The Atheist's Dilemma

[Ben Masada]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

[keithisco]

You completely fail to understand atheism, and the obvious answer to your "Primal Cause" belief; is that the Universe always existed in one form or another. It should also be remembered that Matter and Energy are interchangeable therefore your First Premise is incorrectly stated; your Second Premise is incorrectly stated for the same reason; THEREFORE; your resultant Premise is a fallacy that does not conform to Logic.

Edited August 4, 2014 by keithisco

[Getafix1]

Ben Masada

Firstly, which one of the thousands of gods are you attributing the creation of the universe to? (there is already a massive problem there if you can see it)

Why do some theists insist on using the "goddidit" argument if science (not atheists mind you) can not yet explain something? Pushing a preferred god into the debate as "proof" boggles the mind. Can you provide any proof for your argument that your god did it Ben Masada? Or are you just using "I don't know" as an excuse to attribute some pretty awesome powers to a god that was revered thousands of years ago by some goat herders? And as there is NO proof for the existence of ANY gods,why should we believe your god exists,never mind accepting as fact that he/she created the universe.

[White Crane Feather]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

First premise: the universe is composed of energy/matter, space, dark matter, and dark energy, probably other stuff aswell.

Second premise: yes it can, I'm not sure why you keep dodging actual physics. Is it that you don't believe the experiments are accurate?

3rd: or it could have always existed in one form or another, or there may be many universes, or it may expand then collapse renewing itself, or a god could have created it ----- but then that god would have to have caused itself to exist or always existed, or the ultraverse could be so large that our universe is really like a proton in a greater scheme, or we can be a simulation in a completely different kind of universe ( though, I don't believe this, there is some powerful logic and evidence to suggest it) finally fundamental reality may be something that is far beyond the human mind like an ant trying to understand calculus.

You see Ben no one truelly knows the answer to the great mystery. Atheists sure dont, nor do theists.

[Rlyeh]

Where is the dilemma?

Unlike "God did it", "I don't know" is a truthful answer.

[eight bits]

Ben

Theists' dilemma.

G-d exists.

G-d did not cause itself to exist.

Therefore, G-d was caused to exist.

Oops. Try this on for size instead:

A Primal Cause happened or else it did not.

Primal Cause happened => not everything that happened needed a cause different from itself.

Primal Cause didn't happen => not everything that happened needed a cause different from itself OR closed-form causal explanation is incomplete (aka "infinite regress").

So, the consensus account of temporal cause-and-effect is either unsound or incomplete. No biggie, so is number theory, and number theory is useful anyway. However, number theory is uninformative about some subjects (notably explaining its foundations), and so is the consensus account of temporal cause-and-effect (notably explaining its foundations).

No sweat that your presumed ancestors tried to "save" their not-quite comprehensive system of cause-and-effect, just as some number theorists tried to "save" their own not-quite comprehensive system at first, when their difficulty became appraent and undeniable ca. 1930. But the shock wears off and mature people realize that some things are more intellectually challenging than they had hoped when they were children.

In any case, this is not your disagreement with atheists. Your dispute concerns a contingent question, whether or not one of the ancient Canaanite gods did in fact create the entire universe alone. This disagreement will not be resolved by necessary reasoning, nor even by stipulation that there was at least one uncaused cause.

[Whatsinausername]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

I would think the real dilemma will occur once they die.........

[Doug1029]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

The atheist says he doesn't know. The theist makes up some BS and says he does. THAT is undeniable. At least the atheist knows he's telling the truth.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

You left out energy, time and space.

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

We don't know this to be true. Energy can create matter. E = mc2 - remember?

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

You just flunked Logic 101. See Post # 4 on the "Atheists don't own reason" thread for an explanation.

Doug

Edited August 4, 2014 by Doug1029

[Rafterman]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

And what's wrong with simply saying "we don't know"? There are a books filled with things we did not know at some point in our history that are now fully explained and understood. What if we had simply stopped at "and god" and didn't pursue the quest for knowledge and understanding?

[quiXilver]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

No it isn't, but it's a common assumption.

Although, it does take as much faith to believe there isn't a God as it does to believe there is... as there is no proof either way.

For me, I've had many experiences that have removed the fear of death and identification of self with body and as for the mind, there is no problem with the lack of proof. This is a massive universe beyond mere human comprehension. When not operating on the false premise that we should understand it, no dissonance is experienced... at least by me.

My experiences set well with me, giving me an experiential sense of my place in the order of the process of the conditions which I may not understand with thoughts, which are unable to express or contain the unfathomable. Thought forms cannot contain, nor accurately communicate those experiences that exist beyond the realm of mind and body.

Spirit is more accurately expressed in music than words, but even this, is a smear on the surface.

The menu is not the meal... you can read the word water and talk about it all week, but that will not quench your thirst.

Live, Love if you can and leave people be... this process opens my heart and fills my life with that which is beyond words ability to express... though there's no harm in trying, as long as you're not telling everyone that your way is the way.

peace.

[shrooma]

this is EXACTLY the same thread as your last one Ben.

it isn't a topic that warrants more than one thread.

you're just belabouring a point.

.

over & over again.

.

[Emma_Acid]

A God of the Gaps argument dressed up as pseudo-philosophical waffle.

In 200 years, science has come closer than ever to answering these questions - the Abrahamic faiths have had 2000 years, and are just angrily repeating the same old nonsense, which isn't getting us anywhere as a civilisation - prayer won't get us to Mars, Newtonian physics will.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Emma_Acid

[JJ50]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

One day science will probably come up with the solution showing exactly how the universe was formed, and I suspect no deity was involved!

[Rafterman]

A God of the Gaps argument dressed up as pseudo-philosophical waffle.

In 200 years, science has come closer than ever to answering these questions - the Abrahamic faiths have had 2000 years, and are just angrily repeating the same old nonsense, which isn't getting us anywhere as a civilisation - prayer won't get us to Mars, Newtonian physics will.

Emma drops mic and walks offstage.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Rafterman

[the-Unexpected-Soul]

prayer won't get us to Mars, Newtonian physics will.

I pray that one day we will go to Mars, now when we reach there tell me it wasn't me lol

[Davros of Skaro]

What kind of parent would leave a Gun and Bullets laying around for a child to figure out to put the two together?

Most people I assume would say a horrible one.

If your God is real? Look at what it left laying around.

You have no business using the word "Logic" for your constant use of the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy.

[Quaentum]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

Atheism deals with the existence or lack thereof a supreme being called God. An Atheist may say that there is no God so no god created the universe but when considering the origin of the universe they turn not to Atheism but to science thus there is no dilemma.

Just for clarity we will use the following definitions:

Premise - a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.

"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"

Syllogism - an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

Let us also note that an event can exist from one or more catalysts. There is the self contained catalyst where everything that is needed is already there and when conditions are right you have the event. Then there are the catalysts that are external to the event and can either be a who or a what.

Knowing that a premise is just a statement, it is not evidence that supports itself, other statements or the conclusion. For example your first premise is the universe is composed of matter. Generally this is essentially true because science has determined this to be true so your premise is correct. However, if science showed the universe to be composed of anti-energy then your premise would be false.

In a general sense your three premises are correct. Your conclusion is another matter. You have started with a foregone conclusion that God created the universe. Since the catalyst can be either a who or a what, and with no evidence shown to support the conclusion of a who, we can say your conclusion has not been validated.

As far as your last statement, if you believe that those who disagree with your theistic views are vandalizing theism simply because they disagree with you, then the problem lies not with them but with you.

[Doug1029]

Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

Ben -

I know you're not a Christian, but this poor-me attitude sounds just like our American Christians who claim both to be the country's largest denomination and a persecuted minority. Give me a break. Do you think atheists have nothing better to do than "vandalize" theism?

Doug

[Stubbly_Dooright]

The Atheist's Dilemma

The atheist's dilemma is his or her struggle to deny the undeniable. When asked for the option to fill in the vacuum left as a result of the removal of the Primal Cause, the usual answer is: I don't know. That's indeed a frustrating dilemma.

Let us avoid the theist method to demonstrate the existence of God to prevent the atheist denial and use Logic which I suppose stands on neutral ground by trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism:

1. First premise: The universe is composed of matter;

2. Second premise: Matter cannot cause itself to exist;

3. Resultant premise: Therefore, the universe was caused to exist.

Now, what could have be the thing that caused the universe to exist? The atheist answer is: I don't know. Yeah, because the only thing they know is that the Primal Cause does not exist. Indeed, a frustrating dilemma which finds explanation only in the atheist struggle to vandalize Theism just for the sake of doing so.

I fail to see how your second premise logically becomes the third premise. To me, it sounds similar to the 'it must be God who made this' because it's there. That is not proof, no matter how you wish it. And Atheist do not struggle to deny, they deny because of no proof, where's the struggle?

[Ogbin]

The Atheist's Dilemma:

Romans 14:11,12 For as it is written, AS I LIVE,SAITH THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TOUNGE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

[XenoFish]

I'm agnostic because I Don't Know. I don't know the how's and why's that caused everything exist. So I ride the fence, attempting to balance between a as of yet unknown causal force of creation. Be it natural or supernatural.

[Davros of Skaro]

The Atheist's Dilemma:

Romans 14:11,12 For as it is written, AS I LIVE,SAITH THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TOUNGE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The Atheist dilemma is that people who believe fiction as reality reproduce in great numbers.

[Rlyeh]

The Atheist's Dilemma:

Romans 14:11,12 For as it is written, AS I LIVE,SAITH THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TOUNGE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

The Bible says so! That's some sound reasoning right there.

[Ben Masada]

You completely fail to understand atheism, and the obvious answer to your "Primal Cause" belief; is that the Universe always existed in one form or another. It should also be remembered that Matter and Energy are interchangeable therefore your First Premise is incorrectly stated; your Second Premise is incorrectly stated for the same reason; THEREFORE; your resultant Premise is a fallacy that does not conform to Logic.

You claim that the universe has always existed in one form or another. Tell me, are you part of the universe or are you not? Do you happen to know that we had a beginning with birth and are to have an end with death? I hope so. Now, tell me: How can the universe have always existed, aka infinite, aka immortal be composed of mortal parts that have a beginning and a end? If this makes sense to you, you are surely not serious but here only to waste other people's time. Now, that matter and energy are interchangeable, I can see, because both relate to each other in terms of being matter the cause which when activated, energy becomes the effect. If you don't believe so, you might need to review your Physics. Therefore, my first premise is correctly stated.

For the second reason, I challenge you to demonstrate to me how matter can cause itself to exist. You can't because you either did not read it or you included it as part of your negative agenda because you don't know how to explain it. Very unfair move as the same for the resultant premise. Better yet, you probably do not know that through syllogisms is Logic demonstrated. Do you even know what a syllogism is? How about Logic?

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada

Firstly, which one of the thousands of gods are you attributing the creation of the universe to? (there is already a massive problem there if you can see it)

Why do some theists insist on using the "goddidit" argument if science (not atheists mind you) can not yet explain something? Pushing a preferred god into the debate as "proof" boggles the mind. Can you provide any proof for your argument that your god did it Ben Masada? Or are you just using "I don't know" as an excuse to attribute some pretty awesome powers to a god that was revered thousands of years ago by some goat herders? And as there is NO proof for the existence of ANY gods,why should we believe your god exists,never mind accepting as fact that he/she created the universe.

Listen Catfish, have I ever mention any thing at all about a god or gods in the thread to flare up your arrogance *snip*? You could have chosen to ignore it and leave to others to refute me. Go back and read it if you care; if not, I won't miss your reply.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Paranoid Android
removed personal attack