Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

Can you demonstrate that without a transcendent governance regularity on causal relationships would not exist…

The premise of the OP is this. Atheism entails the belief that physical interactions explain everything that needs to be explained. What you are doing is saying that the inherent order of the physical universe is a brute fact, it just is. I say this leaves something to be explained. The unanswered question is why there should be regular causal relationships as opposed to random outcomes.

By way of demonstration I showed that efficient causes terminate at the Plank scale otherwise changes of state would not be possible (due to infinite regress). Next I showed that since efficient causes cannot account for the relationship between one state and the next, you must look to other types of cause: formal and final. However, since these are by definition excluded from consideration, the atheist has no means for asserting any logical relationship between causes and effects. And without a logical relationship between the smallest of causes and their effects, there is no logical basis for inductive reasoning.

and that this transcendent governance must be a conscious entity?

Not necessarily. The nature of the transcendent governance remains an open question.

[paulpablo]

So you couldn't say that there are Buddhist atheists, humanist atheists etc etc...

Don't be silly

These are Buddhists who are atheists, humanists who are atheists but within atheism there isn't a Buddhist aspect.

Same as there is no mormon aspect to the core beliefs of christianity, they are seperate.

The first post mentions atheism, but there is no belief to atheism it is a lack of a belief in god or gods. Not once was the word god or gods mentioned in the post along side what he claims are the beliefs of atheism are, this should automatically raise alarm bells that you are reading bullshit.

[Gearbreak]

You should stop using the word atheism and use whatever the word is for the philosophy you're targeting is. Atheists just don't believe in god. They can still believe in other things and just not believe in god. You're arguing with a philosophy. And mistaking atheism for that philosophy.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You should stop using the word atheism and use whatever the word is for the philosophy you're targeting is. Atheists just don't believe in god. They can still believe in other things and just not believe in god. You're arguing with a philosophy. And mistaking atheism for that philosophy.

Yes, you can be an atheist apart from any specific belief. But you cannot be a logically consistent atheist IF you believe in the power of inductive reasoning. In other words, if belief in god is necessary to believe (x) then an atheist who believes in (x) is not being logically consistent.

The first post mentions atheism, but there is no belief to atheism it is a lack of a belief in god or gods. Not once was the word god or gods mentioned in the post along side what he claims are the beliefs of atheism are, this should automatically raise alarm bells that you are reading bullshit.

Arguing about what atheism is or isn't is just avoiding the problem. Let's cut to the chase. Do you believe in the validity of inductive reasoning? And are you also an atheist? If you answer 'yes' to both you are guilty of holding mutually exclusive beliefs.

[pocaracas]

Can you demonstrate that without a transcendent governance regularity on causal relationships would not exist…

The premise of the OP is this. Atheism entails the belief that physical interactions explain everything that needs to be explained. What you are doing is saying that the inherent order of the physical universe is a brute fact, it just is. I say this leaves something to be explained. The unanswered question is why there should be regular causal relationships as opposed to random outcomes.

By way of demonstration I showed that efficient causes terminate at the Plank scale otherwise changes of state would not be possible (due to infinite regress). Next I showed that since efficient causes cannot account for the relationship between one state and the next, you must look to other types of cause: formal and final. However, since these are by definition excluded from consideration, the atheist has no means for asserting any logical relationship between causes and effects. And without a logical relationship between the smallest of causes and their effects, there is no logical basis for inductive reasoning.

I'm still dumbfucked with your wording....

Are you saying that given a temporal instance, there is no way to relate it to the next (plank scale-wise), unless we assume some super-creature's existence which manages to keep these instances together? (repeat for the 3 spatial dimensions)

Are saying that the space-time continuum is discreet and disjointed?

Or are you just saying that you have no idea what electro-magnetic, electro-weak, or strong interactions are?

[fr0d0]

So you couldn't say that there are Buddhist atheists, humanist atheists etc etc...

Don't be silly

These are Buddhists who are atheists, humanists who are atheists but within atheism there isn't a Buddhist aspect.

Same as there is no mormon aspect to the core beliefs of christianity, they are seperate.

The first post mentions atheism, but there is no belief to atheism it is a lack of a belief in god or gods. Not once was the word god or gods mentioned in the post along side what he claims are the beliefs of atheism are, this should automatically raise alarm bells that you are reading bullshit.

Splitting hairs.

Mormonism is to theism is as Buddhism is to atheism.

Likewise Christianity is not an aspect of theism? Yeah, use a different word if you like > address the question.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm still dumbfucked with your wording...

That’s not surprising. Being confused is one consequence of an inconsistent worldview.

Are saying that the space-time continuum is discreet and disjointed?

Not unless it has a transcendently applied order. Take your pick.

Or are you just saying that you have no idea what electro-magnetic, electro-weak, or strong interactions are?

Don’t be silly. These describe relationships within time-space and they have specific values. Once again you assert that the regularity of physical reality is a brute fact that just is. The question remains, why do constants remain constant. The presumed answer is because they always have been in the past…i.e. by inductive reasoning. And the validity of inductive reasoning rests on a transcendent force that maintains that consistency and prevents the physical universe from dissolving into utter random chaos. But if you deny any transcendent influence your undermine the validity knowledge acquired by induction.

Ready to answer my two questions yet?

[Norfolk And Chance]

Chad. Suck my balls.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Chad. Suck my balls.

My argument doesn't even apply to you. Your self-avowed nihilism is logically consistent with your atheism. You also forgo any rational justification for whatever beliefs you might have.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Balls. Suck them.