Since Atheism is False, some theism is true, So, God must exist.

To date it has been shown that, if any atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false. We have also shown that it is impossible to deny the existence of knowledge. Therefore, we must conclude that all forms of atheism are false.

We can also take another step. Atheism is the antithesis of Theism. In other words, one position says some sort of God does exist and the other position says that no God or gods exist. Both positions cannot be true, but one is necessarily true. This is called in logic an excluded middle.

Up until now, we have been using the term “Theism” in a general sense to mean the existence of some sort of God. But it is true that out of the remaining seven theistic cosmologies, most suffer the same fate as the atheistic cosmologies, i.e. most lack the needed elements to get to knowledge. However, one of them does have the needed elements. That one is a subset of general theism, and it is also called theism. It is cosmological theism. This is the cosmology that is the basis of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Cosmological theism states that God created a world intended to be known and special creatures with the ability to know it. It also says that this God is transcendent to nature (outside of nature) and immanent to nature (acts within nature). This may also be referred to as the Mosaic cosmology (the cosmology from Moses). This cosmology has everything needed to get us to knowledge. Do any other Theistic cosmologies have the needed elements to get to knowledge? That is the subject of another debate. For our purposes, we must show that there is no atheistic cosmology that fills the bill and that there is at least one theistic cosmology that does. This we have done.

It has been said by some that any argument is an argument for the existence of God. Given the implications of Negationism and Naturism, I don’t know how we can come to any other conclusion. For any counter argument to have meaning we must first get rid of the inherent contradiction found in atheism and then find a way for the words themselves to have distinct meanings. As it stands, the arguer, by giving a counter argument, implies that he has examined and knows the argument, the facts and is able to come to an independent conclusion; a conclusion that is not forced by any material factors. The atheistic cosmologies will not allow for that; they do not have the elements that allow for that. So, it turns out that any argument against the existence of God is self-stultifying.

Our final propositions are as follows:

If knowledge exists, God necessarily exists.

Since atheism is false, so is Objectivism.

Post 1

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 9:20am

I think it appropriate that this post showed up on April Fool's Day ...

;-)

Ed

Post 2

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 9:30am

As always, thanks for sharing, Ed. I look forward to your counter argument, or was that it?

Brady

Post 3

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 9:54am

Wow, your a genius! You have done something that no one has been able to do throughout history! To prove that God exists! Not.

As it stands, the arguer, by giving a counter argument, implies that he has examined and knows the argument, the facts and is able to come to an independent conclusion; a conclusion that is not forced by any material factors. The atheistic cosmologies will not allow for that; they do not have the elements that allow for that.

The requirement that ideas not be "forced" (which I translate to determined) by material factors is not necessary nor necessarily true. Hence the conclusion is not necessarily true. In fact, its clearly not necessarily true. Machines that learn, come to their own conclusions, and use the information for themselves!

Go home.

Post 4

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:01am

Brady:

To date it has been shown that, if any atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false.

Huh? Says you! Where do you think you demonstrated these miraculous arguments? And at least give a synopsis of them.

And you totally ignored my post 7 in the other thread in the "Objectivism -> atheism...." thread." Given the newbie-turned-zealot style your threads having taken, you're coming off as rather dishonest to me.

Jordan

Post 5

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:09am

I think it appropriate that this post showed up on April Fool's Day ...

yes - concure - it definitely was a fool's posting in any case....

Post 6

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:09am

This cosmology has everything needed to get us to knowledge.

I thought Santa Clause was the one that did that? Or maybe it was the great Flying Spaghetti Monster? Really, that's ridiculous to say that a "God" created the world with the ability for things to be known and things that can know. Even if so, what created the "God"? The "God" always existed? Well why couldn't Reality always have existed? That seems much more simple. And Reality always had the ability to have knowable things...

Lame. Enough.

Post 7

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:26am

I haven't had the time recently to get as heavily involved in RoR as I'd like, but WTF? Is it now oozing theists at the seams?

'The Invisible Pink Unicorn told me Objectivism was false - QED.'

Post 8

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 12:13pm

Dean wrote:

Wow, your a genius! You have done something that no one has been able to do throughout history! To prove that God exists! Not.

Do you have a real counter argument or is this all we are going to get from you?

The requirement that ideas not be "forced" (which I translate to determined) by material factors is not necessary nor necessarily true. Hence the conclusion is not necessarily true. In fact, its clearly not necessarily true. Machines that learn, come to their own conclusions, and use the information for themselves!

The whole point is that machines don't learn. Aren't machines just matter in motion? Can they act independent of antecedent causes? Think before you respond.

To say that machines "learn" is an anthropomorphism. Given naturalistic atheism, you don't "learn" either and you cannot act independent of antecedent causes.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 9

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 12:50pm

Jordan wrote:

Brady:

To date it has been shown that, if any atheistic cosmology is true, then there is no knowledge. But if knowledge exists, then all atheistic cosmologies are false.
Huh? Says you! Where do you think you demonstrated these miraculous arguments? And at least give a synopsis of them.

See the originating post is the Objectivism -> atheism thread.

And you totally ignored my post 7 in the other thread in the "Objectivism -> atheism...." thread." Given the newbie-turned-zealot style your threads having taken, you're coming off as rather dishonest to me.

The problem is that there are no real arguments in that post, just opinion.

So let me address them now:

A. While it might not be Objectivist, see compatibilism.

Since you admit that Objectivists reject this, why are we even discussing it? But....

Invoking compatibilism does not get you off the hook when it comes to “knowledge.” Our thoughts either have an element of independence to them or they don’t. This is an excluded middle, when it comes to logic. If all our thoughts are necessarily determined, we can’t “know” anything. We simply react as antecedent causes force us to; just as the rock is forced to roll down the hill in a specific path, caused by antecedent causes. Other terms are also destroyed; terms like “belief,” “opinion,” and “assent.” All of these terms have an element of independence built into them and when this element is removed, they all lose their meaning. Under compatibilism, all of our “opinions,” like all of our thoughts are determined. All of our beliefs are determined. Everything we assent to, we assent to because it is necessarily determined by the antecedent causes of our mechanistic universe. You see, in normal thinking “opinion” necessarily contains an element of subjectivism, but under naturalistic atheism every thought is necessarily determined, and there really is no such thing as the subjective. “Subjective” then also becomes a meaningless term.

What of terms like, “ignorance” and “error?” If we are determined in what we think, then the ignorant man is necessarily determined to be ignorant and the scientist who makes the grave error must think that way and can do no other. These terms also become meaningless.

Does “compatibilism,” mean that Jordan freely and independently concluded that on some level free will and determinism are compatible, or does he mean that he was determined by antecedent causes to say they are compatible? The former demands independence, the latter rejects it. Which is it? If Jordan asserts that he freely concluded that on some level free will and determinism are compatible, his argument fails, because he admits independence. If his assertion means that he was determined by antecedent causes to say they are compatible, he admits it is merely a forced assertion, and my argument is successful.

B. Order in the universe (e.g., predictability of planets' locations), as well as moving matter, does not necessitate determinism

As I pointed out before there is no argument here. And please remember that your cosmology denies order in the universe. In naturalistic atheism, everything is what it is by accident.

C. Determined events don't necessitate the universality of determinism.

Once again, no argument, just assumption.

If you would like to present an actual argument using these last two assumptions, I will be happy to address them.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 10

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 1:00pm

Dean wrote:

Really, that's ridiculous to say that a "God" created the world with the ability for things to be known and things that can know.

Well, that is the core of the theistic cosmology. It also allows for knowledge, something naturalism does not. In fact no atheistic cosmology allows for knowledge. The fact that you don't like cosmological theism is not an argument against it.

Even if so, what created the "God"? The "God" always existed? Well why couldn't Reality always have existed? That seems much more simple. And Reality always had the ability to have knowable things...

Well, this is different argument dealing with a different subject. I tried to discuss this with you in another thread, but you never responded. I understand that you would like to change the subject from the argument that is the subject of this thread to something else. I will be more than happy to return to the LCA after this topic is finished.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 11

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 1:05pm

Aaron wrote:

'The Invisible Pink Unicorn told me Objectivism was false - QED.'

I thought Objectivists were all about reason and rational thought? Is that suppose to be a rational counter argument to my position? The difference between you and me is I actually offered a real argument that you can not counter.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 12

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 1:47pm

GBL, you don't know what you are talking about.

Post 13

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 2:11pm

Dean wrote:

GBL, you don't know what you are talking about.

Would you like to be a little more specific and perhaps back up your assertion with a real argument?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 14

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 2:23pm

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 2:35pm

Dean wrote:

No

Very well. Have a nice day.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 16

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 3:23pm

Brady,

Saying you've demonstrated this or that is no substitute for doing so. You have failed to demonstrate the premises you think you have. And my points were not opinion. They highlighted just a handful of the pitfalls your argument succumbs to.

To delve into them a bit, I don't know whether Objectivism accepts compatibilism. It might. I know some Objectivists accept it, as do many non-Objectivist atheists. In any case, it's an obstacle to your view. But you don't seem to understand compatibilism because you say terms like "belief," "opinion," and "assent," as well as other "subjective" terms are meaningless if we live in a strictly determined world. Compatibilists reject this view. Read up on compatibilism. Try Daniel Dennett (atheist, not Objectivist, FYI.)

B. Order in the universe (e.g., predictability of planets' locations), as well as moving matter, does not necessitate determinism
As I pointed out before there is no argument here. And please remember that your cosmology denies order in the universe. In naturalistic atheism, everything is what it is by accident.

This is nonsense. There's no indication that order and accident are mutually exclusive. The atheist's universe just excludes god-directed order. And just because there's order or moving matter doesn't necessarily mean there's determinism. Maybe there's predictability, but not determinism. One can accept (and many people have accepted) indeterminacy, randomness, and non-antecedent causation and have accepted moving matter and order in the universe. Just because you can figure out where planets are does not necessarily mean the world is a bunch of effects from antecedent causes.

C. Determined events don't necessitate the universality of determinism.
Once again, no argument, just assumption.

You're the one offering assumptions! You need to prove that a natural universe is not just determined in part but also in whole. Pointing out that cups of coffee don't come out as cups of sulfuric acid doesn't tell you whether the rest of the world, from a quantum flux to a human mind, is determined.

See, what you goofed up on was making all these assumptions about what a natural world would be. You've assumed it to be accidental, determined, without meaningful freedom-oriented terms (e.g., opinion, assent, etc.). Not only have you assumed all this of a natural world; you've assumed that Objectivism accepts this version of the natural world.

Jordan

P.S. Oh, and you also ignored another post of mine (post 33 in Objectivism and Atheism) that mentions that many Objectivists think the universe includes non-physicals. To the extent that's an "Objectivist" position, it refutes your natural-universe-is-just-moving-matter premise.

Post 17

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 4:30pm

I think it appropriate that Jordan's "# of total posts" (when he posted this post in the thread), was 666 ...

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/01, 5:23pm)

Post 18

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 5:23pm

Jordan wrote:

To delve into them a bit, I don't know whether Objectivism accepts compatibilism. It might. I know some Objectivists accept it, as do many non-Objectivist atheists. In any case, it's an obstacle to your view. But you don't seem to understand compatibilism because you say terms like "belief," "opinion," and "assent," as well as other "subjective" terms are meaningless if we live in a strictly determined world. Compatibilists reject this view. Read up on compatibilism. Try Daniel Dennett (atheist, not Objectivist, FYI.)

Well, thank you, but I am quite familiar with compatibilism. Let's see how much you know. Most compatibilists rely on a certain amount of ambiguity in their definition of "free will" to maintain their position. For our conversation, how do you want to define "free will?"

However you define it you must agree that atheists who assert determinism are saying that they know something about reality. In the same way the atheists who assert compatibilism are also saying that they know something about reality.

Since neither can show how they get to knowledge from cosmological naturalism, they both have the same problem.

Why don't you help them out? Given the propositions of cosmological naturalism (i.e. all that exists is matter in motion), how do you get to a definition of knowledge that is anything other than, "all knowledge is nothing more than the necessarily determined effects of matter in motion?"

Let's stop here. We can return to the rest of your post after we are done with this.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 19

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 5:33pm