Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[The Reality Salesman01]

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)

So because I reject that a diety is responsible, I by default accept the universe has no logical continuity? I respect your opinion and the way you describe the God you defend makes it hard for me to reject any supposition of IT. In the sense that God is an abstract entity that marks the very beginning of all events that is beyond my ability to comprehend it, I would also agree that such a CAUSE would be necessary for the universe to maintain its logical substance. I am an Atheist because I have heard no reason to believe that any God(s) proposed by any theist warrants credit for such an accomplishment. I do not assert that God (in the abstract sense defined above) could not exist, only that no such God(s) proposed to me to date is sufficient to serve as an acceptable answer. A moving Goal-post version of God is usually a safe bet, but the individual pretending to know about it, really doesn't know any more than me. They just insist on merely painting a picture of possibilities without any paint or substance. The same picture can be painted of any unfalsifiable character. They themselves are purely speculating about a God that they themselves have not nailed down, but are still clinging to. Therefore, they themselves have no belief in any specific God, they just insist on naming this abstract entity that marks the finite beginning as God.

In other words...There's a finite beginning because an infinite regress could not exist, because we would not exist...that beginning is God (I would say "don't know").The term God becomes quite arbitrary at this point as it has nothing to defend. Really the individual arguing for this representation of God is in the same boat as the Atheist, they just insist on using the word God where I would say "don't know" to describe this necessary unknown event or scource. I'm okay with not knowing, and not trying to fit the word into the puzzle. I would need a reason to attribute these things to a God, and as of now, there is no evidence that such a thing is real or worthy of any property that He/It is supposed to have. Therefore I see no reason to invoke the word.