Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Ergates]

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)

I'm new here, so forgive me if I step on a few toes. What you seem to be saying is that the universe appears to be operating on a set of principles that are not immediately obvious to you. You talk of plank time and allude to other building blocks of the universe and say that if one views the universe as the sum of all these fundamental building blocks then there is nothing that remains to link these building blocks to each other. That these building blocks appear to be related to each other must, you say, be evidence of a "transcendentally imposed order". But the appearance of this relationship between the building blocks is what gives rise to our ability to perceive the relationship. If there were any other relationship between these fundamental units then we probably wouldn't be around to ponder the issue. That we are, means only that these units are "ordered" in the way that they are. Anthropic principle. No need for any "imposed order" at all.

When you narrow your view of the universe to the point where you are talking plank times and the very smallest possible building blocks of the fabric of the universe then you're up against the uncertainty principle. In fact, you left the threshold at which the uncertainty principle becomes significant, many orders of magnitude behind you. The UP dictates that there are things that cannot be determined. You can't know everything. Despite this, the field of quantum mechanics, on which I am no expert, is extremely adept at making experimental predictions which are very precise, in spite of the randomness at the heart of things. So, you don't have to know everything. (And you can't)

So, before anyone tries to insert a "transcendental imposed order" between the essential and necessary gaps in knowledge, can I ask why you would want to do such a thing? What purpose does doing so serve? What additional explicative advantage does one acquire by doing so? None.

Take a coin toss. That's pretty random. Quantum mechanics tells us the outcome is either heads or tails. But it cannot predict which. So, I toss the coin. In my universe, I get a head or a tail. In your universe, with "transcendentally imposed order" I might get a baboon.