Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Locked
User avatar
Garycgibson
Posts: 33
Joined: May 6th, 2012, 4:39 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Garycgibson »

Prismatic wrote:
"Logically incoherent" here simply means that the statement does not make sense within its own context.
God for instance, can be a definite idea without being reduced to any particular phrase.
How? If there are no attributes assignable to the word God, how can it be a definite idea? How is it distinguishable from other ideas? You are telling me "I have in mind an entity I can't describe to you because it's beyond my finite comprehension, but you must believe in its existence unless you can prove it doesn't exist in any possible world."
I do not need to prove the existence of other Universes to speculate about them.
Indeed, but you were not speculating about them. You insisted that an atheist must prove that God did not exist in any possible world, so I presumed that you considered their existence beyond speculation. If you change your statement to
For atheism to have credibility as more than an opinion it would need to have some logical support in proving the non-existence of God Universally and in any possible Universe I might speculate about.
its logical incoherence will perhaps become clearer to you.
In your lexicon, the phrase logical incoherence seems to be a tool for disagreeing with an opinion. I won't use that for-myself because of its obvious pejorative social connotation. It might be easier to use term logic or such to describe these matters with more simplicity and less obfuscation though.

The set theory parameter for a description of God seems to be of concern for you. In order to support your viewpoint pro-atheism you may wish to impeach the credibility or, as you say the logical coherence of the idea that to be convincing atheists should need to have some logically satisfying evidence or proof of the non-existence of God.

I provided (I thought helpfully) the point that in order to prove that God not exist anywhere some sort of investigation, examination or so forth of everywhere (in this Universe, any potential Universe, or wherever else might exist) would need to be made-and that that isn't possible today.

Of course commonly some like to dispute the meaning of the word 'ex-ist' and its meaning. Would God have the quality of ex-isting, and if not, why?

The German word for to-be, ist, could lead one into Heideggarian circles of convoluted word meanings, yet I will avoid that. I am willing to stipulate that I understand what I think about God and of existence, and that many other people do as well, and also of course that many people do not.

One might slip into some kind of Kripkean-Russellian examination of the meaning of names and if they have some sort of Platonic reality in-themselves, if they are descriptivist alone and so forth, and yet miss the wood for the trees. I would think that Cantor might have had a challenging time showing that trans-infinite sets can exist, or that an infinite series could exist without getting to the last number to prove it.

It is alright for atheists to have their beliefs without the logically satisfactory criteria I mentioned obviously; that is without scientific or logical support and without any ability to know how far this universe extends, exhaustively what is in it, where it came from or it there are more in order to determine if God is in it. They may not have a definition or idea of who or what God is, or a Divine Being that created a Universe, and they may not even be able to formulate such a hypothesis-however that does not mean that every is of such incapacity.

Perhaps you might read Plotinus' Enneads and regard his description of The One as a reference to God, inadequate as it may be. Then again, you might take Jesus Christ as God, and as they way, the Truth and necessity for eternal life with The Father.
User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Prismatic »

In your lexicon, the phrase logical incoherence seems to be a tool for disagreeing with an opinion.
No, it simply means: self-contradictory. If you are using the word God, as most believers do, to refer to a being who is omnipresent and a necessary being, then using the possible worlds semantics for modal logic, he must exist everywhere in each possible world.

However you want to require the atheist to prove that God doesn't exist anywhere in any possible world you can imagine. That's the incoherence. Logically, if you show that an omnipresent and necessary God does not exist in any one spot in any one world, you've shown that he doesn't exist at all. You set up what you present as an impossible task in order to show how difficult it is to support atheism logically, but your logic in doing so is faulty.
The set theory parameter for a description of God seems to be of concern for you.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
I would think that Cantor might have had a challenging time showing that trans-infinite sets can exist, or that an infinite series could exist without getting to the last number to prove it.
1. Cantor dealt with transfinite cardinals. He called infinite sets just that. There are no "trans-infinite" sets in his set theory.

2. There is no problem with the existence of infinite series. An infinite series is just a function from the natural numbers to the real numbers. There is no "last number" —there is a well-defined limit of the sequence of partial sums.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Of course, the word atheist is relative to the definition of the word god. One may be an atheist using one definition of god and not another. My topic Arguments and empirical evidence that god(s) exist uses an explicit definition from a dictionary:
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition wrote:1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
Considering in my analysis the lack of valid evidence given in that topic (or elsewhere in my experience) that such a thing exists, the rational and logical conclusion is to not believe in 'god' as defined in that topic. So, with that definition, I am and many others are an atheist and there is nothing illogical about that.

If someone named their cat god, and then said "god exists," meaning "my cat exists," then I would agree and would not be an atheist under that definition of god.

Garycgibson, you write "God for instance, can be a definite idea without being reduced to any particular phrase," in one post and then write, "I am willing to stipulate that I understand what I think about God and of existence, and that many other people do as well, and also of course that many people do not." Assuming your definition/idea of god which you seem to be admittedly unable to verbalize (which some philosophers would argue means that is not an definitive idea) is different than the one from that dictionary or other common written definition, then neither I nor I presume any other self-proclaimed atheist necessarily disbelieves in it let alone can even know whether or not we belief or disbelief in it. Of course, since you have not provided a definition and apparently is different than any of the ones found in any dictionary, then anyone who call themself atheist in general is not necessarily saying they do not believe in whatever undefined thing it is (if there is any) that you call god.

I'm not sure how this fits in with Prismatic's points, which I feel are wise, about god defined as omnipresent and necessary since those were not explicit qualities in the definition I used but they are common attributes ascribed either to the equivocal word god by a certain definition or as non-definitional qualities of a specific god who allegedly happens to be the one who allegedly exists.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Prismatic »

Scott wrote:

I'm not sure how this fits in with Prismatic's points, which I feel are wise, about god defined as omnipresent and necessary since those were not explicit qualities in the definition I used but they are common attributes ascribed either to the equivocal word god by a certain definition or as non-definitional qualities of a specific god who allegedly happens to be the one who allegedly exists.
If his God is defined as both a necessary and omnipresent being, then it is only necessary to show there is one place in one possible world where he does not exist and it follows he does not exist at all.

If his God is not defined as a necessary being, then there is at least one possible world where he does not exist.

If his God is not defined as omnipresent, then there is at least one spot in one possible world where he does not exist.

In any of these cases there is no need to show that God does not exist in all spots in all possible worlds.

Hence his requirement on atheists is consequently logically incoherent.

Of course non-existence is generally difficult to prove—you have to show that the assumption of existence leads to a contradiction, but that is another issue entirely.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis
A Poster He or I
Posts: 1104
Joined: March 18th, 2011, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by A Poster He or I »

Garycgibson said:
One might want to argue about what cosmological theory is right, and if the inflaton really existed, yet that is not basically what the Bible is about.
I agree. I find the entire Christian Apologist approach rather silly...the argument from faith is so much more ironclad and much more in the spirit of the canonical versions of the Bible.
Atheists would need to provide categorical proof for the non-existence of God if they wanted to prove their belief (not possible) as a self-standing logical proof aspire to a shadow of credibility.
Um, no...logic doesn't require proof of the NON-existence of anything. The lack of God in existence doesn't create any vacuum anyway. On the contrary, the more one learns of existence, the more obvious God's superfluity becomes. There isn't anything for God to DO! :idea: As to "aspiring to a shadow of credibility," that remark is unworthy of your obvious intelligence so I'll assume you got carried away with rhetoric.
Wooden shoe
Posts: 1510
Joined: March 6th, 2011, 12:25 am
Location: Dryden ON Canada

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Wooden shoe »

Hello all.

Tolkien is well known for writing a number of books making great use of the rich folklore of Europe. These mythical creatures appear in folklore all over the world, and many people believed they existed and in some areas they still do. Now as interesting as I think they are I do not believe they ever existed. Is this illogical, or should I have to prove they do not exist? The same can be said of God[s], as it is hard to go anywhere on earth which does not have some kind of Deity that people believe in. As I am not aware of any evidence to prove that either the mythical creatures or God[s] exist, why would it be illogical to place all these in the same category?

Regards, John.
We experience today through the lens of all our yesterdays
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Prismatic wrote:If his God is defined as both a necessary and omnipresent being, then it is only necessary to show there is one place in one possible world where he does not exist and it follows he does not exist at all.

If his God is not defined as a necessary being, then there is at least one possible world where he does not exist.

If his God is not defined as omnipresent, then there is at least one spot in one possible world where he does not exist.
Yes, that is completely reasonable and I can do nothing but totally agree.
Prismatic wrote:Hence his requirement on atheists is consequently logically incoherent.
If he is addressing atheism in general including for instance weak atheism then yes it is logically incoherent. However, it may be a fair demand on gnostic atheism, i.e. those who claim to know that god -- whatever is meant by the term -- does not exist if it isn't defined as a necessary being because to prove something false is to show that it is impossible, right? Of course, most atheists do not claim to know with absolute certainty that god does not exist; only gnostic atheists necessarily make that claim and all weak atheists and some positive atheists do not make that claim and even some gnostic atheists may only be claiming regular, everyday knowledge not absolute knowledge.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Tibbir
Posts: 34
Joined: April 25th, 2012, 5:51 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jesus
Location: Aylesbury, UK
Contact:

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Tibbir »

One quick attribut of God is that he is omnipresent. if he is omnipresent he must be present in all ideas. Otherwise he is by definition not omnipresent. Which is why My definition of God is the Word.
User avatar
Garycgibson
Posts: 33
Joined: May 6th, 2012, 4:39 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Garycgibson »

Prismatic wrote:
In your lexicon, the phrase logical incoherence seems to be a tool for disagreeing with an opinion.
No, it simply means: self-contradictory. If you are using the word God, as most believers do, to refer to a being who is omnipresent and a necessary being, then using the possible worlds semantics for modal logic, he must exist everywhere in each possible world.

However you want to require the atheist to prove that God doesn't exist anywhere in any possible world you can imagine. That's the incoherence.
That seems like a well constructed straw man argument to me. For instance I would prefer not to describe any attribute for God as necessary in any sort of sense other than for convenience in conversation, because humans simply haven't the authority, and one doesn't want to trick oneself.

That God is omnipresent or omniscient still presents difficult to define concepts (see Plotinus) especially since the nature of the Universe and of human experience is uncertain. Even so, to prove that God does not exist one should need to comprehend existence fully and completely search through it-logically. Perhaps that point is difficult to make without an example; I will write one in a minute or two.

A verse-even a uni-verse may have several definitions and boundary conditions itself that are conventions. Cardinals of trans-finite series (you are correct about Cantor's term) that are variable in reality as well as in theory representing time values for spatial size appear malleable. The solid state Universe description is a description of human experience of mass-energy of a portion of what may be a very large Universe from an inflation or whatever event occurred during the Plank epoch.

Plotinus described the One as unextended generally. The Intelligence issued the realm of forms and the solid state Universe with its many broken forms (something like broken symmetry in a physical cosmology perhaps). It is very difficult to say anything that God must do as a necessity in His constructions because of the uncertainty of knowledge of the relationship. Logical investigations are quite useful for insight into the unknown, yet logic is for-itself a phenomenon of human reason without absolute grounding in anything besides the circumstance of being.

Karl Popper said that one can't define rationality-one just recognizes it. I believe that criteria applies to God as well; His grace is entirely agape and disclosure of teleos at soley with His will.

Perhaps a trans-infinite series of numbering might be created for infinite series with a variable cardinality or for comparing the absolute value of infinite series regarding relative location. Well, I am not a mathematician.

An example of why it is important to actually look through things sometimes to confirm a hypothesis rather than leaving it to theory.


A Philosophical Discussion Aboard the First Ship Arriving In The New World

‘Well my scientific advisor, what think ye on our prospects for finding natives in the new continent?

‘That be impossible captain. No one knows what a New World native is therefore they cannot exist.”

“Well, we have a general idea of what they might be like even if not specifically.”

‘Such be logical incoherence mon Captain amigo. There be no such thing as N.W. natives.

“Would you like to swim ashore to look my friend, in order to confirm your theory?

‘Land be not in sight yet Colin’

‘’Ahem’

‘Let me clarify the point. N.W. natives will be some kind of generic human being with unspecified features native to New Worlders living here for thousands of years without contact with Madrid, Barcelona or Paris.”

‘Can’t be anyone lives in the New World. No one knows what they would be like’

“Mr. Science, you would need to search every bit of the continent to prove that is has no population of natives.”

“Why no my glorious Captain, you would need to prove that natives exist with logic in order to contradict my opinion that they don’t and cannot exist.”

“Mr. Science, I am asking your scientific opinion.”

‘Yes sir; my opinion is that N.W. natives cannot exist because they are not defined.

“Good God Mr. Science!”

“God cannot be defined and therefore cannot exist either my Captain.”

“Nothing can exist without a good, complete definition then?”

“That be exact and logical sir.”

“Look Mr. Science, a new continent we have never before seen is dead ahead.”

The Captain ordered the executive officer to slow the ship to let natives in canoes approach..

‘Mr. Science, I shall award you an ostrich feather for your hat. You have invented the necessary equation for de trop existence. The Mr. Science colonialist formula;

For every X, X can exist if and only if Y can define X.

If Y can define X, then X can exist.
User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Prismatic »

That seems like a well constructed straw man argument to me.
That's because you don't understand it. In fact your argument itself is the straw man, but not well-constructed.
For instance I would prefer not to describe any attribute for God as necessary in any sort of sense other than for convenience in conversation, because humans simply haven't the authority, and one doesn't want to trick oneself.
You prefer not to assign any attributes to God except for conversation and yet you say the atheist must check every corner of the universe in every possible world to show that this being without qualities is not there. That is nonsense.
“Nothing can exist without a good, complete definition then?”
Again, you have not understood what I wrote. What I said was: the statement God exists is meaningless (cannot be determined to be true or false) unless you can say what the word God refers to, something you prefer not to do and probably cannot do.

There may indeed be a vast unseen world of which we know nothing and millions of beings in it, but unless you have some means of getting to know them, there is nothing meaningful you can say about them. Remember your claim was that atheism is not logically supported, but the logical support for your claim has collapsed.

-- Updated May 10th, 2012, 1:34 pm to add the following --
Scott wrote:
If he is addressing atheism in general including for instance weak atheism then yes it is logically incoherent. However, it may be a fair demand on gnostic atheism, i.e. those who claim to know that god -- whatever is meant by the term -- does not exist if it isn't defined as a necessary being because to prove something false is to show that it is impossible, right? Of course, most atheists do not claim to know with absolute certainty that god does not exist; only gnostic atheists necessarily make that claim and all weak atheists and some positive atheists do not make that claim and even some gnostic atheists may only be claiming regular, everyday knowledge not absolute knowledge.
I think it is not the kind of atheism that makes the difference so much as the kind of God. If he is envisioning the kind of god who might be a local deity confined to some small area, like a rare species of frog, then you would have to check everywhere to make sure he is not hiding under a rock.

If, however, he is speaking of a god with absolutely no definite attributes, then the requirement is again logically incoherent—you wouldn't recognize that god if you tripped over him. In other words the task he assigns is logically impossible, not impossible because God exists.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis
User avatar
Garycgibson
Posts: 33
Joined: May 6th, 2012, 4:39 pm

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Garycgibson »

Prismatic wrote:
Again, you have not understood what I wrote. What I said was: the statement God exists is meaningless (cannot be determined to be true or false) unless you can say what the word God refers to, something you prefer not to do and probably cannot do.
That is a straw man in two senses: One, as an atheist you deny that God exists, therefore you deny the ability to disprove the existence of someone you believe doesn't exist-sort of begging the point. I understand the conundrum.

Two; I and perhaps a billion people on Earth-maybe two billion, understand who God refers to. I simply don't wish to trivialize that topic here.
Prismatic wrote:
There may indeed be a vast unseen world of which we know nothing and millions of beings in it, but unless you have some means of getting to know them, there is nothing meaningful you can say about them. Remember your claim was that atheism is not logically supported, but the logical support for your claim has collapsed.
The first sentence has no meaningful relation to the second, and is itself a straw man.

The state of the non-existence of God cannot be proven. My argument is entirely valid. Perhaps one might argue against the existence of reality in a similar way as arguing against the existence of God on the premise that an accurate, exhaustive, comprehensive definition of reality cannot be made. Instead people simply understand what one is referring to.

If one argues that reality does not exist without a perfect definition of reality, it isn't a logically convincing argument to me at least.

Arguments against it that depend upon attacking various definitions of God would probably need to disprove the existence of the True God amidst all of the wrong references to gods complicating that task.
User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Prismatic »

You still have not understood what I am saying. Let's try a slightly different approach. I distinguish between theists, atheists, agnostics, and noncognitivists (my own position) on the basis of what they say about the sentence God exists.

A theist says: the statement God exists is true.

An atheist says: the statement God exists is false.

An agnostic says: the statement God exists is either true or false.

A noncognitivist says: the statement God exists is neither true nor false.

There may be further distinctions to be made on the basis of why the individual says one thing or the other, but to keep things simple omit them for the moment. (An atheist may say the statement is false either to claim he knows it to be false or simply that he believes it false.)

The reason I give for saying that the statement is neither true nor false is that the term God does not refer to anything.
I and perhaps a billion people on Earth-maybe two billion, understand who God refers to. I simply don't wish to trivialize that topic here.
I believe none of you have any clear conception of who God refers to because you cannot provide any reasonable description to go along with the word. This lack of knowledge of God is is expressed over and over in theology. Here is a passage from Pascal's Pensées, just before the famous wager:
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.
-- Updated May 10th, 2012, 2:53 pm to add the following --
If one argues that reality does not exist without a perfect definition of reality, it isn't a logically convincing argument to me at least.
There is a definition of reality: what exists. And that prevents any argument that it doesn't exist.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Prismatic wrote:An atheist says: the statement God exists is false.
That seems to be a description of a positive atheist but not of a weak or negative atheist and thus not of atheism generally.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Prismatic »

Scott wrote:
Prismatic wrote:An atheist says: the statement God exists is false.
That seems to be a description of a positive atheist but not of a weak or negative atheist and thus not of atheism generally.
Remember that my classification allows someone to say that God exists is false if that is what he believes. What do you think the weak or negative atheist would say about truth or falsity of the statement God exists?
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis
User avatar
Kingkool
Posts: 306
Joined: February 1st, 2012, 11:22 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Alexander the Great

Re: Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

Post by Kingkool »

Prismatic wrote:
Scott wrote: That seems to be a description of a positive atheist but not of a weak or negative atheist and thus not of atheism generally.
Remember that my classification allows someone to say that God exists is false if that is what he believes. What do you think the weak or negative atheist would say about truth or falsity of the statement God exists?
There is no god or any deeper meaning to the universe. What you see is what you get. That's it.

The "weak" atheist is similar to a Nihilist in my opinion.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”- Douglas Adams A Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy
Locked

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021