Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is the modern atheist belief that only efficient causes exist consistent with the reliability of observed physical laws on which the acquisition of knowledge depends? No.

The two cornerstones of modern atheism are: 1) the physical universe is causally closed, i.e. devoid of any influence apart from the deterministic chain of cause and effect and 2) dependant on nothing outside itself its continuity or regularity. The modern atheist removes from consideration teleology, final causes and intentionality. In practice, atheism presupposes that everything we know can be described in terms of ‘material’ interactions by means of efficient causes. This excludes any type of formal or final causes that would lead one to posit divine influence. However, this cannot be the case.

An infinite series of ever smaller intermediate causes and effects separates each cause from its corresponding effect.* In order to avoid this paradox, there must be a smallest possible finite unit. You can stack small finite units (of time, space, etc.) to fill a finite gap. In quantum physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP. Yet no efficient cause links one tP to the next. They just happen to be ‘next’ to one another. Either relationship between one tP and another is random OR a transcendent order links one tP to all others.

If random, the physical universe would have no logical continuity. In such a universe, no knowledge would be justified. Since the modern atheist denies any transcendentally imposed order he must accept that the universe has no logical continuity on which the base his knowledge. Therefore, the atheist cannot also believe in the valid acquisition of knowledge without contradiction.

* (as per David Hume)

[Minimalist]

When that shithead...or you...can demonstrate that the "supernatural" exists, give me a call.

Until then this is just more fodder for the round file.

[pocaracas]

I must be suffering from Friday burnout.... all I see are non-sequiturs... O.o

Atheists simply do not believe a god exists.
We have time and time again observed science show how the world, or the Universe, works, removing a lot of events from the faith sphere.
Thus far, the track records stands at ZERO for faiths and all the scientific knowledge for atheism.

Here, we extrapolate, and assume that current faiths, just like previously held ones, are all man-made fantasy.
It's looks like a HUGE leap of faith from the atheists, huh?

Apart from that, the correct answer is "I don't know".
- I don't know if there is any intentionality.... there doesn't seem to be, but hey... I won't take the word of another human for that... how would he have come across such information?
- I don't know if there is any "final cause".... There doesn't seem to be, but hey... I won't take the word of another human for that... how would he have come across such information?


All that stuff about causes and effects and paradoxes... it all seems too much non-sense.... I can't even understand the paragraph...

[Anomalocaris]

Damn, take the smarminess out of wooters and all you would have left is a drich.

[paulpablo]

Is the modern atheist belief that only efficient causes exist consistent with the reliability of observed physical laws on which the acquisition of knowledge depends? No.

The two cornerstones of modern atheism are: 1) the physical universe is causally closed, i.e. devoid of any influence apart from the deterministic chain of cause and effect and 2) dependant on nothing outside itself its continuity or regularity. The modern atheist removes from consideration teleology, final causes and intentionality. In practice, atheism presupposes that everything we know can be described in terms of ‘material’ interactions by means of efficient causes. This excludes any type of formal or final causes that would lead one to posit divine influence. However, this cannot be the case.

An infinite series of ever smaller intermediate causes and effects separates each cause from its corresponding effect.* In order to avoid this paradox, there must be a smallest possible finite unit. You can stack small finite units (of time, space, etc.) to fill a finite gap. In quantum physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP. Yet no efficient cause links one tP to the next. They just happen to be ‘next’ to one another. Either relationship between one tP and another is random OR a transcendent order links one tP to all others.

If random, the physical universe would have no logical continuity. In such a universe, no knowledge would be justified. Since the modern atheist denies any transcendentally imposed order he must accept that the universe has no logical continuity on which the base his knowledge. Therefore, the atheist cannot also believe in the valid acquisition of knowledge without contradiction.

* (as per David Hume)

Just a few of the points you are wrong about.

1 Atheism isn't a belief in anything it is a lack of a belief in a god or gods.

2 There are no corner stones to atheism.

3 You can be an atheist and believe that there is no physical universe or that a universe is completely NOT devoid of any influence.

4 In practice atheism is a lack of a belief in god, there is no presupposing anything. You can be an atheist and believe in ghosts and the non material world.

5 Explain why without god there can be no logical continuity.

[Faith No More]

I have to say I'm disappointed in you, Chad. I would have thought you would have learned more during your time here.

I will sum up my position and the position that I have seen many others take on this forum. I don't have all of the answers, but I refuse to fill those gaps in knowledge with god until it can be conclusively demonstrated to exist. Otherwise, I have to accept the argument from ignorance that you seem to be advocating.

Just remember, centuries ago people were using this exact same argument to try to demonstrate that god controlled lightning. I refuse to fall into the trap of that same type of fallacious thinking.

[Simon Moon]

Is the modern atheist belief that only efficient causes exist consistent with the reliability of observed physical laws on which the acquisition of knowledge depends? No.

The two cornerstones of modern atheism are: 1) the physical universe is causally closed, i.e. devoid of any influence apart from the deterministic chain of cause and effect and 2) dependant on nothing outside itself its continuity or regularity. The modern atheist removes from consideration teleology, final causes and intentionality. In practice, atheism presupposes that everything we know can be described in terms of ‘material’ interactions by means of efficient causes. This excludes any type of formal or final causes that would lead one to posit divine influence. However, this cannot be the case.

An infinite series of ever smaller intermediate causes and effects separates each cause from its corresponding effect.* In order to avoid this paradox, there must be a smallest possible finite unit. You can stack small finite units (of time, space, etc.) to fill a finite gap. In quantum physics, you have a smallest possible unit of time, Plank time or tP. Yet no efficient cause links one tP to the next. They just happen to be ‘next’ to one another. Either relationship between one tP and another is random OR a transcendent order links one tP to all others.

If random, the physical universe would have no logical continuity. In such a universe, no knowledge would be justified. Since the modern atheist denies any transcendentally imposed order he must accept that the universe has no logical continuity on which the base his knowledge. Therefore, the atheist cannot also believe in the valid acquisition of knowledge without contradiction.

* (as per David Hume)

Yeah, because explaining a mystery with a bigger mystery makes so much more sense. [end sarcasm]

[fr0d0]

I'm marking all you guys with an F. Please answer the question rather than addressing your own that wasn't asked.

[Anomalocaris]

Everything that wooters said boils down to:

1. Christainity should be regarded as valid because otherwise he wouldn't feel better.

2. Therefore everyone else ought humor him and agree with him that christianity is valid.

Which is the same subbasement cognative level that drich and other needy low lifes operate at.

Appearently drich and wooters have such a high opinion of themselves that it seem to them that the duty of making drich and wooters feel better ought to be imposed as a cosmic tax on all sentient beings more cognatively accomplished than they are.

[fr0d0]

Cool so you can't think of anything to challenge what he said.

Next.