first one right, you have clearly gotten the second one wrong. That is the foundation of your misunderstanding about atheism.