Why Atheism Cannot Be Logically Supported

In my view the difference between a strong and a weak atheist/theist is the strong believes he knows while the weak knows he believes.

By this scheme I'd be classified as an agnostic (the statement God exists is either true or false). I reject the label of agnostic because the associated statement here fails to capture the important follow-through: "If the statement God exists is true, I reject this God qua God." By this caveat, I consider myself an atheist as I am against theism for ETHICAL reasons, not metaphysical or epistemological.

By this scheme I'd be classified as an agnostic (the statement God exists is either true or false). I reject the label of agnostic because the associated statement here fails to capture the important follow-through: "If the statement God exists is true, I reject this God qua God." By this caveat, I consider myself an atheist as I am against theism for ETHICAL reasons, not metaphysical or epistemological.

I don't propose this scheme as a to-be-universally-accepted classification, but merely to present my own arguments clarifying my objections to the claim that atheism cannot be logically supported. In my own case this scheme places me in the non-cognitivist box, but I also call myself an atheist because I believe the statement no god exists.

What ever we believe as theist or atheist the reality is either no gods exist 1 god exists or a plethora of Gods exist. There may even be a complex number of Gods or something else we just do not understand.

Our belief does not change that. So if you are an atheist and it turns out that "Jesus is lord" and every thing Christians believe in is true then after this life you will get damned and burn in hell for all eternity. Similarly if you are a theist and there is no god then what you believe has no long term effect. What you believe is what you want to believe in this life and if it turns out right or wrong is a side issue other than how it affects your morals. As I have said before I like Jesus's Moral code so I follow it, not the Church's

Although If you look at my argument for God "(Theory of Everything ≡ Theory of God) Where did I go wrong? " If that argument is correct then it gives you scientific tests you can apply to a singular God who is infinitely deep

e.g. that he is benevolent eternal omnipotent and omnipresent and omniscient; the ususal associated with Jaweh. So that is what I follow. I am humble enough to suspect that there are quite probably flaws in my argument that does not mean it is a good starting place for finding out more about God. As scientist admit there are holes in M-Theory or string theory or quantum theory or which ever theory you choose to look at none of them are complete.

Mine, as far as I can see, is an overview with lots of holes to fill in but it goes from bottom to top and back again with out stepping outside logic, science or the Bible.

A Poster He or I,

I understand that religion and therefore by proxy theism has been the cause of some atrocities in this world, but speaking as a theist who believes in Jesus, and considering Jesus' message of peace, it sounds like an oxymoron when you say that you are against theism, for ethical reasons. If you read one of the accounts of Jesus' life, let's say Matthew, I think that it would be difficult for you to find fault with Jesus or his message, morally.

Fanman,

I actually admire the message of the historical Jesus as pieced together by biblical scholars, especially some of what he has to say in the Gnostic gospels which were censored by the early Church. But very little of what I admire remains in the canonical Bible.

Anyway that is irrelevant to my antagonism against theism. I do not target Christianity per se: I am against Absolutism. In my 5 decades of life I have come to a point where I essentially despise dogmatic thinking in almost all of its manifestations. Theism is one of the most common and insidious forms of absolutism. I am fairly convinced that humanity faces extinction unless the achievement of the global state can occur in time before Absolutist-based reactionism sends us past the point of no return.

Garycgibson, Tibbir, and Fanman,

A quantum fluctuation with subsequent evolution of its dynamics into increasingly complex states yielding emergent highly-ordered states.

Now let me turn the question around on you: How do theists think that God came to be? The usual answer I hear is that he has alway existed. So, logically, which is more plausible:

1) an uncreated omnipotent intelligence;

2) an uncreated non-omnipotent, non-sentient universe whose dynamics can be modeled into a long-term evolutionary path toward sentience?

Occam's Razor is on the side of choice #2.

May I point out that:

"A quantum fluctuation with subsequent evolution of its dynamics into increasingly complex states yielding emergent highly-ordered states." Presupposes that Mathematics, which is a subset of the Word already exists. And if you know anything about Christianity in the Begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word Was God.

So what you are offering is not a choice but the same thing.

I presume that mathematics has always existed and has never not existed (Option 2 so to speak) and that a A quantum fluctuation with subsequent evolution of its dynamics into increasingly complex states yielding emergent highly-ordered states.(Option 1 so to speak) to me you have not yet asked a question, which implies any differences yet.

They are the same thing.

A bit of simple set theory

The world of words the set of all meanings where every word is defined by some set of other words. The Word that is the complete being God otherwise he cannot be omnipresent.

Mathemeatics is the set of self consistent truth which is a a subset of the world of words. This currently excludes paradoxes and lies.

The Universe currently believed by many to be a subset of mathematics. Because people believe mathematics governs the physics of the cosmos.

I for one believe the Universe may be a subset of the Word. It may even be the Word. The limits of our physical existence are as yet unclear. It certainly is not limited only to self consistent truth. That is I believe lies and paradox are physical phenomena just because they have an affect on the universe through communication theory.

So ask me a question which might differentiate your suggestions.

[Scott]

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?

As I understand the meaning of the terms, he would at least say that he does not believe the statement God exists to be true. Please note, as I argued in this post, it is not logical to assume that because a person does not believe X that then they must believe X or that because they do not believe -X that they believe X. This is because lack of belief that a statement is true simply isn't the same as an assertion of belief in the negative of that statement. In other words, if a negative atheist is defined simply a person who does not believe the statement 'god exists' is true, then that would include people who also do not believe the statement 'no gods exist' to be true. That includes people who have considered the question and evidence and chosen to not make a judgement as well as -- it seems to me -- people who have never considered the question, perhaps never even heard the question or who find the question meaningless or otherwise the statement to have a truth value.

I'm classifying people solely on the basis of what they choose to say about the truth or falsity of the statement God exists. There are logically only four possible choices:

1) the statement is meaningless (neither true nor false) 2) the statement is meaningful (either true or false) but its status is not known 3) the statement is true--theism 4) the statement is false--atheism.

God exists is an assertion about the state of the world. There may be a thousand distinct psychological reactions to the statement. For example, the person who says the statement does not interest him might fall in any one of the four categories. His lack of interest could be due to his considering it meaningless, or because he cannot decide which it is, or because he has already made up his mind and is not inclined to consider it further.

You raise the question of someone who does not believe the statement God exists is true. What then does he think about its truth value? Certainly if he thinks it is false, he is an atheist. If he does not, then it seems to me he must think its truth value is indeterminate or the statement lacks a truth value. I don't see another alternative answer to this admittedly narrow question.

[Scott]

We also have to include a category for people who have never considered the possibility. For instance, I assume none of us believe that unicorns exist on a planet twice the size of Earth within 1,000 light-years of earth but we never have responding or even considered the question. In terms of god, these people are often referred to as implicit atheists.

There are logically only four possible choices:

1) the statement is meaningless (neither true nor false) 2) the statement is meaningful (either true or false) but its status is not known 3) the statement is true--theism 4) the statement is false--atheism.

It's a little more complicated if like me you recognize a distinction between knowledge and mere belief with the former being a more confident and thus presumably more accurate version of the latter. Only gnostic theists and gnostic atheists claim to know whether or not a god exists, while many other people believe god exists or actively believe no gods exist but still do not claim knowledge. In response to the assertion that god exists if encountered, a person may say I believe it is false but I do not know it is false OR a person may say I know it is false.

So, for atheists, we have (A) people who neither believe a god exist nor believe no god exists (which is not irrational as I argued here), (B) people who actively believe no gods exist but do not claim to know that no gods exist, (C) people who claim to know that no god exists. Negative atheists, implicit atheists and igtheists would all seem to fall into the category of A. I'm not sure how these work with the 4 options you listed.

But (again as I showed here) the point is that a person can find the statement 'X exists' to be meaningful and still suspend belief either way. If X is god, then such a person is a negative atheist.

Tibbir says

"A quantum fluctuation with subsequent evolution of its dynamics into increasingly complex states yielding emergent highly-ordered states." Presupposes that Mathematics, which is a subset of the Word already exists. And if you know anything about Christianity in the Begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word Was God.

You are incorrect. The presupposition lies with you, manifest as your Platonic view of Mathematics, or the Word if you prefer. And since I don't believe in God, the opening verses of John have no correspondence to anything of philosophical merit in my own cognitive framework.

So what you are offering is not a choice but the same thing.

To a Platonic thinker like yourself, I can see why you would think so.

I presume that mathematics has always existed and has never not existed (Option 2 so to speak) and that a A quantum fluctuation with subsequent evolution of its dynamics into increasingly complex states yielding emergent highly-ordered states.(Option 1 so to speak) to me you have not yet asked a question, which implies any differences yet.

Since I am not a Platonist, the idea that mathematics has always existed is patently ridiculous. I recognize that Platonic thinking is a fundamental way to go about doing philosophy so there is no point in me making a stand for my position with you since we have no common framework to begin to discuss the matter. But for the record, emprical evidence exists in plenty for creation ex nihilo at the quantum scale. There is no empirical evidence for any uncreated intelligence predating existence nor any theory I am aware of to even identify anything as "uncreated". If this doesn't serve as a distinction to your mind between option 1 and 2, I doubt I can help you further.

Regarding your remarks on set theory and what follows, I am unable to determine what your point(s) might be beyond further illustration of your Platonic convictions, so I will refrain from speculation.

I think you are missing my point.

My classification--admittedly a simple one-- is not intended to cover all possible psychological states of belief or disbelief. I am not ignoring or forgetting them, for purposes of defining non-cognitivism I have merely framed my distinctions on one single issue: the truth value of the assertion God exists.

The purpose of this was to highlight the distinction between non-cognitivism and theism/atheism/agnosticism--- not to describe in detail all possible distinctions of belief and disbelief. Just as I did not make separate categories for Baptists and Methodists, I threw all the atheists together in one pile. You want to investigate psychological states of belief and disbelief rather than logical truth values. You might want to distinguish degrees of belief or certainty about various propositions so that someone might be a 60% atheist and 40% theist. No problem, but it is a different discussion.

The point is non-cognitivists argue the statement God exists has no truth value, does not assert a proposition about the state of the world. it appears to assert a proposition, but the singular term God lacks a referent.

I think that logic is an excellent tool which allows us to make sense of, and apply order to, the world around us. However, when logic is applied to the creation of the universe, it cannot provide certain answers as to how universe was created. There are highly educated guesses as to how the universe was created, but there is no theory which can certainly say: "reason a, b and c is definately how the universe was created." Since this is the case, how can we be certain that logic will ever be able to find the certain cause of how the universe was created? I think that as science progresses, more complex and 'accurate' hypothesis will be formulated, but we cannot be sure that we will ever find out or be able to comprehend, the real truth of how the universe was created.

As stated, we rely can upon science to construct theories and hypothesis to describe how the universe was created, but science will not be able to tell us "why." Now, I think that atheists believe that there is no reason "why" the universe was created, since having a reason "why" it was created, would imply that the universe has not only an intelligent creator, but also a purpose, which opens a whole new set of possibilities. The atheist believes that the universe was "just created" out of / after an initial random or ordered event, which is essentially random and uncontrolled in nature? This is based upon a belief in one or another scientific model.

As far as I am aware, the logical reasons that an atheist can rule out the possibility that there is a purpose or a reason "why" the universe was created, and therefore also rule out that it has an intelligent creator, is that they find it unlikely or ridiculous to believe, and that there is no evidence of an intelligent creator or purpose to the universe. Therefore, whilst it is reasonable for an atheist to believe that there is no God or intelligent creator; and they are able to say logically, based upon their subjective interpretation of the universe, that there is no evidence that God exists, and that the universe does not have an intelligent creator. Logically, I do not think that the atheist can totally rule out the existence of God - based purely upon their subjective interpretation of the universe. I think that the theist's arguments, especially in the case of intelligent design and personal spiritual experience are valid and should be considered; even though the atheist will probably dismiss them, but is that a logical thing for the atheist to do?

I think that logic is an excellent tool which allows us to make sense of, and apply order to, the world around us. However, when logic is applied to the creation of the universe, it cannot provide certain answers as to how universe was created.

Logic by itself does not answer any questions—instead it provides the rules of the road of reason and keeps you from going into the ditch.

Shifts to generally accepted ways of thinking are not obtained from logic. We no longer believe in witches and demons because we are convinced that they are not real entities, but fictions invented to explain phenomena for which we now have better explanations. There will always be some who insist witches and demons are real because the Bible says they are, but most have abandoned that explanation.

The lack of definite answers as to "how the universe was created" does not mean that we must turn to religious answers instead of investigating further. Logic may help to clarify the question by asking why it is necessary to believe that the universe was created at all. It turns out that is based on the notion there must have been a time when the universe did not exist. We do not have any knowledge of that.

That may not be the case at all. Our language and everyday experience leads us to think so, but the reasons are not solid. What does time mean if nothing exists? Does it mean anything at all? Is it illogical to speak of a time when there was nothing?

The atheist believes that the universe was "just created" out of / after an initial random or ordered event, which is essentially random and uncontrolled in nature?

Does the atheist necessarily believe that? How does disbelief in God lead to the conclusion that the universe was created at all? The Big Bang only indicates that time and space and the material contents of the universe cannot be tracked back beyond that event. To say "there must have been a time before the Big Bang" is to force on time our prejudices.

Prismatic,

I think that logic alone can answer questions and as you say, it "provides the rules of the road of reason and keeps you from going into the ditch." Logic and reason are like lights in the night of knowledge, they help show us the way, but do they have their limits when we are discussing the creation of the universe?

Personally, I believe that angels, demons and witches exist. Not only because the bible says that they exist, but due to my own personal experiences. I believe that existence has a spiritual dimension / realm which co-exists and can interact with our physical world. I think that there are alot of people who share my beliefs. Theists by definition believe in spiritual existence, since God himself is a spirit.

I am not saying that we should stop searching to find out how the universe was created, but what if we are searching in vain? Creating and believing theories and hypotheses which are nowhere near the truth?

I would say that time pre-dates the creation of the universe, because the universe has always been, and always will be subject to time. There is nothing in the universe which time does not effect. Everything works in linear motion.