- 25 Dec 2016 23:36
#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.
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.