What's an easy way to demonstrate that Atheism is false?

Mr McCabe, your very first "if-then" is false.
I suppose you're hinting at cosmological theories asserted by evolutionary theorists: that everything in the universe emerged without a designer. The real matter is that 'that' is an evolutionary cosmology theory - not an 'Atheist' theory. Just because a sizable number of atheists believe in evolution doesn't mean they all are evolutionists, naturalists, etcetera. I have atheist friends who believe in psychic power, ghosts and the likes, but have a lack of belief in god(s), and adamantly avert from any evolutionistic ideas.

So you just attempted to shoot down atheism, but you were actually aiming your gun at atheists who believe in the theory of evolution or other naturalistic ideas.

To clarify matters:
Please, do not confuse atheism to be a, belief-system, school or movement. You can have a political movement of atheist campaigning against social oppression unto them, or some form of 'evangelical' objective, but those are not endevours/doctrines/ideologies intrinsically associated with being an atheist. Atheism is technically only a component of one's worldview (held by religious/non-religious; naturalists/spiritualists persons) in which one has A LACK OF BELIEF in god(s). A LACK OF BELIEF IN gods is not the same as a BELIEF IN that there are no gods. To assert "I belief that gods don't exist" is as irrational as "I believe in gods" - you can't believe either way for there is not a shred of evidence; no verifying and/or falsifying method, thus no rational reason to do so.

Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism

This is the definition of Atheism I was using. Are there others? Sure. But this is the one I was using, and it is not wrong.

If I claim that there is no God, then (among other things) I am claiming that there is no intelligent intention coordinating all things. If this is what I am claiming, then is it consistent for me to also claim that I am not in any way the result of unintended, uncoordinated and random accidents? If I am in any way the result of unintended, uncoordinated, random accidents, then so is everything that is produced by me, including my conclusions.

The existence or nonexistence of ghosts and goblins is completely irrelevant.

God bless.

Rather, anyone claiming to be an atheist (having a lack of belief in gods) must elaborate on whether they are naturalists, evolutionists, atheistic buddhists, etcetera.

For example: Dawkins asserts to be an atheist, then before we can argue with him, we must know what belief system or school he propagates. He will probably say he believes in evolution (not atheism). Then we know that he's an evolutionist, then we can proceed.

..ONLY THEN can you demonstrate against the particular belief system (say....naturalism) the questioner wants you to easily prove false.

And I must add, apart from the incongruent leaps you make from random/chaotic cosmology to random thinking, your 'demonstration' fails to disprove evolutionary theory and only demonstrates a lack in understanding of the inner workings of the real phenomenon that is Natural Selection, which is logical and systematic.

Do you not see the absurd implications of asserting, "absolutely no god exists"? Individual persons might say that, but not evolutionary theory, or science.

That definition is wrong. Just because it comes from a dictionary doesn't mean it's correct. To determine what atheism (,christianity, or anything for that matter) is, it is wiser to seek answers not from respectible dictionaries but from respectible proponents thereof.

As an actual atheist once said: "If atheism is a [doctrine], then 'OFF' is a TV channel."


...there are atheists, for example, who are proponents of a self initiating universe which self-sustains and self-regulates -- an idea from physics and non-related forms of godless spiritualism. Whether this theory is true or false, this proves that just because one is an atheist(your definition or mine), doesn't necessarily mean that one believes in a chaotic world or that we all evolved. So please re-answer the inquirer_

Theseus,

"There are atheists, for example, who are proponents of a self initiating universe which self-sustains and self-regulates..."

If the universe does these things WITHOUT intending to, then the processes are unintentional, uncoordinated, and accidental, and everything that is produced or even influenced by these processes is also unintentional, uncoordinated, and accidental. This form of Atheism is not in any way exempt from the argument above.

If the claim is that the universe does so WITH intention, then it is no longer Atheism that is being asserted.

If we define Atheists to be "those who lack a belief in God", then, either there is a God or there isn't, and if there isn't, these Atheists' conclusions (that they have no belief in God) are randomly generated, a concept they themselves reject. Therefore, for the Atheist of this kind to be consistent with his own views, he must acknowledge that there is a God. Ergo, no Atheist believes in Atheism.

I'm not really sure I understand why this argument is somehow rendered invalid in your mind if there are ghosts, or if the universe unintentionally started itself, or if we define atheists to be a group of people who lack a belief in God. None of these things have any bearing on this argument whatsoever as far as I can tell.

But what about leprechauns? Or space aliens? Or reincarnation? Or what if the Atheist thinks there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll? Surely my argument is invalid for Atheists who think JFK was not shot by a lone gunman?

Sigh.

I still disagree with you, Mr mcCabe. I am too busy with work to expound as to why though - give me till the following thursday.

Okay before you kids hurt yourself any further.

If you want to talk about a definition you need to clarify what definition you are talking about....

When one looks at the etymology of the word ἄθεος for instance it is plainly clear that it actually means godless or without god. There is however with any word a history. The term has developed and therefore the two of you need to outline much better.

So far the two of you have been running like wild dogs over nothing. I will reflect on a few points briefly:

1) “Please, do not confuse atheism to be a, belief-system, school or movement. –

If you were actually aware of history or the historical development of philosophy you would know it was a school and it is a movement. “

2) “Atheism is technically only a component of one's worldview” -

Ontological arguments are bad….stay away from “is” unless you want to stay laughable at best. (see above for the reason of why you cannot say so easily of what is)

3) “ you can't believe either way for there is not a shred of evidence; no verifying and/or falsifying method, thus no rational reason to do so.”

Okay sir, for this point you toke it a bit far. You can believe actually. You added a modus which you think you can add from a logical deduction. Pre-conceived ideas are bad. Please refer to Vienna circle. If you do not know what that is, I am a sad panda. With the debate in Vienna circle we got the point that God cannot be proved, but you cannot falsify him. Before you ever make any points about what there is and is not…be sure that you have actually read up on the history.

We aren’t special with the arguments and thoughts we bring up here. Most of these debates have been done in much more detail and in a much higher fashion if I may add.

4) "There are atheists, for example, who are proponents of a self initiating universe which self-sustains and self-regulates..." It is too broad and too unimportant. If you want to make a statement in this manner then say. There are some people who find the teleological argument as enough prove from William Paley.
5) Your arguments rest on very poor foundations. See Kant for the limits of reason…

Extension on point 5 - Kritik der reinen Vernunft . If your German sucks go grab an English copy.

This commits the genetic fallacy, a "a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."

Not so. If something is dependent upon random processes then that which is dependent upon it is also dependent upon random processes.

That which is dependent upon random processes is randomly determined.

This means, as explained above, that if Atheism is true, knowledge is impossible.

The only logical fallacy here is Atheism.

God bless.

Even if my belief that I was on a computer now was randomly determined, it wouldn't make it any less true. And the belief isn't exactly random. It's based on the fact that certain sensory input is being given. Given a coherintist epistemology, this belief fits in with other beliefs and so is justified. Given foundationalism, this belief is built upon others, and so is justified. Even if all this is determined or random, it seems I still have a true justified belief. Knowledge is a true justified belief. So even on atheism, knowledge is possible.

You've still fallen prey to the genetic fallacy

Given a coherentist epistemology investigating Atheism nothing "makes sense" at all. Under Atheism there is no such thing as "coherent". The meaning of "coherent" is random, its application is random, and our understanding of the concept of "coherence" can never be "right" or "wrong" since both of those words can also only be applied randomly. Since there can be no actual "right" or "wrong", nothing can be "coherent" at all.

Given foundationalism nothing is justified, for ultimately nothing justifiably justifies.

Coherent thought requires a coherent thinker behind it all.

God bless.

McCabe has condensed all of evolutionary theory into one little epigram. Humans were by no means created randomly. After an extensively long and systematic process of natural selection, only now are our brains formed enough to process logic and store knowledge. The problem is that the question asks for any easy way to demonstrate that atheism false, which is impossible, because the truth is that this world is possible with or without a God.

However, even if knowledge meant that God exists, by no means does that justify worshipping Him, nor prove that He still exists, nor does it mean that there aren't multiple/infinite gods and this God is not in fact a very minor one.

Here's an equivalent statement made by swapping in quantum mechanics:

If quantum mechanics is right, every particle interaction is purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents.

If Our Conclusions are ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents, then Our Conclusions are entirely random and undependable.

No person believes that his own conclusions are random and undependable, so no person really believes in quantum mechanics.

What we have seen here is that if quantum mechanics is true, there is no possibility of knowledge. However, knowledge is possible; therefore quantum mechanics is certainly not true.

The problem comes in premise 2: Though each quantum events is random, they sum to non-random macro events in the same way that you can't predict a single coin flip, but you can predict that if you do it long enough, about half will be heads.

Likewise, natural selection can give us reliable cognition, if not true "aboutness"

Bilbo,

If quantum mechanics demands unintentional, unplanned, uncoordinated, and purely random accidents on any scale, then it is without question a false picture of reality.

Your argument via the coin toss analogy assumes that the flip of a coin is random and accidental. It isn't. For anything to be NOT random and NOT accidental, none of its prior causes could be random or accidental... otherwise the result would be a random accident. If any coin toss (ever) were random and accidental, then everything affected by said coin toss (like your argument, which is based on your observation of coin tosses) would be a random accident.

Random coin tosses, should they actually exist, would have to be contained to a purely random and accidental reality that has no interaction whatsoever with our own, nor with the God who made us.

Of course, in such a reality, there would be no person to toss such a coin.

"Your argument via the coin toss analogy assumes that the flip of a coin is random and accidental. "

This is not the what was stated. It was said: "...they sum to non-random macro events in the same way that you can't predict a single coin flip".

A coin flip is entirely deterministic, but is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, so a small difference in speed, or angle of the coin flip can alter the outcome strongly. With a coin flip under normal conditions (like we have when deciding sides at the start of a game), we don't know the speed, angle, air speed, humidity, elasticity of the floor etc. well enough to predict the outcome of a coin toss, so it behaves like an ideal random event.

The rest of your argument is therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

I'm not trying to pick sides, I just want to question your logic so I can understand it better.

If we have physical laws that tell us the world around us is predictable (such as a ball moving from point a to point b) does that not mean that nothing really is 'random'?

Also, are you saying that the first cause was 'purely random, uncoordinated and undependable' therefore, all that succeeds this cause is also 'purely random, uncoordinated and undependable'?

Sorry if my questions sound stupid.

Niels,

Since absolutely nothing is random, how is it that you claim to know how something that is random would act?

Paul,

"Are you saying that the first cause was 'purely random, uncoordinated and undependable' therefore, all that succeeds this cause is also 'purely random, uncoordinated and undependable'?"

Ultimately, if an atheist holds to a singular first cause, then the answer to your question is yes.

If an atheist holds to multiple first causes, then his multiple first causes are not intentionally coordinated (as they have no intent), so all that comes from their intersection is also unintentional (accidental) and uncoordinated (random).

If an atheist rejects first causes in favor of infinite regress, there remains no overarching intent, so wherever the unintentional manifests itself, the result is an accident, and all that it spawns is accidental.

Let me know if this is not clear.

Thanks for the answer.

I think you indirectly answered my second question in the reply to Niels. Though, I want to expand on it a bit more, I'm still confused about it.

You're saying that in atheism there is no authority to guide nature because there is no deity, but wouldn't an atheist say that physical laws/absolutes is why "Everything" can be coordinated without a deity? Unless, you hold the position that these absolutes are dependent on a deity.

I know I was making assumptions about the deity in my above statement, but that is what you are implying, is it not? Am I correct in saying that, in a nutshell, your argument is, "In atheism there is no authority to guide nature because there is no deity"?

Thanks.

Sorry, I meant you answered my FIRST original question in the reply to Niels, not my second one.

Timothy,

Could you give your definition of knowledge in this context?

The working definition would entail justified, true belief. However, it is the justification part that is at the heart of the argument, so any definition of knowledge that requires justification of the belief would work in the argument: if there is no reason behind anything, then our conclusions are without reason.

Without a self-justified Justifier, nothing is ultimately justified.
http://www.amazon.com/Van-Tils-Apologetic-Greg-Bahnsen/dp/0875520987

Where your argument falls down is that it assumes that knowledge is objective, and absolute.

Strictly speaking, knowledge is merely the sum of the mind's transduction of the outside world from its' sensory organs; sight, touch, etc.

Because of this, knowledge is the result of what the mind is being 'told', in a manner of speaking. Therefore, knowledge is inherently subjective. It is not the product of reality, but merely the product of an approximation of reality.

If knowledge is subjective, it follows that the coherence or dependability of a person's knowledge cannot be demonstrated. This renders a person's opinion of how coherent their knowledge is irrelevant, as their knowledge is based on an abstraction of reality. While a person may believe that their knowledge is dependable and logical, it does not entail that it is. Moreover, there is no way of truly verifying whether knowledge is coherent or not.

Even knowledge considered axiomatic is not definitely true, or objective in nature. For example, Descartes concluded that a malevolent being could conceivably be deceiving him into believing that knowledge is coherent (axiomatic knowledge, such as A=A and B=/=A) when it incoherent. Descartes believed that the only truly axiomatic principle was the existence of oneself, Cogito Ergo Sum, but even this statement commits a logical fallacy by pre-supposing the existence of the self (Søren Kierkegaard's critique).

From the evidence available, it cannot be concluded that knowledge is dependable or rational. Your belief that it is is a suspension of this evidence, which can also be called faith. This returns to the fundamental difference between Theists and Atheist; the latter depends only on evidence, whereas the former incorporates faith into their beliefs.

In short, a person's opinion that their knowledge is rational does not entail that it is in fact rational, and because no formal of knowledge is truly rational, it cannot be argued that Everything is not the product of uncoordinated actions or happenings.

I'm essentially agreeing with you, but then elaborating on the argument and furthering it to the conclusion that an Atheist's belief of the rationality of his knowledge is irrelevant.

M,

"Therefore, knowledge is inherently subjective."

If that isn't a self-defeating statement, I don't know what is. Or, to put it another way, how do you know that?

"If knowledge is subjective, it follows that the coherence or dependability of a person's knowledge cannot be demonstrated."

How do you know that?

"There is no way of truly verifying whether knowledge is coherent or not."

How do you know that?

"Even knowledge considered axiomatic is not definitely true, or objective in nature"

Another self-defeating statement. How do you objectively know that you can't objectively know?

"From the evidence available, it cannot be concluded that knowledge is dependable or rational."

Is this, your stated conclusion that you cannot draw this conclusion, dependable or rational?

"In short, a person's opinion that their knowledge is rational does not entail that it is in fact rational."

How do you know that?

[continued]

[continued]

"I'm essentially agreeing with you."

Of course you are, but you wouldn't know that you are if Atheism were true, as you yourself acknowledge. You do know that you are agreeing with me (you've stated as much), therefore Atheism is false.

God bless.

I know it because that's what my senses tell my brain. I know it because it is seemingly coherent. I know it because Queen Mab whispers such things in my ear while I sleep. I never claimed knowledge doesn't exist, merely that, with the evidence I now have, I can conclude that no truly objective knowledge exists. This conclusion in itself is subjective. For example, I could 'wake up' into a reality where this is a ridiculous dream and there exists knowledge which is indisputably objective, but in this reality I have not found evidence of such knowledge, and the onus is not on me to prove that nothing can be known to be true, rather, it is your responsibility to present to me an indisputable piece of objective, true knowledge to support your argument (For the same reason theists don't ask atheist to prove God doesn't exist; it is illogical to demand proof of a negative).

The last bit, I think you're making a logical leap that if knowledge where subjective, it would be identifiable as incoherent, which is not that case (that is, unless you can prove otherwise).

"I think you're making a logical leap..."

How do you know that you think I am making a logical leap?

If atheism is true, you have no reason to trust that your senses are accurate. I'm not simply saying that it's possible they may not be -- I'm saying that you have no reason whatsoever to believe that there is any possibility that they ever could be. Under atheism, none of us would have any reason for claiming even a 1% possibility that our conclusions might even maybe be accurate. We wouldn't have a reason for anything, because there would be no reason for anything. If there is no reason... well, there is no reason.

Of course, we only say things like "if there is no reason then there is no reason" and we only recognize such statements as certainly true because there is a self-justified Justifier, one whose very name declares the Law of Identity: "I am that I am". Without a self-justified Justifier, there can be no justification for anything.

"purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents"
Except for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_theories_and_laws#List_of_notable_theories
and the fact that if something appears random you are not taking enough factors into account
and the fact that the universe is deterministic.

Yeah, I agree with the point you're making, if a self justifier is not axoimatically true then there is not justification for any knowledge. But that has been my exact point. There is no objective justification for any knowledge. That doesn't mean I can't be of the opinion that my knowledge is rational, merely that that opinion is unjustified. For all I know it could be completely incoherent. Your theory supposes that it must be coherent, and that knowledge is objective, which it might not be, as all knowledge that I have been confronted with has, to this point, been subjective.

As I've said before, subjective is not necessarily recognisable as being irrational, which is what you're assuming with your "How do you know that you think I am making a logical leap?".

M,

"There is no objective justification for any knowledge."

How do you know that?

As long as you are claiming that it isn't possible to know anything, your claims are self-defeating. This means that as long as you are claiming atheism, your claims are self-defeating, which is MY whole point.

"How do you know that?"

I know that subjectively, I don't know that objectively. This is in no way self-defeating or in contradiction with my claim that objective knowledge has not been made evident.

This answer is wrong. Even if everything ultimately was random, it does not follow that there cannot be local non-random knowledge.

This is the same fallacy as quoting thermodynamics to assail, say, evolution. The fallacious argument concludes something like this: Since everything tends towards disorder, then we can't have complexity.

This is a fallacy because local complexity is possible at the expense of global entropy. (e.g. Dissipative system

I didn't read some of the latter posts, so excuse me if I am repeating myself, but so were all of you.

Wouldn't much of this come down to a problem with labels? For instance, to call someone an atheist, they must assert that there is no God. Does that mean the atheist must then directly fall under the "random processes beget random processes ad infinitum" theory? Would a simple "I don't know the answer to that, but I'm looking" not suffice? Or should atheists change their title to "scientists"? And scientists be called "Subject Matter Expert Scientists"? I'm guessing that most atheists base their "beliefs" off of the scientific method. And since science can't definitively explain the very beginning, we must all give a shrug and a determined "But I'm still looking!" The reason we don't hold to the "god" theory is the lack of evidence for it. Right?

Curious,

If I claim that there is no God, then (among other things) I am claiming that there is no intelligent intention coordinating all things. If this is what I am claiming, then is it consistent for me to also claim that I am not in any way the result of unintended, uncoordinated and random accidents? If I am in any way the result of unintended, uncoordinated, random accidents, then so is everything that is produced by me, including my conclusions.

Labels don't matter: a belief that there is no god necessitates this conclusion.

Mr McCabe, I'd like to say the points you put forward are otherwise good if you consider your first point to be true.
However a disbelief in God does not mean a belief in just "chance", it ignores the very reason for Atheism (at least for me), the lack of proof.
I don't believe in God because I don't think there is enough evidence but similarly I don't think there's enough evidence for the idea of it just being chance or random accidents.
Atheists like myself pretty much abstain from suggesting any reason for absolute creation. I've always considered it completely arrogant for anyone to claim to know how the universe started. Of course if someone was to say "I believe the universe started by random acts" then your argument is a pretty good one to use considering.

TrulyBritish,

If there is no God, is it still possible for absolutely everything to be intended?