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

Hi Laure,

GBL, you use a lot of big words, but your argument seems to be just a more sophisticated version of "if there's no God, then who makes the rain?"

Sorry about the language, I'll try to keep big words to a minimum or explain them as I go.

The real argument is really quite simple.

Atheists claim to have knowledge. They also claim that some sort of atheistic cosmology is true (see post 0 of this thread for details on the two possible atheistic cosmologies). Here is the rub, no atheistic cosmology has the necessary elements to get to knowledge. In fact, the elements they do contain ultimately deny the existence of knowledge. So, atheists claim to have something that atheism denies exists.

This is why I continue asking people to show how they go from, "nothing exists but matter in motion (cosmological naturalism)," to "something exists that is independent of matter in motion." So, allow me to ask you: How do you get from the elements of any atheistic cosmology (cosmology is your theory of what exists) to knowledge?

You will notice that my argument (at this point) has nothing to do with God, but has everything to do with the complete insufficiency of all atheistic cosmologies to get to knowledge

Atheists, for the most part are rational people, except when it comes to dealing with the contradiction between their the existence of knowledge and their worldview. You see, this is not a question of the atheists just needing smarter people to figure out the puzzle. It is a matter of their cosmology deliberately excluding all elements needed to get to knowledge. So, if any atheistic cosmology is true, there can be no such thing as knowledge.

This is what the you must understand: It is not as if I am asking atheists to complete a jigsaw puzzle in which they have all the pieces, and they just can’t seem to figure out what the picture looks like. The situation is that they only has 5 pieces, but this is a 500 piece puzzle, and the pieces they do have are from a different puzzle. The point is, there is no way for the atheist to complete the puzzle, it is impossible. In the same way the atheist doesn’t have the elements in his cosmology to get him to knowledge or perception or value or causality, etc… No matter how he tries to arrange the elements in his cosmology, he doesn’t have the elements needed to get him to those attributes and the elements he does have deny the existence of those attributes. He is always going to fall short.

I hope this helps!

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 21

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 8:16pm

Ed,

How amusing!

Brady,

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

I just don't see where you get this from. I think you're simply saying that one can't acquire knowledge without having free will. Is that what you're saying?

Also, I don't know why you keep throwing in cosmological naturalism, but as I recall, Rand explains that Objectvism doesn't engage in cosmology, as cosmology is science and not philosophy. So to that, your argument fails as it is non-responsive to Objectivism.

Next, it's not up to me to define "free will." It's up to you to define your own terms, then it's up to us critiquers to figure out if you've got it right. I suggest you pick Objectivism's definition of free will, as Objectivism is what you're trying to defeat here. I don't have my Objectivist literature in front of me, so I'm afraid I can't help you with the definition. Nevertheless, you should probably know it before you claim it fails.

Finally, the more important point of my last post was the last paragraph before the signature. Here it is again:

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.

So let me rephrase and reiterate what I hinted at earlier in this post. You should probably read up on Objectivism before you think you've refuted it.

Jordan

Post 22

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 9:24pm

Jordan wrote:

Brady,

Since neither can show how they get to knowledge from cosmological naturalism, they both have the same problem.
I just don't see where you get this from. I think you're simply saying that one can't acquire knowledge without having free will. Is that what you're saying?
I think you will feel the weight of the argument once you actually attempt to answer the problem: How do you get from the elements of any atheistic cosmology to knowledge? I hope you realize that although there may be some connection between knowledge to free will, they are not the same thing. The point is you really can't talk about free will until you show how you can have knowledge.

This is atheism's blatant contradiction: atheists claim to have knowledge, yet the elements of atheism deny the existence of knowledge. This is what I asked you in my last post: 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?"

I am still waiting for an answer.

Also, I don't know why you keep throwing in cosmological naturalism, but as I recall, Rand explains that Objectvism doesn't engage in cosmology, as cosmology is science and not philosophy. So to that, your argument fails as it is non-responsive to Objectivism.

Cosmology is both part of science and also philosophy. Cosmology is one of the two branches of metaphysics.

Jordan wrote:

Finally, the more important point of my last post was the last paragraph before the signature. Here it is again:

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.
So let me rephrase and reiterate what I hinted at earlier in this post. You should probably read up on Objectivism before you think you've refuted it.

Regarding accidentalism, all cosmologies either asserts intentionalism or unintentionalism (i.e. accidentalism). Intentionalism says that there is intent in all of nature, and thus an intender. Accidentalism says there is no intender and therefore no intent. Which do you want to go with? It seems that if any form of atheism is true, there is no intender and therefore no intent. The implications of this one point alone is devastating to your position.

Next, it's not up to me to define "free will." It's up to you to define your own terms, then it's up to us critiquers to figure out if you've got it right. I suggest you pick Objectivism's definition of free will, as Objectivism is what you're trying to defeat here. I don't have my Objectivist literature in front of me, so I'm afraid I can't help you with the definition. Nevertheless, you should probably know it before you claim it fails.

Well if you don't know how objectivists or compatibilists define "free will," why are you presenting it as a solution? Just another red herring, huh? I actually do know the different ways that determinists, indeterminists and compatibilists define "free will." that is why I gave you the opportunity to provide the definition you wanted to use. It doesn't matter to me which compatabilist or objectivist definition you use. In case you didn't get it, I gave you a couple of hints to the problems with all their definitions:

1) They all claim to be knowledge and thus conclusions that are independent of deterministic necessity.

2) They all deny independence from deterministic necessity. (Notice the blatant contradiction between 1 and 2)

3) They all have problems with ambiguity because of the blatant contradiction.

4) They all just assume things like free thought and choice. NONE OF THEM explain how you get from the basic propositions of atheism to those attributes. Convenient, don't you think?

As I asked above, why don't you help them out and give the explanation they have so stupidly missed?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 23

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 10:49pm

Brady,

The point is you really can't talk about free will until you show how you can have knowledge.
....
This is atheism's blatant contradiction: atheists claim to have knowledge, yet the elements of atheism deny the existence of knowledge.

Says you. A conclusion is not an argument. Your question --

"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?'"

-- is also not an argument. And as I have said before, atheism, much less Objectivism, doesn't entail "necessaily determined effects of matter in motion." You have no idea what you're trying to refute.

Cosmology is both part of science and also philosophy. Cosmology is one of the two branches of metaphysics.

This reveals to me that you don't understand Objectivism. And your bit that either everything is intended or nothing is is a false alternative.

Well if you don't know how objectivists or compatibilists define "free will," why are you presenting it as a solution?

If you don't know how Objectivists define "free will," then how can you claim that their view fails? Baffles the mind. Let's be clear. I'm not not presenting you a solution. No affirmative defenses here. I'm just showing how your position is inadequate.

1) They all claim to be knowledge and thus conclusions that are independent of deterministic necessity.

This sentence makes no sense. Do you mean that all atheists think knowledge defies determinism? If so, that's patently wrong.

2) They all deny independence from deterministic necessity. (Notice the blatant contradiction between 1 and 2)

Wha? If you mean that atheists, much less many Objectivists, think they are bound by determinism, then that is also patently wrong. Plenty of atheists (and I've known some Objectivists here, too) do not accept the traditional, universal, physical determinism.

4) They all just assume things like free thought and choice. NONE OF THEM explain how you get from the basic propositions of atheism to those attributes.

No they don't, but you wouldn't know. You haven't read them.

As I asked above, why don't you help them out and give the explanation they have so stupidly missed?

I'm not going to help you fill in the gaps to your own argument. It's up to you to figure out what you want to attack. It's like you're waving a gun around at this dark little forum, and you want me to turn the light on for you. Not gonna to do it. I'm happy to describe the many ways you're missing your mark, but it's your job to shoot.

Back to work for me tomorrow. Can't dedicate much more time to this I'm afraid. Please forgive me if I've come off short with you.

Jordan

Post 24

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 5:25am

If you mean that atheists, much less many Objectivists, think they are bound by determinism, then that is also patently wrong. Plenty of atheists (and I've known some Objectivists here, too) do not accept the traditional, universal, physical determinism.

Jordan, you are arguing like a champion. And by the way, sign me up as one of those "Objectivists ... [who] do not accept the traditional, universal, physical determinism."

;-)

Bravo, Jordan.

Ed

Post 25

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:01am

It always amazes me that the false alternative keeps being thrown out - that if it isn't by design [eg., by 'outside' influence], it must be by accident.

[btw, Ed - ye starting to look like one of Sergio Leone's guys [snort] ]

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/02, 7:03am)

Post 26

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 10:16am

Brady,

I'm not clear on your argument. Objectivism does not say that there is nothing but matter in motion. It recognizes mind or consciousness. But a mind or a consciousness is a faculty of a living organism and therefore depends on a material body in order to exist. Your view, apparently, is that consciousness can exist independently of a material body, because that is what God is. Am I correct? If so, what evidence do you have for such a view?

I would say that it is impossible for a consciousness to exist outside of a material body, because consciousness needs a material means of awareness. It needs a brain and sensory organs in order to function. In order to perceive reality, one must do so in a particular form -- visually, auditorially, tactilely, etc. -- with the form determined by the nature of one's brain and sensory apparatus. A non-material consciousness -- a consciousness without any physical means of awareness -- is a contradiction in terms.

- Bill

Post 27

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 11:08am

Wow, all the misrepresentation, removing points from context, avoiding questions and obfuscating the issues, one would think you are doing this all on purpose. Perhaps because you can't answer the basic question?

Jordan wrote:

Brady,

The point is you really can't talk about free will until you show how you can have knowledge.
....
This is atheism's blatant contradiction: atheists claim to have knowledge, yet the elements of atheism deny the existence of knowledge.
Says you. A conclusion is not an argument.

It should be easy for you to prove my assertion wrong! Just show how the basic propositions of ANY atheistic cosmology get you to knowledge. I have asked you this several times and you just continue to avoid the answer. I have look at the basic propositions of all atheistic cosmologies and I can find no way to get from those elements to knowledge. In fact, those elements lead logically to a denial of knowledge.

You are an atheist, you hold to the basic propositions of naturalism, you also assert you have knowledge. How did you get from point A (the elements of cosmological naturalism) to point B (knowledge)? Please show me how you did it. I really want to know. You can end this whole discussion and prove my argument completely wrong, right now. Just answer the question. Just show the chain of argumentation that gets you from A to B.

If Jordan doesn't have time, why doesn't Ed do it or perhaps Robert Malcom can do it?

Your question --

"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?'"
-- is also not an argument.

Of course it is not an argument, it is a question. You do know that arguments are not questions and questions are not arguments, don't you? Yes, questions can be used argumentively, but that is quite different than what we are talking about. This is a real question for you or anyone else on this board.

And as I have said before, atheism, much less Objectivism, doesn't entail "necessaily determined effects of matter in motion." You have no idea what you're trying to refute

This is what I mean when I say that you are misrepresenting, removing points from context, avoiding questions and obfuscating the issues. I never said that atheism or objectivism entailed "necessarily determined effects of matter in motion." In fact, my point is that most atheists and all objectivists deny that knowledge is nothing more than the necessarily determined effects of matter in motion. I did say that atheism and objectivism entails the basic propositions of cosmological naturalism (i.e. all that exists is matter in motion). Do you deny that?

My question was (and allow me to quote it in full, since in your quote, you removed it from it context in order to obfuscate the issue and avoid answering the question): 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?"

Do you have an answer or not? Let me guess.... I am guessing NO!

Let's stop here for now. I will be happy to pick up with the rest of your previous post after you answer the above questions or at least admit that you can't.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 28

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 11:10am

So, Robert Malcom, what is the third option between intentional and unintentional?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 29

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 11:40am

Zorro wrote:

Just show how the basic propositions of ANY atheistic cosmology get you to knowledge. I have asked you this several times and you just continue to avoid the answer. I have look at the basic propositions of all atheistic cosmologies and I can find no way to get from those elements to knowledge.

Firstly, knowledge doesn't begin with propositions. It begins with perception of reality.

Secondly, if knowledge is impossible to an atheist, as a child were you completely ignorant until you became a theist? And how did you come to be a theist while knowing nothing?

Post 30

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 1:48pm

Hi Bill,

Thanks for your post.

You bring up a lot of issues. If you don't mind, for now I would like to deal with just the main issue.

I'm not clear on your argument. Objectivism does not say that there is nothing but matter in motion. It recognizes mind or consciousness

Yes, I have read several Objectivists on this and you have accurately presented the position.

The point is that no naturalistic cosmology has the elements needed to get to knowledge. I hesitate talking about mind and consciousness, because many atheists believe those are nothing more than mater in motion. I do not think you believe that and I know it is not the opinion of other Objectivists that I have read.

I understand that Objectivism recognizes knowledge. My point is that Objectivism accepts the existence of knowledge in spite of its atheistic cosmological elements and not because of those elements. In other words, knowledge is thrown in to the Objectivists philosophy Ad Hoc. Objectivists say that they have immediate experience of it, therefore it exists. But my point is, if their cosmology is true, then it doesn't exist. This is the contradiction. They say it exists, their cosmology denies it exists.

So, either their cosmology is right and their experience is wrong, or their experience is right and their cosmology is wrong.

Regards,

Brady

Post 31

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 1:53pm

Merlin,

See my post to Laure (post 20) and my last post to Bill (post 30). If those do not clarify things for you let me know and I will try to clear things up.

Regards,

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 32

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 6:57pm

Zorro wrote:

See my post to Laure (post 20) and my last post to Bill (post 30). If those do not clarify things for you let me know and I will try to clear things up.

Not at all. Try answering my questions, and maybe we will make some progress.

Post 33

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 7:46pm

To ensure I understand, the basic argument is this (well, wait, let me just cut and paste and I think I'll get it):

Saith the Horseman:

1) They all claim to be knowledge and thus conclusions that are independent of deterministic necessity.

Why are all claims of knowledge "necessarily" conclusions independent of determinism? Is the definition of knowledge outside the purview of determinism or something? Can one only know something with free will? Why? I've never heard of this.

I think I see what the first-year philosophy student is driving at: because we don't believe in consciousness independent of the brain or body, therefore consciousness must be a function of "matter in motion"...(now, this is where I get lost, forgive me, O wise one!)....and, because "matter in motion" must have had an antecedent cause, therefore there must be a god, meaning that the atheist cosmology does not allow for knowledge. (I think...)

Anywhoodles, this is going to blow your mind, Horseman! The proposition "existence exists" comes with an unspoken corollary: existence exists, and has always existed! Therefore, the term "antecedent cause" is metaphysically useless, because the chain of causes prior to this very moment extend indefinitely! Which means there is no such thing as the "First Cause". The universe has always existed and will always exist because the universe is the totality of existence.

Also, simply because the brain produces consciousness as "matter in motion" doesn't mean that the brain had to have some designer or antecedent cause. Is it not entirely possible that a function of brain matter is to produce knowledge independently? That the brain matter evolved to form independent knowledge?

Let me know.

Post 34

Monday, April 2, 2007 - 11:37pm

Brady,

You wrote,

The point is that no naturalistic cosmology has the elements needed to get to knowledge.

Why? Naturalistic cosmology doesn't require a denial of human consciousness, which enables us to achieve knowledge. Consciousness is a fact of reality; it is part of nature, so how is it inconsistent with naturalistic cosmology?

- Bill

Post 35

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 9:15am

To all Objectivists involved in this debate as well as "Objectivism and Atheism" and so that you don't spend your energies in a useless way: Did you know that what Brady is presenting is but a rehash of what has been discussed and finished already on another Webpage? Should you not be aware of this (and the first comments entered seem to point to it), please see http://www.objectivethought.com/debates.html.

This will be my only message in this relation. I think that Objectivists have better, finer and more important things to do than to rescue a religious person from errors he should really recognize by himself.

Post 36

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 10:29am

Merlin wrote:

Secondly, if knowledge is impossible to an atheist, as a child were you completely ignorant until you became a theist? And how did you come to be a theist while knowing nothing?

Let me try this again. I never said that knowledge is impossible for atheists or people who are not cosmological theists. I simply pointed out that there is a contradiction between their experience of knowledge and the necessary implications of ANY atheistic cosmology. Our experience of knowledge has an element of independence to it. This element is denied by ALL atheistic cosmologies. SO, if our experience is right, all atheistic cosmologies are false. If any atheistic cosmology is true, then our experience is false.

I cover this in great detail in post 0 at this link.

This is atheism's blatant contradiction.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 37

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 10:40am

Steven wrote:

Why are all claims of knowledge "necessarily" conclusions independent of determinism? Is the definition of knowledge outside the purview of determinism or something? Can one only know something with free will? Why? I've never heard of this.

I think I see what the first-year philosophy student is driving at: because we don't believe in consciousness independent of the brain or body, therefore consciousness must be a function of "matter in motion"...(now, this is where I get lost, forgive me, O wise one!)....and, because "matter in motion" must have had an antecedent cause, therefore there must be a god, meaning that the atheist cosmology does not allow for knowledge. (I think...)

I have cover this in my first essay in this forum, let me link it for you. It is post 0 at this link

Anywhoodles, this is going to blow your mind, Horseman! The proposition "existence exists" comes with an unspoken corollary: existence exists, and has always existed! Therefore, the term "antecedent cause" is metaphysically useless, because the chain of causes prior to this very moment extend indefinitely! Which means there is no such thing as the "First Cause". The universe has always existed and will always exist because the universe is the totality of existence.

This is a different topic. I would be happy to discuss this with you at another time. If you are interested in my thoughts on the topic, here is a link to my paper titled "The Existence of God." It deals with this topic.

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 38

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 10:44am

Bill wrote:

Why? Naturalistic cosmology doesn't require a denial of human consciousness, which enables us to achieve knowledge. Consciousness is a fact of reality; it is part of nature, so how is it inconsistent with naturalistic cosmology?

Let me ask you something Bill. Does what you call "consciousness" have an element of independence from deterministic necessity?

G. Brady Lenardos

Post 39

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 - 11:10am