Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...

Quote:

---

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinite regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

---

I seem to have overlooked this thread, and now my head's swimming. Anyway this looks like an interesting formulation, so can I ask for some definitions, Pindar?

Does "being" have the strict sense of a lifeform, or is it merely referencing a thing which exists? On what basis does #4 work, that only "beings" can be causes, and assuming beings are lifeforms, does this not imply that "non-beings" have no consequences, or is it explicitly defining beings as the only cause of beings? Is the Universe regarded as a being?

I'm sure these seven points are just a contraction of a treatise in 25 volumes, so I want to sort out short-hand from its essentials :2thumbsup:


EDIT: after a quick think, I believe the crux of my questions can be summed up as: does this mean the existence of LIFE proves the existence of God, or that existence itself proves it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

EDIT: after a quick think, I believe the crux of my questions can be summed up as: does this mean the existence of LIFE proves the existence of God, or that existence itself proves it?

---

Hello macsen,

The proof is not life specific, but concerned with being as such.

(Given Claudius resurrected this thread and is the source of the questions I'm waiting to see if he has any counter arguments to the points he challenged. )

Thanks Pindar; I have a gut feeling there's still an assumption buried in there somewhere, but it'll take some thinking about, and I'll be offline for the next week or so, so hope I get back before the thread's totally dead and buried.

Hmmm, if I understand correctly, a necessary being is a being which can't not exist, but I don't yet see how this necessarily makes it "God" in the accepted sense. Surely our rules of logic are derived from within the Universe, this necessary being would have to be 'outside' the Universe and beyond any frame of reference we have, ergo we can't make any deductions concerning the nature of the necessary being itself? Our reasoning concerning what occurs 'beyond' the Universe is untestable, so I can't see that it is a proof.

Dunno 'bout you, but steps #4 and #5 bug me something fierce. They seem to be based on the unstated premise that "contingent beings" must result from the 'action(s)' (or whatever; this whole "causality" thing here seems a little vague) of another being. And this looks suspiciously like the conclusion being its own premise to me, in other words a circular argument...

In any case the premises of the whole thing would seem to be rather incompatible with the basic premise of the atheistic view, which I would sum up roughly as "shit happens" (ie. no cause, as the above seems to use the term with certain undettones suggesting intentionality, is required as such; merely circumstances). The "why" and "how" is WIP, but the progress on the topics thus far at the very least appears to me as rather less fundamentally narcissistic and downright naive than the various postulations citing "divine" actors (ie. "non-contingent beings" - or this is what I take the term to be under the make-up job).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Thanks Pindar; I have a gut feeling there's still an assumption buried in there somewhere, but it'll take some thinking about, and I'll be offline for the next week or so, so hope I get back before the thread's totally dead and buried.

---

Oki Doki

Quote:

---

Hmmm, if I understand correctly, a necessary being is a being which can't not exist, but I don't yet see how this necessarily makes it "God" in the accepted sense. Surely our rules of logic are derived from within the Universe, this necessary being would have to be 'outside' the Universe and beyond any frame of reference we have, ergo we can't make any deductions concerning the nature of the necessary being itself? Our reasoning concerning what occurs 'beyond' the Universe is untestable, so I can't see that it is a proof.

---

Necessity is part and parcel of the meaning of God. Something warranting the title cannot be dependent on some other and still be God. If one wants to put forward some other candidate that has necessary being that is fine. Earlier in the thread one suggested the universe, but this suffers from the reification fallacy.

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Dunno 'bout you, but steps #4 and #5 bug me something fierce. They seem to be based on the unstated premise that "contingent beings" must result from the 'action(s)' (or whatever; this whole "causality" thing here seems a little vague) of another being. And this looks suspiciously like the conclusion being its own premise to me, in other words a circular argument...

---

Hi Watchman,

Step 4 is an either or position: insofar as there is a contingent X that X is either caused by another contingent X or a non-contingent X. This does not seem particularly remarkable. Step 5 points out the reductio issues if one posits only contingent Xs which does end up begging the question.

Quote:

---

In any case the premises of the whole thing would seem to be rather incompatible with the basic premise of the atheistic view, which I would sum up roughly as "shit happens" (ie. no cause...

---

Atheism does not require believing things come into being ex nihilo. Such a view would of course undercut the whole of science.

Did you miss the further clause "...as the above [line of reasoning, ie. #1-7] seems to use the term with certain undertones suggesting intentionality..." ? I'm not stupid, thankyouverymuch.

Causality does not require intention, now does it ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Did you miss the further clause "...as the above [line of reasoning, ie. #1-7] seems to use the term with certain undertones suggesting intentionality..." ? I'm not stupid, thankyouverymuch.

Causality does not require intention, now does it ?

---

Sorry, I didn't follow your point. There is no reference to intention in the proof.

Just an observation/clarification:

It seems to me that Pindar and some of his opponents has a different take on God. As I see this discussion some confuse Pindars understanding of God (at least regarding this debate). To me Pindar is refering to God as the First Mover we find in Aristotle, while some thinks he is referring to the christian God.

A first mover is indeed used in some philosophical system to avoid the infinite regression, which does cause a problem, at least in classical metaphysics.

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments form can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but they can go horribly wrong as well. Especially with the Fregean predicate logic you cannot prove validity, only semi-validity which constitutes a major problem. Also the difference on the realist logic and the idealist logic makes two very different perspectives. Just a note on logic and that it isnt bullet proof.

edited: for to form

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments for can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but the can go horribly wrong as well. Especially with the Fregean predicate logic you cannot prove validity, only semi-validity which constitutes a major problem. Also the difference on the realist logic and the idealist logic makes two very different perspectives. Just a note on logic and that it isnt bullet proof.

---

Excellently put Sjakihata. :bow:

And here I was trying to discount logic altogether to respond to that statement. :tongue3:

Quote:

---

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

---

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Sorry, I didn't follow your point. There is no reference to intention in the proof.

---

Don't know about you, but it is very difficult for me to not interpret "non-/contingent being" in this context as what might be termed as actor, ie. an entity that acts with at least a degree of purpose. A subject, the opposite of an object.

I may be misinterpreting something here, but as things stand your 'proof' lights in my head the alarms of a circuitious argument where the existence of a "noncontingent being", in practice a deity, is part of both the premises and the conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

---

This it where it goes wrong. He did indeed prove the existence of a god or a necessary being, and that phrase leads me to think of a first mover, not the christian god. When he says god you immeadiately associate that with the christian god, which I think was not exactly what pindar wanted to prove.
Whether it is or isnt the christian god doesnt per se make a difference, as long as the god in question have the capacity to start the chain so to speak.

As I said earlier, God necessarily implies other qualities than those that are in the necessary being; my point is that, regardless of whatever you want to call it, the necessary being has no religious qualities attached to it. A proof of soccer ball is not proof that the only soccer ball you think of, viz the one you know of in your hand, is the one that was used to win the world cup.


My position, as related to religion in general and God already been stated. It is not worth my finite time to place necessarily poor guesses on what ought to be worshiped and how.

As said, I may be merely misunderstanding parts of the terminology used. Nevertheless I can't shake the feeling the reasoning has its own conclusion at least partially included in its premises.

That aside, if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood - particularly in the context of atheism, which by itself merely denies the existence of the divine. Right ?
:stupido3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Just an observation/clarification:

It seems to me that Pindar and some of his opponents has a different take on God. As I see this discussion some confuse Pindars understanding of God (at least regarding this debate). To me Pindar is refering to God as the First Mover we find in Aristotle, while some thinks he is referring to the christian God.

---

Correct. There is nothing sectarian in my posts. Neither is the proof sectarian. Personal animus for religion in general or Christianity specifically are irrelevant to the particular focus which is theism.

Quote:

---

logic is finding validity (or in most cases the lack of) by proving that the arguments form can have true premises and a false conclusion, not as much the contents of the argument but the form. Logic isnt complete and it suffers great difficulties and it certainly isnt a tool with which to make convincing arguments, they can be true but they can go horribly wrong as well.

---

Logic isn't about truth, but validity. Rationalists assume logic is a vehicle to the true (that truth is rational). Rationalists and non-rationalists cannot dialogue as they have no common ground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

If Pindar indeed refers to the christian God then forget my comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

If he doesn't he should really use less misleading terminology. And not give the reasoning #1-7, above, when asked to demonstrate, quote, simple proof of god, unquote.

---

---

There is nothing misleading in my posts. There are no references to Christendom. The proof is a proof for God. Nothing sectarian is mentioned.

Quote:

---

Don't know about you, but it is very difficult for me to not interpret "non-/contingent being" in this context as what might be termed as actor, ie. an entity that acts with at least a degree of purpose. A subject, the opposite of an object.

---

What is non-contingent may or may not be an agent, such is irrelevant to the proof which revolves around contingent and necessary being.

Quote:

---

I may be misinterpreting something here, but as things stand your 'proof' lights in my head the alarms of a circuitious argument where the existence of a "noncontingent being", in practice a deity, is part of both the premises and the conclusion.

---

There is nothing circular. There are no premises that assert the conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

As I said earlier, God necessarily implies other qualities than those that are in the necessary being...

---

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

Quote:

---

my point is that, regardless of whatever you want to call it, the necessary being has no religious qualities attached to it...My position, as related to religion in general and God already been stated. It is not worth my finite time to place necessarily poor guesses on what ought to be worshiped and how.

---

The proof is not concerned with devotion. Your personal conviction or the lack therefor are not at issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

That aside, if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood -

---

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God. This has been the case from the foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition. This can be seen in Plato forward.

Quote:

---

...particularly in the context of atheism, which by itself merely denies the existence of the divine. Right ?
:stupido3

---

Atheism does deny the existence of God. I have already discussed the logical issue with atheism in both its strong and weak forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Logic isn't about truth, but validity.

---

Yes, I know that. And the only smart way of proving whether a specific logical form is valid, is by proving that the form can have true premises and a false conclusion, then the form is rendered invalid. You do that either by making a table, asserting different values (true or false) to each item (P,Q,R,S etc) or by making a tree, the result is the same. Im not speaking of truth, but true and false within the realm of logic not connected with anything else.

On a side note, logic must be empirical, as a formal system like that cannot be its own content, it must infer from something, the outside world, showed by Gödel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Howdy,

To what end? As previously explained: atheism and agnosticism are epistemic stances concerning an Absolute. The stances alone need no organization. Humanism is a rhetorical focus. It does not require an organization either.

---

no matter, I thought perhaps the previous question was too narrow. don't worry about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinite regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.

---

okay, this argument of yours essentially looks like Thomas Aquinas' first three 'proofs' of God's existence - all involving an infinite regress: I found this following quote which rebutes this argument/s for God to my satisfaction at least.

quote -:
Thomas Aquinas first three proofs that God exists:
1 The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.

2 The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effort has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.

3 The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.

All three of these arguments [and yours too Pindar], rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts.
...
it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.
:- endquote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The Dawkins' piece you posted did not respond to the argument. The Dawkins' piece was a rant that showed no familiarity with philosophical discourse. An argument is either valid or invalid. If you believe the above is invalid demonstrate it. If you cannot then the argument holds.

---

sorry, perhaps I was thinking about a different article or was concentrating on a different argument, I can't remember which right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then you did not understand. This is the stance again: "The strong form (of Atheism) is making a truth claim about reality: there is no god. This is a universal positive assertion about a negative particular which is logically problematic: one cannot prove a negative." If you believe one can prove a negative do so, otherwise the argument holds.

---

one can't prove a negative like this (that it's impossible), but one can argue that it is certainly highly improbable that god exists:

along the lines of the argument that "god must exist because everything looks as though it had been designed" - a favourite of Intelligent Design proponents... the counter argument goes:

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable"

I'm trying to find a good summary Of Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" Gambit arguing this point, but can't find a great one as yet. here is a small wikipedia summary of the argument, though it may not be detailed enough for some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God...inly_is_no_God
apparently this sort of argument is two centuries old and has yet to find a theological rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is the criticism of the weak form: "The weak form makes no claim on the larger universe. It simply states the personal penchant of the subject ..." A belief position that makes no knowledge claim about the larger universe is irrelevant as it is simply self reflective.

---

only fundamentalists take a position and state that is is absolute truth, this is true for both Theism and Atheism. and there are far more theistic Fundamentalists than Atheistic Fundamentalists by far...

This continuous spectrum (with seven representative milestones of "belief/non-belief percentage" in an individual) is useful IMO:

moderate atheism is just as sensible as moderate theism. it's when you start dealing with absolutes that you get the nut-jobs on the fringes.

quote -:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very High probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know weather God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong Atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
:- endquote

I personally am somewhere between 5 and 6. where would you be Pindar (or anyone else)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Whether you are convinced is not my concern. Rationality revolves around logic which is independent of personal opinion.

---

see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Then you should be very aware of the various problems with the view.

---

and theism (in all its various forms) doesn't have problems? i hardly see that as a disincentive from Atheism Agnosticism or Humanism or whatever other non-theistic views one could list. Personally I'm happy where I already am and will very likely have no regrets about being a secular humanist for the rest of my life (and beyond if such a thing is possible, though I doubt there is an afterlife - and I'm okay with not having an afterlife to hope for or fear about).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Humanism and atheism are not the same. The one does not entail the other. Atheism as part of a larger philosophical rubric implodes which is why there are no philosophical belief systems that include it. Atheism as a stand alone epistemic claim faces the problems already noted.

---

I'm not familiar with the detailed philosophical discussions regarding Atheism, I only have my own experiences to go on...

for 20 perhaps 21 years of my life I considered myself an Atheist if anything at all. I was not taught either that thers is a god or that there is none. I was and still am completely free to have my own belief system and make up my own mind. two or three years ago I heard or read about Secular Humanism for the first time (it was never a topic at either home or school or among friends or peers) when I investigated Humanist philosophy I found that it is exactly what I already thought when I defined myself as simply an Atheist. I was unchanged by Humanist/secular humanist philosophy except for a new word or two to define my views more clearly for others.

to put it simply, from my experiences and from others i've met and become friends with in university, Atheism + Secular Ethics = Secular Humanism with very little changing between the two.

I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I have no particular wants. I'm not asking any questions. If the moral issue interests you we can explore that, but first I would rather you are clear on your first claim(s) which are readdressed above.

---

later then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

(Given Claudius resurrected this thread and is the source of the questions I'm waiting to see if he has any counter arguments to the points he challenged. )

---

have at thee! :smash: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

---

but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

This it where it goes wrong. He did indeed prove the existence of a god or a necessary being, and that phrase leads me to think of a first mover, not the christian god. When he says god you immeadiately associate that with the christian god, which I think was not exactly what pindar wanted to prove.
Whether it is or isnt the christian god doesnt per se make a difference, as long as the god in question have the capacity to start the chain so to speak.

---

would the 'first mover' be the Deist God? - that is, quantum physics, astrophysics and various other types of physics (probably excluding metaphysics) personified as a deity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

There is nothing circular. There are no premises that assert the conclusion.

---

there is a conclusion for which there is no evidence, only an argument. the 'first cause' is labelled God when it could just as easily be labeled as something else - like the big bang singularity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something else. To put 'God' as the first cause implies something sentient, probably physical or that interacts with the physical world, and more often than not implies absurd things such as answering prayers, a moral absolute, omnipotence, omniscience, breaking its own universal laws in the form of 'miracles', and often an obsession with sinful behaviour and that humans worship it.

Quote:

---

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

---

We are in agreement then, if we switch our words around.:book: ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

The proof is not concerned with devotion. Your personal conviction or the lack therefor are not at issue.

---

I am not concerned with the proof, it was a stand alone statement related to the thread Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc... it is my own belief system in something that makes sense...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God.

---

Meaning ?

As for the contingent/noncontingent being proof thing, and leaving aside possible dodgy issues with its premises, doesn't it actually boil down to the statement of roughly "for things to exist, the universe must exist, and the universe must have come from something" ? While this would certainly seem to be rather difficult to dispute it would also appear to be a really rather trivial observation - stating the obvious, as it were. And gets us nowhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Yes, I know that.

---

The comment wasn't necessarily directed at you. You have to indulge me. I'm responding to several posters.

Quote:

---

On a side note, logic must be empirical, as a formal system like that cannot be its own content, it must infer from something, the outside world, showed by Gödel.

---

If A then B
A
Therefore B

The above is not empirical yet valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

okay, this argument of yours essentially looks like Thomas Aquinas' first three 'proofs' of God's existence - all involving an infinite regress: I found this following quote which rebutes this argument/s for God to my satisfaction at least.

---

It is much much older than St. Thomas.

Quote:

---

All three of these arguments [and yours too Pindar], rely upon the idea of regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.

---

The argument revolves around necessity and contingency not regress. The reductio issue is problematic because it begs the question. To posit God is contingent is oxymoronic as God by definition is self existent.

Quote:

---

one can't prove a negative like this (that it's impossible), but one can argue that it is certainly highly improbable that god exists..

---

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

Quote:

---

only fundamentalists take a position and state that is is absolute truth, this is true for both Theism and Atheism. and there are far more theistic Fundamentalists than Atheistic Fundamentalists by far...

---

No doubt.

Quote:

---

I personally am somewhere between 5 and 6. where would you be Pindar (or anyone else)?

---

Based on your personal ranking you are agnostic, not atheistic.
I'm a theist.

Quote:

---

and theism (in all its various forms) doesn't have problems?

---

Your focus was atheism/ agnosticism with humanism thrown in.

Quote:

---

I'm not familiar with the detailed philosophical discussions regarding Atheism, I only have my own experiences to go on...

---

That's fine. As I mentioned before, I think you would be better served in that regard if you moved away from internet willowing to support a predisposed view and simply thought over the respective issues, regardless the conclusion. Dogmatism is usually a bad thing regardless the object defended. There are strong counter arguments to theism that could be put forward, but you don't know any of them. What you have referenced thus far have been quite shallow. This isn't your fault, but given the lack of formal study on the issue a more authentic approach would be more profitable I think.

Quote:

---

to put it simply, from my experiences and from others i've met and become friends with in university, Atheism + Secular Ethics = Secular Humanism with very little changing between the two.

I hope that is a satisfactory answer.

---

Secular Humanism doesn't require atheism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Rationalists hold that Logic applies to all truth claims independent of the physical universe. Logic is formal. It is not dependent on testability. Rather, it operates off of validity. Validity means the conclusion cannot not be given the premises. The only reason I put forward the proof at all was because an earlier poster said all strong statements about God are illogical. He was mistaken. I simply gave an example after he asked. The real thrust of the thread is not concerned with proofs for God, but the standing of atheism which is what I was focused on.

Quote:

---

but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already.

---

---

The above doesn't relate to my quoted post.

Quote:

---

would the 'first mover' be the Deist God?

---

If you are referring to historical Deism then no. Conceptually one could make ties.

Quote:

---

that is, quantum physics, astrophysics and various other types of physics (probably excluding metaphysics) personified as a deity?

---

No.

Quote:

---

there is a conclusion for which there is no evidence, only an argument.

---

This is a category mistake. Logic is not science. It is formal. It is theoretical.

Quote:

---

the 'first cause' is labelled God when it could just as easily be labeled as something else - like the big bang singularity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something else.

---

The issue isn't simply assigning labels, but the meaning of the ascription. That is how the point is approached.

Quote:

---

To put 'God' as the first cause implies something sentient...

---

No, it does not. Do not confuse a sectarian understanding with the focus.

(That was a long post!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

God may or may not have other qualities, insofar as necessity is an essential quality and distinct then that faculty alone is sufficient for the purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

We are in agreement then, if we switch our words around.

---

---

I don't follow the second clause.

Quote:

---

I am not concerned with the proof, it was a stand alone statement related to the thread Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc... it is my own belief system in something that makes sense...

---

I see. Previously you were concerned with the proof. If your recent post was simply a testimony then I will leave it as it stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Necessary being has always been an attribute of Deity which is clear from the definition of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Meaning ?

---

---

Meaning this comment: " if we take "necessary being" to be an abstract concept with no divine relations we're hardly talking about "god" as the term is normally used and understood" was ill considered.

Quote:

---

As for the contingent/noncontingent being proof thing, and leaving aside possible dodgy issues with its premises, doesn't it actually boil down to the statement of roughly "for things to exist, the universe must exist...

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

It is much much older than St. Thomas.

---

I won't dispute this, I simply found his first 3 'proofs' as being very similar. I don't know where exactly these arguments originated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The argument revolves around necessity and contingency not regress. The reductio issue is problematic because it begs the question. To posit God is contingent is oxymoronic as God by definition is self existent.

---

the two arguments look extremely similar to me, but I'll bite... what exactly would the difference be between the 'regress version' and the 'necessity and contingency version'? - and how would this make the question and therefore the answer different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

---

this is almost a straw man. you're saying that the only atheists in the world are those fundmentalists (I know of no example of such a person) who claim to know for a fact that God (by any definition) does not exist and never has or will exist.
this is like saying that the average theist - like most people of moderate religious faith are not actually theists but are only agnostics, and that the only real theists are the ones who claim to know the existence of 'God' is an absolute fact.

to go back above to the belief spectrum I posted above (post 290), look at number 6 - De Facto Atheist:
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

strong Atheism is an absurdity just as strong Theism is an absurdity (points 1 and 7 on the spectrum)... the difference is that there are many thousands or perhaps millions of people who would be strong Theists while very few who would be strong Atheists like this. However point 6 - 'De Facto Atheism' is not an absurdity.


I hope it has helped to use that belief spectrum thing, I would encourage people to use it to avoid misunderstandings when talking about different levels of belief and non-belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Based on your personal ranking you are agnostic, not atheistic.
I'm a theist.

---

so you are saying that you put yourself at position number 1: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

because by classifying every position inbetween 1 and 7 as Agnosticism, you are directly saying here ("I'm a theist.") that you see the existence of God as an undeniable 100% fact - essentially this makes you a fundamentalist. I don't say this in an insulting way, and if I've concluded incorrectly I'll apollogise. - but this looks to be exactly what you are saying.

Would you describe points 2 and 3 as Agnosticism because they don't regard the existence of god as absolute 100% fact?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Your focus was atheism/ agnosticism with humanism thrown in.

---

that doesn't answer the question.

anyway - are there serious problems with De Facto Atheism (point 6 - see above) in your view?

I know you see serious problems with point 7, and I mostly agree. this is because of that can't prove a negative thing.

perhaps it would help if I clarify something. to me (and many others), weak Atheism is point 5 and strong Atheism is point 6. point 7 is the extremist view and is often irrelevant to most (perhaps all) Atheists and Agnostics who appreciate Logic and Reason and the Scientific Method and so on, because we can't proove a universal negative this view is largely irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

That's fine. As I mentioned before, I think you would be better served in that regard if you moved away from internet willowing to support a predisposed view and simply thought over the respective issues, regardless the conclusion. Dogmatism is usually a bad thing regardless the object defended. There are strong counter arguments to theism that could be put forward, but you don't know any of them. What you have referenced thus far have been quite shallow. This isn't your fault, but given the lack of formal study on the issue a more authentic approach would be more profitable I think.

---

sure, as I said, I'm not an expert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Secular Humanism doesn't require atheism.

---

agreed. as I said though, this is based on the personal experiences of myself and several friends, it's not an absolute thing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

The above doesn't relate to my quoted post.

---

not direrctly no; it relates to the 'proof' you gave for God's existence based on necessity and contingency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No, it does not. Do not confuse a sectarian understanding with the focus.

---

what is the alternative then? what do you see as the 'first cause'? and why should it be considered first? - and what similarities or differences does it have to a Creationist God or Intelligent Designer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claudius the God

I won't dispute this, I simply found his first 3 'proofs' as being very similar. I don't know where exactly these arguments originated.

---

The base argument comes from Plato, though Aristotle's formulation is more well known.

Quote:

---

the two arguments look extremely similar to me, but I'll bite... what exactly would the difference be between the 'regress version' and the 'necessity and contingency version'? - and how would this make the question and therefore the answer different?

---

You do not understand. It is not a question of version, but the focal point of the argument. The reductio is simply a consequence of a single line of inquiry. If one posits a contingent X and then is asked for the source of that X then either the source is another contingent X or something non-contingent. A causality rubric of simple contingency: as in X, X-1, X-2, X-3 etc. begs the question as there is no point within the sequence that does not already posit the very thing in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Atheism is not "God probably doesn't exist". It is a denial of God's existence: there is no God (-X). An improbability schema on the other hand is a skepticism. Skepticism means one doubts a thing. This is distinct from denial of a thing. In admitting one can't prove a negative you have admitted strong atheism is an absurdity.

Quote:

---

this is almost a straw man. you're saying that the only atheists in the world are those fundmentalists (I know of no example of such a person) who claim to know for a fact that God (by any definition) does not exist and never has or will exist.

---

---

No, it is not a straw man, it is the correct understanding of the issue. Atheism and theism in logical terms are knowledge claims. The words themselves indicate as much. Moreover, an improbability schema is a simple skepticism. I previously explained how atheism can be divided into strong and weak forms. The weak form qualifies itself as a belief of the subject. A knowledge claim that is simply self-reflective can be dismissed as irrelevant. The problem with the multi-point breakdown you put forward (aside from the fundamentalist label which is typically a negative label applied to the religious zealot) is the focus is the individual's penchant as opposed to the logic of the knowledge claim as such. Belief, regardless the passion, is still self-reflective and does not speak to the larger universe.

Quote:

---

strong Atheism is an absurdity just as strong Theism is an absurdity...

---

No, it is not. The simple proof I gave is valid. It is not an absurdity. It was because of presumptive comments like this I gave the proof originally.

Quote:

---

so you are saying that you put yourself at position number 1: Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

---

I don't think the measuring rod of conviction you put forward has any value when it comes to epistemology. I said I'm a theist. The reasons are many. I gave one simple proof that stands independent of probability.

Quote:

---

that doesn't answer the question.

---

Perhaps not, but it is loyal to your thread's focus. The problems a theism faces are different.

Quote:

---

anyway - are there serious problems with De Facto Atheism (point 6 - see above) in your view?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

not direrctly no; it relates to the 'proof' you gave for God's existence based on necessity and contingency.

---

This comment: "but is it not also illogical to base the argument on a foregone conclusion before consulting the evidence? it's certainly not rational...

also see above the spectrum of belief and non-belief if you haven't already." doesn't relate to the proof either. Using evidentiary language for logic is to commit a category mistake. To charge a foregone conclusion is erroneous as the premises are all clearly laid out with no concluding assumption implied or indicated.

Quote:

---

what is the alternative then? what do you see as the 'first cause'? and why should it be considered first? - and what similarities or differences does it have to a Creationist God or Intelligent Designer?

---

The first cause would be God. It is considered first by definition (both of necessary being and godhood). The difference between a first cause simplicitur and a creative/designing god is the activity of the being in question. This is again distinct from any attending worship.

Pindar, what do you think of this quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Pindar, what do you think of this quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

---

Hi Kojiro,

I think it demonstrates neither an understanding of the topic or any sophistication of thought. In short, it is a vacuous comment.