Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[camanintx]

I know that Maimonides argued that God is the Aristotelian "primary mover" or "uncaused cause", the incorporal, united, unchanging cause of the entire chain of cause and effect. Prior to God's first act of creation (or we might want to say emanation, since Maimonides seems to incorporate some neoPlatonian thought in there) there was no time or space or anything else.... there was just God.

The problem I have with this explanation is understanding how something unchanging can cause anything. This is where the whole concept of God creating space and time breaks down. If God is an intelligent agent then it cannot be unchanging.

Quantum theory tells us that matter and energy at their most fundamental are random agents upon which natural laws impose the order we see around us. Given that, why is it so hard to imagine the universe springing into existence all by itself?

 

[rojse]

It's not an issue of the unknown, actually, it's that the notion of "supernatural" is nonsensical. It's trying to define an impossibly defined realm into existence (the plane of square circles). It exists as a concept but it has no translation in reality. It's safe from any potential for genuine investigation.

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." -- Carl Sagan

Try to come up with a tangible sense of what it could possibly mean for something to exist that's "outside of or other than nature" and exists independently of the mind (i.e. not purely conceptual) and maybe you'll see what I mean.

Byron

The supernatural realm consists of phenomena that we cannot completely dismiss right at this moment. There might be more substance behind these ideas, or there might not be. Either way, at this present point in time, we cannot explain how the phenomena works scientifically. The supernatural realm is only nonsensical in that our scientific theories are not knowledgeable enough to either answer how these phenomena work or explain why the people think they experience such things. The example of ball lightning that I gave was once considered supernatural - there was no plausible explanation until scientists figured out the answer behind it.

These phenomena should, one way or the other, be explained through natural phenomena, whether it is inner psychology or an unusual set of natural circumstances that cause a phenomena to appear.

And I would not say that paranormal phenomena is safe from investigation, far from it. Apart from my example of ball lightning, there were several reports of the coast of Greenland seen from Ireland, when it was over 300 kilometres away, and would have been impossible. That was explained due to a sharp temperature inversion and refraction of light. And psychic abilities are now under several scientific tests to see whether it exists.

 

[Runt]

The problem I have with this explanation is understanding how something unchanging can cause anything. This is where the whole concept of God creating space and time breaks down. If God is an intelligent agent then it cannot be unchanging.

Quantum theory tells us that matter and energy at their most fundamental are random agents upon which natural laws impose the order we see around us. Given that, why is it so hard to imagine the universe springing into existence all by itself?

It's not that hard to imagine. The problem is that it is possible to imagine all sorts of things, some idiotic and contradictory to our mainstream understanding of reality, and some which cleverly use our understanding of reality as their foundation. Not all ideas are going to bear up under scrutiny, of course, but some of them are pretty creative in the way that they twist and trim God until he/she/it fits into the picture. For example, a theist would probably jump on the above and go, "AH! But where did the natural laws come from?" and proceed to build an argument that God exists, using quantum theory---if they're versed enough in it---to support or even provide the foundation of that argument.

As for imagining how an unchanging entity can create... that goes back to neoplatonism and emanation and to be frank, I haven't a clue off the top of my head. Amusingly enough, my militant-atheist friend was explaining to me less than two weeks ago how an unchanging entity can create when I essentially asked the same thing you did. He wasn't trying to prove theists right, but merely to show how, with reletively little effort, one can manipulate philosophy to say virtually anything you want. That being said... the point of my example was not that Maimonides was right. The point was that no matter what scientific or philosophical argument exists during a given time period, theists are able to apply it to their beliefs and so harmonize science and religion, thus preventing the existence of God from ever being objectively disproved. If something (creation by an unchanging entity, for example) which was "rational" according to an old philosophical model but is suddenly contradictory according to a new philosophical model, you can rest assured that it will be reconsidered and the idea of God will be reconstructed so that it no longer contradicts our scientific understanding of reality. For example, Maimonides may have been justified, according to the science of his time, in claiming that God is unchanging. However, that view cannot very well be upheld today and as a result many theologists no longer argue for an unchanging God, but a dynamic, active God.

 

[SkepticX]

The supernatural realm consists of phenomena that we cannot completely dismiss right at this moment.

We can't dismiss them as genuine unknowns, but supernatural is an incoherent concept (besides the fact that it necessarily has to be made up--pure fabrication). The idea of something that exists "outside of nature" is effectively saying the same thing as "outside of existence" or "outside of reality" when you dig into the issue. That's why I quoted Sagan before. "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." The function of the "supernatural" is to remove things that are posited there from genuine investigation and inquiry, but it doesn't really work.

But if you or anyone else can describe how something could really be outside of nature in a meaningful way (i.e. "Well ... it's something that's outside of nature." which also works to explain square circles and such doesn't cut it) I'm open to that possibility. Can't figure that one out myself (neither can any of my more intelligent and intellectually disciplined friends).

And I would not say that paranormal phenomena is safe from investigation ...

"Paranormal" is not equal to "supernatural."

Byron

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Theists can try to harmonize science with religion but they ultimately fail. Science shows no need of an outside force to make it work: no god need apply!
My fallibilism is such that I realize that theists can find matters otherwise!

 

[Random]

Theists can try to harmonize science with religion but they ultimately fail. Science shows no need of an outside force to make it work: no god need apply! My fallibilism is such that I realize that theists can find matters otherwise!

Really?! What a crock! The only part you got right was the bit about you being fallible!!

 

[Random]

The part about you being fallible is right, at least. Science and God are best pals, so long as high ethical standards are observed. People use the generic term "Theism" wayy too much.

 

[Tiberius]

How can science and God be best pals when God is hidden from science in every way possible?

 

[Random]

How can science and God be best pals when God is hidden from science in every way possible?

God = Science Ninja. :yes: He does not want to be found, so you will not find Him looking in the dust. He may change his mind @ some future date.

 

[Somkid]

Nope, but thanks for the offer, I like to think for myself and I don't like people to tell me what I should think.

 

[Random]

Nope, but thanks for the offer, I like to think for myself and I don't like people to tell me what I should think.

?! Is this a response to the post above it? Cos' I don't see the correlation, and I wouldn't like the thought of anyone telling you what to think either.

 

[Somkid]

?! Is this a response to the post above it? Cos' I don't see the correlation, and I wouldn't like the thought of anyone telling you what to think either.

No it is not, it is in response to the opening post:

"Personally, I have been convinced by what I think is sound logic that the position of Strong-Atheism is a fallacy. I think the most reasonable position to hold is to be a Weak-Atheist/Agnostic.

If there are any Strong-Atheists here I'd be interested in changing your mind."

As I said I like to think, to some people that makes me dangerous and unemployable in my own country.

 

[mr.guy]

God = Science Ninja.

And the ninjas always lose.

 

[blackout]

I agree with everything in your post, but there is a difference between not believing in a God and believing there actually is no God. Are you the latter?

Yes. There is a notable difference there.

one is non-belief
one is belief

 

[A Lurking Shadow]

The logical witch hunt against strong atheism is an astounding example of philosophical nonsense driven way too far. In all the "not believing in God, claiming God doesn't exist" drivel the meaning of the word atheist has been lost.

There are no strong and weak atheists: there are those who do not believe a God exists. Athiests don't need a Great Schism: lets leave division over semantics to the God fearing, hmm?

 

[Smoke]

The logical witch hunt against strong atheism is an astounding example of philosophical nonsense driven way too far. In all the "not believing in God, claiming God doesn't exist" drivel the meaning of the word atheist has been lost.

There are no strong and weak atheists: there are those who do not believe a God exists. Athiests don't need a Great Schism: lets leave division over semantics to the God fearing, hmm?

:bow: Thank you. I didn't become an atheist to replace theology with atheology.

 

[Magic Man]

:bow: Thank you. I didn't become an atheist to replace theology with atheology.

Hey, Midnight, as I've thought about this some more, I've seen where we're coming from. When we discussed this on another thread, you were pretty upset at the thought of people telling you that you believe something when it's really just disbelief of something else.

I just wanted to say that I understand exactly what you're saying. To me it's kind of like all of philosophy. It's fun to think about sometimes, and gives you some good insight, but most of it isn't practical and you have to disregard it for daily life. The same holds true for this situation. In some discussions it helps to view atheism as a belief only because you can't know anything for sure, but in reality, it's just the absence of belief. It's the starting position. It's like the plot of land on which a house is built, where the house is belief in some sort of theism.

Just wanted to say that you're right.