Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Neo-Scholastic]

MOVING THE GOAL POST: It seems to me that many atheists who rely on reason and evidence to support their beliefs do just as much goal-post moving. Rather than defend their presuppositions, some have been trying to shift the debate towards specific gods or attributes of god and so they can argue against familiar enemies with their favorite bromides.

DEFUALT POSITION: As I understand it random chaos IS the default position of physical reduction. At the macro level, we are told that natural selection is the outcome of random processes. Then we are told that at the very tiniest of scales everything dissolves into a froth of probability. Next, we are told that the forces and constants we know are also the result of random chance. Many possible universes could have existed, and even might, but we only know about this one because of the anthropic principle. (And the anthropic principle is really an excuse for ignorance). I contend that if the foundation is random, then the structure built on top depends on it. And if it truly is random then it could randomly change into anything at all, i.e. it is absurd. That remains the case no matter how much statistical inertia the overall system has. And any talk of meaning, intentions, value and even rationality is unjustified. The atheist existential nihilists accept this conclusion. Theirs is the logically consistent position.

EXCLUDED MIDDLE? I cannot conceive of a partial order, somewhere halfway between randomness and order. I’m imagining an enduring glass filled randomness, one minute it’s Pepsi the next minute it’s pennies. But if both the glass and its contents are ultimately made of the same stuff at the bottom, then it seems like special pleading to say the glass is ordered and the contents random.

…I think Ibn Arabi argued on this basis, God is constantly creating and recreating the universe.

My argument was adapted from Aquinas’ 5th Way which sounds similar to your summary of Arabi.

…Can your argument be summarized like this:
Time being connected is magical and needs outside magical cause.
Time cannot be unconnected or we would have no knowledge.
We do have knowledge.
Therefore time is connected.
Therefore there is a magical causer.

That’s pretty good. I think more than anyone you have an understanding of from where I am coming. Although, I do not consider it magic to posit some kind of substrate that can support qualitative content. Not do I consider it impossible to identify a means of interaction between a physical universe that has a random underbelly and non-physical substrate that imposes order. By definition said non-physical substrate would be transcendent. From their we can apply reason, including observations about how we use and apply meaning, to further inquire into what’s really going on.

---

Afterall, our capacity for reason evolved in the pursuit of dinner, not in pursuit of 'the truth'.

Did it?

---

Were I you, I'd let go of the idea of making serious inquiry and go with throwing things out for us to take potshots at so you wind up with something more sturdy.

I'm not a academic! At least give me some credit for trying. And I like the potshots if they make me think.