Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[downbeatplumb]

1) the physical universe is causally closed, i.e. devoid of any influence apart from the deterministic chain of cause and effect
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 we should stop doing science because god did it and that helps expand our understanding of the universe how?

The moment there is some evidence that lends any credence at all to the crap ideas you are spouting then science will evaluate it. However there is no need to bring your childish beliefs to the table science, is perfectly up to the job and will eventually answer all the question you have posted here.

We may not have the answers now but I would not expect to.
If we hadn't been hampered for centuries with the superstitious religions that held sway maybe we'd be in a better position to say "this is what happened".

Please don't wish for the return of the bad old days of theistic domination.

***DeistPaladin edited to fix quote box***

[Neo-Scholastic]

I agree that atheism is simply about not believing in any deities. At the same time, you cannot maintain this lack of belief without also opposing rational inquiry or entertaining mutually exclusive ideas. The denial of god starts an endless cascade of further denials. Without the concept of god, all reason collapses.

The examples provided only prove the point. Yes, some atheists use ouiji boards, hunt for ghosts, claim to astrally project, etc. These atheists are irrational in as much as they arbitrarily apply logic only when it suits them. Clearly, my one post cannot address every form of atheistic nonsense any more than one atheistic claim can refute every permutation of Christianity. What I can do, and have done here, is point to common assumptions that permeate AF and reveal the logical conclusions of those assumptions.

So if you want to opt out by saying, “I’m an atheist, but I believe in formal causes,” that’s fine. I’ll get to you later because I am quite certain that somewhere along the line you have embraced a logical contradiction. That is not to say that the believer's stance is entirely rational. My only point is that an atheist cannot in any way say that he has logic and evidence on his side but not the believer's.

[Esquilax]

I agree that atheism is simply about not believing in any deities. At the same time, you cannot maintain this lack of belief without also opposing rational inquiry or entertaining mutually exclusive ideas. The denial of god starts an endless cascade of further denials. Without the concept of god, all reason collapses.

I think the problem you're having is that you're mistaking "I don't know," as a denial. It's not: what it is, is an acceptance that we aren't in possession of all the facts and that, given this, the intellectually honest thing to do is not to latch onto an answer until we do know more.

I don't think the things you're saying here are terribly compelling, but since they're all based on a premise that is simply false, I don't feel the need to deconstruct them beyond pointing out that your basis is not true. The atheist answer to the question "how did the universe begin?" is not "not a god, that's for sure!"

It's "I don't know. Let's not pretend like we do, and instead go looking for the actual truth, regardless of what it may turn out to be."

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the problem you're having is that you're mistaking "I don't know," as a denial. It's not: what it is, is an acceptance that we aren't in possession of all the facts and that, given this, the intellectually honest thing to do is not to latch onto an answer until we do know more.

Total cop out. The OP isn't about what you know its about how you know it.

In the OP, I have shown that the validity of empirical observations presupposes divine influence. It is irrational to demand empirical evidence if you disavow the principles that justify knowledge acquisition by means of empirical observation.

---

The moment there is some evidence that lends any credence at all to the crap ideas you are spouting then science will evaluate it.

You beclown yourself. Your atheism undermines scientific inquiry that uses induction and empirical observation.

[paulpablo]

1) Do you believe in the validity of inductive reasoning?

For what purpose?

2) Are you an atheist?

Yes

[Ryantology]

In the OP, I have shown that the validity of empirical observations presupposes divine influence. It is irrational to demand empirical evidence if you disavow the principles that justify knowledge acquisition by means of empirical observation.

You have asserted it, you have not demonstrated the truth of it. You have a really hard time separating those two things. The validity of empirical observation does not, as far as I can tell, presuppose the influence of non-existent fairy tale beings, and even if those beings actually were real, it would change nothing about the nature of empiricism. It would be as it is, whatever it is, with or without divine influence, because the divine being is just as subject to empiricism as anything else. What is a cop out is trying to place the divine being outside of empiricism, and you only do it because your divine being consistently fails to measure up to that standard.

[Simon Moon]

In the OP, I have shown that the validity of empirical observations presupposes divine influence. It is irrational to demand empirical evidence if you disavow the principles that justify knowledge acquisition by means of empirical observation.

You did nothing of the sort. As has already been said, you asserted it.

Just because you explain something in a manner that makes sense to you, doesn't mean it actually does make sense. Or even explains anything, for that matter.

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.

Argument from ignorance.

Either relationship between one tP and another is random OR a transcendent order links one tP to all others.

Sure, because 'magic' explains everything.

[Esquilax]

I think the problem you're having is that you're mistaking "I don't know," as a denial. It's not: what it is, is an acceptance that we aren't in possession of all the facts and that, given this, the intellectually honest thing to do is not to latch onto an answer until we do know more.

Total cop out. The OP isn't about what you know its about how you know it.

In the OP, I have shown that the validity of empirical observations presupposes divine influence. It is irrational to demand empirical evidence if you disavow the principles that justify knowledge acquisition by means of empirical observation.

What Ryan and Simon said, but also this: asserting that there's a divine influence on things brings us no further to ascertaining that it's your specific, favorite divinity. And hence, the "how you know" is also outside the conclusion you wish to draw us to, right now.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As has already been said, you asserted it.

...and you have not refuted it.

Argument from ignorance.

Not at all. An argument from ignorance would be "I know no possible solution therefore it must be God". In contrast, I presented two possible solutions. Since one has more explanatory power, it is the favored solution.

[Cato]

In the OP, I have shown that the validity of empirical observations presupposes divine influence. It is irrational to demand empirical evidence if you disavow the principles that justify knowledge acquisition by means of empirical observation.

Chad,
I think you have yourself tied in a knot here. You most certainly have not shown that empirical observations 'require' a divine influence. You asserted earlier that inductive reasoning and atheism were mutually exclusive concepts. You haven't shown this either.