The Faith of Atheism

emprworm · February 4, 2003

Atheistic faith essay. An independent post regarding the logic of existence.

Three possible explanations for the origin of the universe. Three options and only three. One must be true, the others false.

#1) The universe began to exist and was caused

#2) The universe self-caused (or effected) itself from nothing

#3) The universe has always existed infinitely in the past.

we will take this topic from the very very basic level of logic.

To anything that exist there is a mutually exclusive proposition that is true:

#1. It's existence has a beginning (temporal).

#2. It's existence does not have a beginning (eternal).

We can look at your chair, the universe, your big toe- ANYTHING, and the

same MUST hold true: Either it began to exist, or it did not. Pure and simple. This is the fundamental law of logic. This is irrefutable. Either there is supernatural existence or there is not. Either Theism is true, or it is false. One or the other MUST be true. Either there is a god(s) or there is not. Either a described object exists, or it does not. This is the law of non-contradiction. To deny this law...to even speculate that this law could "one day" be broken is to abandon all reason and grasp the futile wind of irrational chaos.

Now, back to the simple, irrefutable argument:

Either the universe began to exist, or it did not. PERIOD.

You cannot in any rational way say that the universe simultaneously began to exist and has always existed. It is one or the other. Either it had a beginning, or it did not. End - of - sentence!

If the universe did not begin to exist, then it has always existed. This is option #3.

Now, what if the universe began to exist?

Again, same principle of logic and now we also use principles of science: For anything that begins to exist, its existence is either caused or uncaused. PERIOD. This is mutual exclusive proposition. One must be true and the other FALSE. There is no middle ground.

If X begins to exist, then we KNOW that X was either caused or uncaused.

Therefore, for anything that exists, we know the following:

It began or it did not.

If it began then it was caused or it was not.

Thus, the three (AND ONLY THREE!!!) Options for the origins of the universe.

For any atheist to deny these three options and hold to a mystical fourth option, not only does said atheist have a serious burden of logical proof, but said atheist is also religious to the levels of zen buddhism- excercising great faith in his/her athiestic position- even to the point where an abandonment of reason becomes favorable over all known laws of science and all principles of logic.

Inoculator9 · February 4, 2003

You'd be surprised how many atheists actually hold some Buddhist beliefs to be true, lol.

emprworm · February 4, 2003

several years ago, innoculator i would be surprised. i used to think that an atheist would never hold to such a wild faith based position as to think there exists a fourth option for a things existence. yet now, after reading and hearing so many wild assumptions (like the multiverse theory by atheist Peter Atkins of Oxford who says that infinite amounts of universii "pop" into existence out of the void from nothing) I now realize that no idea- no matter how wild and supernatural - is beyond the mental acceptance of an atheist- except, of course, for the "Xian" God.

quoudam72 · February 4, 2003

[making a comment about previous post]

Well that makes sense Buddhist do not believe in a god.

Acriku · February 4, 2003

Haha emprworm, and you think you understand the universe? You understand it as well as your toe, or the chair you are sitting on? This is where you err, you try to make sense out of something you do not understand. And such is your popular arrogance.

nemafakei · February 4, 2003

"Atheistic faith essay"

This is pretty much my logical conclusion.

Let us consider time.

I'll give you a monemt to consider it.

It occurs only within the universe, since it is a dimension defined by being a measure of the universe itself.

Therefore, there is no time outside the universe, no length, breadth, or depth.

Therefore it is not just a case of there being noting outside of the universe, but more of there being no 'outside of the universe' for there to be anything, or even nothing, in.

We know that the universe is of a certain age. We can work out what it was like milliseconds after the big bang. But we do not know what it was at the point of the big bang.

I put it to you that there was no point of the big bang. I'm not just being really depressed, I mean that there was no time, no length, and so on, at the imaginary point we consider to be the start of the universe - a point we can call time=0.

There is a theoretical point at wchich it began - t=0, but there was no pre-beginning, no t=-1.

Do not ask for direct proof... I have no device which can give you it.

I'll continue tomorrowish on why there is matter and so on.

Inoculator9 · February 4, 2003

Buddhism isn't really a religion in the common sense. Buddhism is a description of the nature of the universe, as a science. A Buddhist seeking enlightenment could be compared to a scientist seeking his next discovery (whatever it might be). There are many Buddhist practices that could be easily accepted by Atheists without having to renounce their title as an Atheist. And IMO, there is an infinite amount of options that we have not yet been able to think of. Humans are to narrow to possibly suppose that they have sorted out the universe into three possibilities. It would be stupid, limiting, and arrogant.

emprworm · February 4, 2003

Nema, I agree with everything you just said (with one small exception). you provided a logical demonstration of why time does not exist outside our universe. The exception is that my definition of time is a bit different than yours. If we use your definition of time: "a dimension defined by being a measure of the universe itself." then you are 100% correct. I have no quarrel.

I define time as "A measurement of change".

Yet this has nothing to do with the three options for the universe. I am assuming that your argument is an argument as to why option #1 is irrational? If that is true, then your argument does not succeed in the job. All your argument shows is that it is impossible for the universe to have been caused naturally. Yet what is your argument as to why option #2 is rational? Since anything natural is defined as being within the natural universe, therefore to postulate that the universe was caused fully excludes the possibility that such a cause was natural. If option #1 is true, then it MUST be supernatural causation.

I fully agree, an option #1 postulating natural causation is an irrational proposition.

"

quoudam72 · February 4, 2003

Interesting you could say that Inoc9 because Buddhist do believe that some religious ideas have their origin in fear namely the god concept. Althought this is a rare time I have heard someone else equate Buddhism to science (I consider it to mathematical logic in a way).

Acriku · February 5, 2003

It would definitely be a spiritual journey, without the supernatural.

emprworm · February 5, 2003

a spiritual journey indeed....that is the path of atheism. (as well as any other world-view)

quoudam72 · February 5, 2003

The spiritual journey is the esoteric essence of the human being trying to achieve a transcendence from the limitations of this being.

emprworm · February 5, 2003

actually, i'd like to keep this thread on the topic of atheism and its faith as i outnlined in my argument. i wish not to talk about buddhism, etc. I have pointed out empirically using fundamental logic why only three possible origins for the universe exist- and this is undeniable as philosophers have known this for centuries. this is nothing new here I am writing. it is empirical, simple logic. any atheist that professes a fourth option is excercising great faith, for logic itself cannot attest to one.

Acriku · February 5, 2003

You are having problems with the word faith...

Anyways, it has been known for centuries because no one could think of any other choice, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Your arrogance blinds me, but with the sunglasses of humor I can stare right at it and laugh at it. This is also talked about in another thread, hmm...

Anathema · February 5, 2003

I wouldn't go as far as saying that atheists have faith in any of those options. To be blunt, we believe certain theories because we can't think of anything better. Human mind is limited.

emprworm · February 5, 2003

Anyways, it has been known for centuries because no one could think of any other choice, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Your arrogance blinds me, but with the sunglasses of humor I can stare right at it and laugh at it. This is also talked about in another thread, hmm...

in the face of logic, Acriku denies it, and holds to great faith. I am glad you admit your faith. Thats all I wanted. Thanks. :)

Acriku · February 5, 2003

In the face of your logic, I stand. I am merely just open to other possibilities, never should one close their minds to something, never allowing anything else to slip in. When you talk about the universe, that is something we have very little knowledge about, and using logic to deduce certain things may be right or wrong, but never the end of discussion.

emprworm · February 5, 2003

Dodge.

Unless you are willing to have dialogue with me over this subject, you will need to begin to engage it.

STATEMENT: To anything that exists, it either had a beginning, or it did not.

true or false?

Acriku · February 5, 2003

Posting twice in two different threads? ???

emprworm · February 5, 2003

lol cuz you are dodging twice in two different threads.

quoudam72 · February 5, 2003

actually, i'd like to keep this thread on the topic of atheism and its faith as i outnlined in my argument. i wish not to talk about buddhism, etc. I have pointed out empirically using fundamental logic why only three possible origins for the universe exist- and this is undeniable as philosophers have known this for centuries. this is nothing new here I am writing. it is empirical, simple logic. any atheist that professes a fourth option is excercising great faith, for logic itself cannot attest to one.

I was not trying to change the subject.

Acriku · February 5, 2003

There was nothing to dodge from your post previous to mine, so I posted what I felt at that time.

emprworm · February 5, 2003

how do you argue someone who denies logic?

doesn't arguing assume logic?

anyone have any ideas?

Acriku · February 5, 2003

The real question is how do you argue with someone who keeps on putting things in your mouth that tips the argument another way?

quoudam72 · February 5, 2003

doesn't arguing assume logic?
anyone have any ideas?

[generalized statement]

I would say because one argues does not mean that their arguement is logical. Logic can be described as a method of argumentation.

Sign In

The Faith of Atheism

Recommended Posts

emprworm

Inoculator9

emprworm

quoudam72

Acriku

nemafakei

Inoculator9

emprworm

quoudam72

Acriku

emprworm

quoudam72

emprworm

Acriku

Anathema

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

quoudam72

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

quoudam72

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information