The Atheist's Dilemma

[Ben Masada]

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.

Listen WCF, why are you so paranoid about god or gods? Did I mention any thing of the kind in the thread? Can't you talk without having to push god or gods into the discussion? Obviously not. But with regards to the first premise, what did cause all that stuff you have mentioned to exist? Please, don't try to push your god in because I haven't said any thing about gods.

Regarding the second premise, your answer is yes that matter can cause itself to exist. You can't imagine how much credibility you have caused Atheism to lose right there. I'll tell you why not. For matter to cause itself to exist, it must exist to do so. If it already exists, why would it need to reproduce itself?. Can't you see Logic here shouting terribly loud into your ears?

As for the resultant premise, you are being too hypothetical and, hypotheses are not a good method to understand the truth. I am aware that atheists do not know any thing but one; that there is no possibility for a Cause. In other words, that the universe is composed only of caused things. Yes, because it does not make sense that the universe has always existed when it is composed of caused parts.

[Ben Masada]

Where is the dilemma?

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

Perhaps not where but what. The atheist desperation that Logic could turn out to be an evidence against Atheism.

[freetoroam]

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.

oh Ben, Ben, Ben, your little brain is doing far too much unnecessary overtime.

Let me reassure you on a few points,

1st: I do NOT believe in God, so it is neither frustrating or a dilemma for me.

2nd: If asked, I DO know the answer...there is no god, end off

3rd: the only frustrated people I ever see are people like you who can not get their head round non believers

4th: you should not concern yourself with non believers, instead concentrate on your own beliefs and finding a way for the believers of different beliefs to get on with each other as so far history shows this is a major problem and affects us all.

5th: I believe in the forces of nature and humans like all other animals and life on this planet are a part of it, now that I do have UNDENIABLE proof of and we need no book to tell us that.

So Ben, you have no right to assume what non believers feel, cos (in my case) its nothing as you describe, You are the struggler and the one who is frustrated, certainly not me.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Listen WCF, why are you so paranoid about god or gods? Did I mention any thing of the kind in the thread? Can't you talk without having to push god or gods into the discussion?

From your OP:

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:

Now that's not the clearest English sentence I've ever read, which isn't any fault of your own it may not be your first language, but even if you aren't 'trying to demonstrate the existence of God by means of a syllogism', you named this thread, 'The Atheist's Dilemma'. When you mentioned 'atheism', you obviously brought God/gods into the equation.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Listen WCF, why are you so paranoid about god or gods? Did I mention any thing of the kind in the thread? Can't you talk without having to push god or gods into the discussion? Obviously not. But with regards to the first premise, what did cause all that stuff you have mentioned to exist? Please, don't try to push your god in because I haven't said any thing about gods.

With respect, you may not have used the word "god" (edit: ok it appears you did use the G word, I didn't fully go through the OP) but you're being absolutely dishonest by pretending that you're not pushing theism here. The thread is, after all, the atheist dilemma. Apparently theism doesn't have a dilemma!

Regarding the second premise, your answer is yes that matter can cause itself to exist. You can't imagine how much credibility you have caused Atheism to lose right there. I'll tell you why not. For matter to cause itself to exist, it must exist to do so. If it already exists, why would it need to reproduce itself?. Can't you see Logic here shouting terribly loud into your ears?

As for the resultant premise, you are being too hypothetical and, hypotheses are not a good method to understand the truth. I am aware that atheists do not know any thing but one; that there is no possibility for a Cause. In other words, that the universe is composed only of caused things. Yes, because it does not make sense that the universe has always existed when it is composed of caused parts.

Isn't Judaism an "hypothesis" about truth? Oh, that's right, you haven't mentioned God... Edited August 6, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Ben Masada]

Ben

Theists' dilemma.

G-d exists.

G-d did not cause itself to exist.

Therefore, G-d was caused to exist.

You are totally wrong because God had to be composed of matter to have been caused to exist. We are talking about matter, the composition of the universe and not of spirits.

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").

It did not and you continue wrong. What has always existed cannot be said that It happened.

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).

The concept of cause-and-effect is of the components of the universe which does not include the Primal Cause which by definition is the First Cause.

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.

Yeah, some things are more intellectually challenging. No wonder atheists can't grasp the concept of causality and that some thing cannot cause itself to exist.

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.

I would advise you to avoid getting into the historical because as I have noticed, it is not where your "forte" is. I am talking about absolute Monotheism and not paganism.

[Ben Masada]

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.

You left out energy, time and space.

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

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

Doug

Then the atheist remembers that he knows at least one bigger BS: That the Primal Cause does not exist. No wonder the Psalmist printed down in Psalm 14:1 that he who denies God exists is a fool.

Energy, time and space are accidents of matter. They are intrinsically related to each other. They cannot exist without matter. Regarding E=mc2, it only means that energy is an accident of matter times motion squared.

[Ben Masada]

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?

It happens that we are the ones who start from God and expand our knowledge from hence. You guys start from "I don't know" and learn to know only one thing: That the Primal Cause is impossible. You don't even know how to use the concept of probability as well as of causality.

[Ben Masada]

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.

.

I am just trying a different approach to reach those slower to understand.

[Ben Masada]

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.

I like that but, I don't think your companions of faith will agree with you. But, when you say there is no proof either way, are you denying that's possible to prove God's existence through the concept of Logic? If you ask me, Logic has proved to be infallible at providing evidences if the premises of the syllogism are factual as I have point out in the thread.

[Ben Masada]

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.

Any one who is not of your kind can see that you are being terribly party-oriented in spite of the evidences in favor of the faith of Abraham. Logic for instance is more in favor of Theism than Atheism. I have never found more negative atheist reaction than when I started using Logic to prove the Primal Cause. This only shows me that atheists are terribly afraid that Logic could be a mortal weapon against themselves.

[freetoroam]

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?

We live within the Universe, but we are NOT the Universe.

You compare the very minor existence of man to the existence of the Universe in terms of life and death?

I can see you putting a spider in a tank with a snake, give them a week and expect them to be playing poker with each other when you went back to check on them.

You can not use our short time on Earth and how we exist to the way the Universe works.

[Quaentum]

Listen WCF, why are you so paranoid about god or gods? Did I mention any thing of the kind in the thread? Can't you talk without having to push god or gods into the discussion? Obviously not. But with regards to the first premise, what did cause all that stuff you have mentioned to exist? Please, don't try to push your god in because I haven't said any thing about gods.

Actually you did in your opening post

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:

As you can see from the bold, you brought God into the discussion right from the start.

[Doug1029]

Then the atheist remembers that he knows at least one bigger BS: That the Primal Cause does not exist. No wonder the Psalmist printed down in Psalm 14:1 that he who denies God exists is a fool.

Actually, NOBODY - atheist, theist or what-have-you, knows that a "Primal Cause" exists or ever did exist. There is no evidence of this and hence, no way to know. A lot of people are kidding themselves, thinking they know something, but that is just ego, conceit and arrogance. The one who truly knows something, knows that this is unknowable.

Nobody can truthfully say that God does not exits, but neither can he say that God does exist. The person who thinks he has the answer is the fool.

Doug

[Doug1029]

But, when you say there is no proof either way, are you denying that's possible to prove God's existence through the concept of Logic? If you ask me, Logic has proved to be infallible at providing evidences if the premises of the syllogism are factual as I have point out in the thread.

If you think you can prove that god exists, then please do so.

Doug

[Stubbly_Dooright]

oh Ben, Ben, Ben, your little brain is doing far too much unnecessary overtime.

Let me reassure you on a few points,

1st: I do NOT believe in God, so it is neither frustrating or a dilemma for me.

2nd: If asked, I DO know the answer...there is no god, end off

3rd: the only frustrated people I ever see are people like you who can not get their head round non believers

4th: you should not concern yourself with non believers, instead concentrate on your own beliefs and finding a way for the believers of different beliefs to get on with each other as so far history shows this is a major problem and affects us all.

5th: I believe in the forces of nature and humans like all other animals and life on this planet are a part of it, now that I do have UNDENIABLE proof of and we need no book to tell us that.

So Ben, you have no right to assume what non believers feel, cos (in my case) its nothing as you describe, You are the struggler and the one who is frustrated, certainly not me.

You go, freetoroam!!!!!

Ben

You are totally wrong because God had to be composed of matter to have been caused to exist. We are talking about matter, the composition of the universe and not of spirits.

It did not and you continue wrong. What has always existed cannot be said that It happened.

The concept of cause-and-effect is of the components of the universe which does not include the Primal Cause which by definition is the First Cause.

Yeah, some things are more intellectually challenging. No wonder atheists can't grasp the concept of causality and that some thing cannot cause itself to exist.

I would advise you to avoid getting into the historical because as I have noticed, it is not where your "forte" is. I am talking about absolute Monotheism and not paganism.

So why does God have to be made of matter? For that matter, why should anyone be so sure they know all about the universe. It is alright, and intelligent to not know. I don't think it's A=B and vice versa. What else is out there? We cannot deny that there is more we have to understand. We would be arrogant to assume that there are only several components that make up reality, when you have a really big universe and we live such short lives. Granted, I'm not an Atheist, I'm New Age, but I think an Atheist has an understanding of the logic of what one can see right now, what makes up the universe. To think there is more, that is part of the equation of wanting to know, I think is part of the scientific way of looking at it. If my logic is wrong, my fellow Atheist, I understand if you need to correct me.

[freetoroam]

Actually, NOBODY - atheist, theist or what-have-you, knows that a "Primal Cause" exists or ever did exist. There is no evidence of this and hence, no way to know. A lot of people are kidding themselves, thinking they know something, but that is just ego, conceit and arrogance. The one who truly knows something, knows that this is unknowable.

Nobody can truthfully say that God does not exits, but neither can he say that God does exist. The person who thinks he has the answer is the fool.

Doug

Not quite.

It is not for the unbeliever to prove it exists, and so far the only thing which has been offered as proof is in the believers hearts and minds.This I can respect, but not take as proof to the existence of a god.

Personally, I do not see myself as ignorant and am certainly no fool.....I would certainly not say those who do not recognise nature as the driving force behind our existence are fools because they choose to believe in something else, naive maybe, but not a fool.

I have my answer, and that is there is no god, but there is nature and with that comes evolution, life, death and forces beyond our control as humans...is that foolish to see it that way when the evidence is there to prove it? I think not.

As for the Universe, thats way out of my league, I am just grateful to be part of it.

I can understand and accept why man would have originally created the "gods and their names" for the sun, moon, sea etc etc etc, we do that as humans to recognise things and show a sign of respect to them, but the change to one god as the sole creator and the following of books written by men is something I could not take on board, but good luck to those who do.

Edited August 6, 2014 by freetoroam

[Doug1029]

Not quite.

It is not for the unbeliever to prove it exists, and so far the only thing which has been offered as proof is in the believers hearts and minds.This I can respect, but not take as proof to the existence of a god.

Like you, I believe those who believe are obligated to provide evidence if they are trying to convince someone else of their position. If they aren't trying to convince somebody else, then the question is really irrelevant. They have their beliefs and that's that.

Personally, I do not see myself as ignorant and am certainly no fool.....I would certainly not say those who do not recognise nature as the driving force behind our existence are fools because they choose to believe in something else, naive maybe, but not a fool.

I was using Ben Masada's words against him. Sorry if I threw too large of a loop. Like you, I recognize nature - that I can see. Actually, I am an agnostic, not having found evidence of god in the material world, but not quite willing to accept that there isn't one. We don't know all there is to know, yet, and maybe god is one of those. Or maybe, god is not on the list of all there is to know.

I have my answer, and that is there is no god, but there is nature and with that comes evolution, life, death and forces beyond our control as humans...is that foolish to see it that way when the evidence is there to prove it? I think not.

If you have thought out your position, then it is not foolish. A lot of believers recognize that there is no evidence of god, but believe in one anyway. It's an assumption and they know it's an assumption - logically, they are on pretty solid ground. As long as you recognize there are no observations to support your position, but believe it anyway, that is an honest opinion and logically sound. Assumptions are allowed in reasoning, as long as you don't then say that your assumption is your conclusion. The reasoning stands or falls along with the assumption.

Doug

[Davros of Skaro]

It would be funny if it turns out that Human scientists thousands of years in the future created the Universe billions of years in the past by accident.

[Guest]

These threads still go on ? people find it entertaining or informative to engage with this troll'ery ?

Common folks you must have better things to do than argue against such a poor use of logic.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1029]

These threads still go on ? people find it entertaining or informative to engage with this troll'ery ?

Common folks you must have better things to do than argue against such a poor use of logic.

Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius! What are you doing on here? Thought you preferred life on the global warming forum. Care to give logic a try?

Doug

[Guest]

Br Cornelius! What are you doing on here? Thought you preferred life on the global warming forum. Care to give logic a try?

Doug

I used to engage with these discussion a few years ago until i realized that faith has no cure. Then I decided that it was better to discuss things where a position might be subjected to facts and reason.

I have drifted into out and out atheism and no longer feel it even meaningful to speculate about subjects such as what happens after death. If an idea cannot be tested to a conclusion then it becomes a form of mental m********ion which is highly unproductive.

I mean no theist has ever satisfactorily answered the question who created God, and if the question is answered with God always existed - then you can simply replace the word God with Universe and you arrive at the same place. Why interject a redundant concept ?

Br Cornelius

Edited August 6, 2014 by Guest

[Doug1029]

I used to engage with these discussion a few years ago until i realized that faith has no cure. Then I decided that it was better to discuss things where a position might be subjected to facts and reason.

I have drifted into out and out atheism and no longer feel it even meaningful to speculate about subjects such as what happens after death. If an idea cannot be tested to a conclusion then it becomes a form of mental m********ion which is highly unproductive.

I mean no theist has ever satisfactorily answered the question who created God, and if the question is answered with God always existed - then you can simply replace the word God with Universe and you arrive at the same place. Why interject a redundant concept ?

Br Cornelius

OK. See you on the GW forum.

Doug

[Rlyeh]

Perhaps not where but what. The atheist desperation that Logic could turn out to be an evidence against Atheism.

So far your "logic" has just made you look utterly ignorant.

BTW E=mc2 does not imply energy is accidental

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/

[+Link of Hyrule]

I mean no theist has ever satisfactorily answered the question who created God, and if the question is answered with God always existed - then you can simply replace the word God with Universe and you arrive at the same place. Why interject a redundant concept ?

Br Cornelius

Hi Brother, long time no speak, hope things are going well for you

On the paragraph here I'm quoting I hope you can indulge me as I attempt to answer your query. First, let us attempt to define "god". A popular definition (regardless of specific dogma) is that "god" is the creator of everything in our universe. If this definition is applicable, then "god" created everything in our universe, including the physical laws and rules that govern it. By definition, then, God exists independently of the rules it created. The concept of Causality (every effect has a cause) is a product of our physical universe, thus there is no reason to think that "god" is subject to the laws of Causality. Thus God can simply have existed forever.

Why can't he same logic be applied to the universe, as you bring up? Simple - in order to hold that view you have to assume that at one point in the universe's history, it must have disobeyed its own laws on Causality! Either it popped into existence from nothing, or it always and forever existed. Either way, Causality is broken.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing "God must have done it", though this is what I believe. There is still plenty of scope for "I don't know" as a reasonable answer. What I'm arguing here is the premise that you can simply interchange the word "god" with "universe" and arrive at the same conclusion, because I see that as untenable - with that logic, as noted, at some point you are having to admit that the universe broke its own universal law on the concept of Causality.

In any case, I hope you have a good week, I'll catch you next time I catch you

~ Regards, PA

Edited August 7, 2014 by Paranoid Android