The Fundamental Argument for Atheism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14754753
The Fundamental Argument for Atheism

Theists, have you ever heard anyone pose the question "Where did God come from?" You probably have. And you have probably reacted to it by thinking that the question is malformed and nonsensical, since God, by definition, is outside of time, matter, and space. You conclude that the question is therefore meaningless, and so to even ask it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what God is.

Now, consider for a moment that very method of reasoning that you apply in reaction to that question. It is precisely that same reasoning process that we atheists apply when you ask the question "Where did the Universe come from?" The Universe, by definition, includes by its own nature, ALL of matter, time, and space. Thus we conclude that it is meaningless to ask from "where" this came, because it would simply demonstrate a misunderstanding of what the Universe is.

Given this background of the thought process we use to try to explain why anything at all exists, I therefore contend that invoking God is superfluous, unnecessary, and inherently flawed. By contrast, if we simply accept that there is no creator to the Universe, we violate nothing and remain consistent within established definitions of terms. The Universe is explained via its own nature, and requires no additional explanatory cause.

Some of the most brilliant minds of all time, such as Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, and Richard Dawkins, have all put forward this argument in a variety of different forms. It is an argument that has been around for a very long time. Despite that, it has failed to get through to the majority of those who have heard it. People seem not to grasp the logic used, and I'm not sure why. I think that it needs to be fleshed out, and presented in the form of a structured, logical argument. That is what I am attempting to do now. I think that it can be formulated so that the conclusion "God does not exist" follows logically from a set of prior premises:

Premise 1: The Universe is all that exists

Premise 2: If the Universe is all that exists, nothing can exist apart from the Universe

Premise 3: If nothing can exist apart from the Universe, God can not exist apart from the Universe

Premise 4: If God can not exist apart from the Universe, then God must either exist within the Universe or not at all

Premise 5: God does not exist within the Universe

Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

Each successive statement logically and necessarily follows the first. If one accepts the truth of each premise, then he is logically forced to accept the conclusion, by way of deductive reasoning.
#14754759
Premise 1: The Universe is all that exists

False.
Premise 2: If the Universe is all that exists, nothing can exist apart from the Universe

You don't know that
Premise 3: If nothing can exist apart from the Universe, God can not exist apart from the Universe

You don't know that either
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.

I agree with the statement, as long as it refers to the traditional scripture god (but for other reasons). Some people play with the definition of god and that could change the picture...
#14754763
Besoeker wrote:OK. What else exists besides the universe?

Other universes, matrix, nothingness you name it, the possibilities are endless we don't know. I should have said you don't know that but whatever. 8). Point is, if you build up an argument based on weak/false premises the conclusion is also bad.
#14754764
XogGyux wrote:Other universes, matrix, nothingness you name it, the possibilities are endless we don't know. I should have said you don't know that but whatever. 8). Point is, if you build up an argument based on weak/false premises the conclusion is also bad.

But you have no evidence that it might be weak or false.
#14754773
Besoeker wrote:But you have no evidence that it might be weak or false.

The mere possibility they it "might" be is good enough to make such kind of "deductive" reasoning.
If you live in a house with 5 other people and you find the butter on the table. There are at least 4 possibilities for each and every member of your household to have left it on top of the table. Saying "john did it" or "mary did it" has exactly the same value. Now, if you have video footage from a hidden camera, finger prints or something else that counts as "evidence" then that's another story. Do you have such evidence about the universe?
#14754905
Why is it so important to some atheists to prove God does not exist? :?:
Someone might logical deduce the only reason is you are scared to death that he does. Why else would you bother?
#14754915
One Degree wrote:Why is it so important to some atheists to prove God does not exist? :?:

I don't know if it is or isn't important to some atheists - you'd have to ask them.

One Degree wrote:Someone might logical deduce the only reason is you are scared to death that he does.

And someone might be wrong.
#14754916
And someone might be wrong.


From an atheist point of view, it would seem to be the equivalent of telling a 6 year old there is no Santa Claus. What would be the purpose?
#14754966
One Degree wrote:
From an atheist point of view, it would seem to be the equivalent of telling a 6 year old there is no Santa Claus. What would be the purpose?

Can you clarify please?
Who do think is telling who what?


If you believe that God does not exist, then convincing a believer to your point of view deprives them of a comforting fantasy. What good does that accomplish? It does you no harm for another to believe in God.
I am speaking of personal religion and not organized religion effects, since a belief in God is totally separate from organized religion.
#14754970
I am no therist, but science is no more conclusive than religion. You can ask who created god, but the same type of question can be asked about how the big bang was caused. Today there are no answers to either question - nor is there an answer to another alternative question. So with that logic everything and nothing is correct. Classic Schrodinger conundrum here guys. So let people believe whatever they like. Whatever you believe created the universe today relies on faith... and that includes science.
#14754971
One Degree wrote:If you believe that God does not exist,

It isn't what I believe, it is an absence of a belief. That's quite a fundamental difference even though it may not seem so.

One Degree wrote:then convincing a believer to your point of view deprives them of a comforting fantasy.

Interesting choice of words. I don't think I'm convincing anyone.


One Degree wrote: It does you no harm for another to believe in God.

I agree and I don't think I have ever suggested otherwise.
#14754975
XoG has already shown that the first 4 propositions are in fact theistic and not atheistic propositions and that is why he is attacking them albeit incorrectly because he needs to clarify what it is we do not know for the proposition to be untrue. There is a very important "if" there.

The 5th proposition however does not follow from the other 4. The 4th proposition makes the 5th untrue as well.
#14756015
B0ycey wrote:I am no theorist, but science is no more conclusive than religion. You can ask who created god, but the same type of question can be asked about how the big bang was caused. Today there are no answers to either question - nor is there an answer to another alternative question. So with that logic everything and nothing is correct. Classic Schrodinger conundrum here guys. So let people believe whatever they like. Whatever you believe created the universe today relies on faith... and that includes science.


Scientism is the most recent (major) religion though, which probably explains why its adherents display the least self-awareness. Their first step is probably to acknowledge that they do display religiosity, but I would say that that is quite a way into the future.
#14756071
Few people would dispute gravity or Ohm's law.


Few people would deny the existence of the bible. :?:
Both gravity and the bible are not fully understood.
If scientists are not questioning gravity and Ohm's law, then they are not doing what they are paid for.
#14756107
One Degree wrote:Few people would deny the existence of the bible. :?:
Both gravity and the bible are not fully understood.
If scientists are not questioning gravity and Ohm's law, then they are not doing what they are paid for.

Try jumping off a cliff to test how reliable gravity is.

Gravity and Ohm's law work. They are routinely used in engineering calculations. If they weren't reliable we'd be in the mire.
Unlike the supernatural entity some call god, they can be observed, measured, and tested repeatedly with consistent results.
#14756112
Gravity and Ohm's law work.


God's law works for a few billion people.
God and gravity are both invisible, mysterious forces.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]