Atheist Logic 103


Courage to Doubt by Stephen J. Hurlin

The Christian Argument: Chapter 4 page 53.

Before we begin, I would like to clarify what is meant by certain words:
i) What does “God” mean? Any discussion on the existence of God has to begin with a definition of what is meant by the word “God”. Whenever I refer to “God”, I am referring to an actual entity, a physical Being, and personal God as found in religions like Christianity, i.e. all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good Creator.
ii) What does “atheist” mean? An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, For the purpose of this discussion, I would like to make a further distinction between an “implicit” and “explicit” atheist. An “implicit” atheist is someone who has never really given much thought to a belief in God and is atheist by implication. A newborn baby is a good example of an implicit atheist, because it has not had the chance, or made the effort, to make a rational choice based on research. An “explicit” atheist is a person who has studied all available information and has made an educated decision to reject theism in all its forms. An “explicit” atheist is absolutely, one hundred percent sure God does not exist. There is no “niggling about” or agnosticism, in an explicit atheist’s thinking. When I use the word “atheist” in this chapter I am referring to an explicit atheist.

Man’s Need for God: Chapter 5 page 60.

The argument that something cannot exist if it is not made by something else is self-contradictory. Who “made” or “created” God then? And who or what made that creator and so forth back into eternity. This is called the argument of infinite regression.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Atheist Logic 103

  1. derp derp derp says:

    lololol “courage to doubt” that looks like a self-help book lololol look at the cover I AM FREE AND IN THE MEADOWS SMELLING FLOWERS lololol oh wait i have to drive my wife to work in our 1986 chrysler lebaron brb lol

  2. inhocsignovinces says:

    The idea is not that something cannot exist if it is not made but that certain types of things cannot exist without being made, such as man, while other things are revealed by logic to exist necessarily in order for all other things to exist. This is the great philosophical and logical principle of rational thinking that was held by most of the greatest thinkers. The second part is exactly what you are saying by claiming that the idea that all things must necessarily be made is false. By saying that you are implying that not all things must be so and that you believe something must exist which has existed always and which is the foundation of all other existing things as we know them. This is simple logic and rational thiking , no? It is also the basis for philosphy and religion, both being involved and interrelated at a meeting point in the nature and mind of mankind.

    • I agree 100% inhocsignovinces. The “non-straw-man argument from infinite regression” from the picture was actually said with a a little tongue in cheek, a little sarcastic. People either wilfully or ignorantly fail to distinguish between contingent and necessary being IMO. I am undecided as to which category (wilful or ignorant) the author of the books falls into. The same can be said of Dennett’s “everything has a cause” critique (see the “victory” entry below) or Dawkins’ treatment of the teleological argument (See “logic” entry below). Are they they wilfully or ignorantly knocking down straw men? Perhaps it is a mixture of both?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s