Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Simon Moon]

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

I'll mark you with an F for not noticing that Wooters:

1. Misrepresents atheism
2. Makes unsupported assertions
3. Bases faulty conclusion on unsupported assertions
4. Fills in a gap in knowledge with a 'transcendent order'

[Anomalocaris]

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

Next.

Men talks about monkeys, not to monkeys.

[Gooders1002]

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 think you should quit smoking pot.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism isn't a belief in anything it is a lack of a belief in a god or gods…There are no corner stones to atheism.

The lack of belief in divinity necessarily entails other beliefs. It is these other beliefs, required to maintain that denial, to which the OP refers.

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

If you believe there is no physical universe then you are engaged in another kind of self-refuting belief or absurdity. So while not directly addressed by the OP, it falls into the same category of irrationality. Next, if it is NOT devoid of any transcendent influence, then it IS influenced by something non-physical. If you accept the existence of non-physical interactions then you are already tacitly approving a belief that contradicts the denial of divine influence.

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.

Okay, fine. Have it your way. There may be a very limited type of atheist that believes in paranormal non-physical phenomena. This argument would not apply to them, since I think they have already given up the game, i.e. tacit approval.

Explain why without god there can be no logical continuity.

I did that in the OP.

…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.

Then you misunderstood or I was not sufficiently clear. This is neither an argument from ignorance nor an attempt to fill gaps in knowledge. My point is that in order to believe, without contradiction, in the validity of inductive reasoning, you must also believe in a transcendent influence (i.e. god) that imposes regularity on causal relationships. Since atheism denies the transcendent governance of physical laws, it simultaneously denies the validity of inductive reasoning.

…people were using this exact same argument to try to demonstrate that god controlled lightning

Ultimately, god (small ‘G’) does control lighting by insuring that causes are regularly linked to specific effects. An electrical differential between earth and sky causes lighting, it does not cause flowers to bloom.

[Whateverist]

The modern atheist removes from consideration teleology, final causes and intentionality.

It seems likely that our geologically recent development of reason would have sprung out a need to anticipate the intentions of not just game and predators but most expecially the intentions of neighboring tribes of people. So regarding the universe or gods as a creature with intentions and purpose fits a natural pattern in our development. Fortunately we are probably sophisticated enough to begin to differentiate situations where that model is not apt.

[fr0d0]

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

I'll mark you with an F for not noticing that Wooters:

1. Misrepresents atheism
2. Makes unsupported assertions
3. Bases faulty conclusion on unsupported assertions
4. Fills in a gap in knowledge with a 'transcendent order'

1. No he didn't. He specified an aspect of atheism. You read something into his words that wasn't there.
2. He pretty much laid it all out for you. Statement: here's an egg. You: no there isn't.
Not much of a response huh.
3. Granted, you can't address something that you don't understand. The assertion remains unchallenged, unless you can prove your counter assertion, which you yet haven't. Therefore, we have one hypothesis minus challenge this far.
4. You're proving his point here.

[paulpablo]

I'll mark you with an F for not noticing that Wooters:

1. Misrepresents atheism
2. Makes unsupported assertions
3. Bases faulty conclusion on unsupported assertions
4. Fills in a gap in knowledge with a 'transcendent order'

1. No he didn't. He specified an aspect of atheism. You read something into his words that wasn't there.
2. He pretty much laid it all out for you. Statement: here's an egg. You: no there isn't.
Not much of a response huh.
3. Granted, you can't address something that you don't understand. The assertion remains unchallenged, unless you can prove your counter assertion, which you yet haven't. Therefore, we have one hypothesis minus challenge this far.
4. You're proving his point here.

There is no different aspect of atheism. It's a lack of a belief in god, end of story end of question.

[Faith No More]

Then you misunderstood or I was not sufficiently clear. This is neither an argument from ignorance nor an attempt to fill gaps in knowledge. My point is that in order to believe, without contradiction, in the validity of inductive reasoning, you must also believe in a transcendent influence (i.e. god) that imposes regularity on causal relationships. Since atheism denies the transcendent governance of physical laws, it simultaneously denies the validity of inductive reasoning.

Can you demonstrate that without a transcendent governance regularity on causal relationships would not exist, and that this transcendent governance must be a conscious entity? If you cannot demonstrate that a god is required for these things, you are asking me to accept an argument from ignorance.

---

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

The answer is "I don't know, but I refuse to fill that gap in knowledge with god."

Do I have to give you an F for failing to understand that?

[Neo-Scholastic]

...our geologically recent development of reason would have sprung out a need to anticipate the intentions of not just game and predators but most especially the intentions of neighboring tribes of people. So regarding the universe or gods as a creature with intentions and purpose fits a natural pattern in our development...

I do not think this directly addresses my OP, but it does provide another example of grounding reason in something other than a divine order, in this case adaptation for survival. One problem with this stance is this. A belief systems that promotes survival does not need to accurately reflect reality, it only needs to work. Thus a culture that engages in ritual hand-washing will be less prone to disease even if their behavior follows the belief that disease causing demons are scared of water. As such, the link between reality and our thoughts about reality is severed.

On a side note, this argument does not apply to deism or impersonal transcendent influences. It only strikes at the hard-core atheist that claims not to be a nihilist.

[fr0d0]

There is no different aspect of atheism. It's a lack of a belief in god, end of story end of question.

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

Don't be silly

---

The answer is "I don't know, but I refuse to fill that gap in knowledge with god."

Do I have to give you an F for failing to understand that?

You get a U for misunderstanding so badly that you support the OP