The illogic of Atheism

Yeah this is what I wanted to get into by referencing that Feser post. It seems reality's basement, for the atheist, must either be what some philosophers refer to as "indeterminism" or even in some cases "hyperchaos" OR a set of brute facts about Nature that cannot be explained in and of themselves. They need not be materialist, I think immaterialists like the atheist Raymond Tallis or Gregg Rosenberg would also think the latter.

OTOH, Bernardo has said (in the past at least, not sure where he is now on this) that the Transcendental Mind isn't self-conscious, just awareness. Is that a God, or a metaphysical lynchpin then? From what I am getting out of Neo-Platonism the One is potentially self-conscious but this consciousness, once awakened, is then the Intellect. But we too are of the One, as much as the Universal Intellect (which we are also a part of), so then who/what exactly is worshiped? (Elaine Pagel's, in her book about the Gnostics, has suggested it is this very point of our sharing of Divinity that made religion about orthodoxies rather than mysticism. The Church (as a symbolic stand in for all religions in a sense?) arguably couldn't stomach Gnosticism/Hermeticism b/c it defies systems of control.)

The other challenge for me is the aspects of God that I think are most amenable to being proved don't necessary suggest a personal God. A Prime Mover must, at least by Aquinas' definition, be Changeless. A Universal Intellect is holding time transcendent logical/mathematical Truths in Its divinity. Yet such a Being, outside of our conception of Time, seems so removed that worshiping It would be like worshiping the Natural Laws?

At the same time would we find comfort in a God that is as lost as we are, the kind Franco Ferrucci describes in his beautiful work God: An Autobiography? ->


There's even a later part where God screams out an apology upon looking at the violent chaos of the animal world...At the same time I recall in conversations about god during my Catholic School days and it felt like most didn't care so much about parting seas or voices in the thunder...one person even said "I just want someone to say, 'It's okay, I'm here, I love you' during my darkest hours"...

So what's the reconciliation between a Being in Time, whose compassion can reach us as individuals, and the God that we can express some metaphysical confidence in as the force that facilitates all Change and establishes the Platonic Forms of Logic & Mathematics? I've no good solution...Whitehead and his successors in process theology have some ideas about this, but digging into Whitehead is hard at least for me.

The Wikipedia entry at the least offers some clarification ->

Jeepers. If philosophers had devoted as much time speculating around the nature of the tooth fairy, I’d have way more to work with

Jeepers. If philosophers had devoted as much time speculating around the nature of the tooth fairy, I’d have way more to work with

Jeepers. If philosophers had devoted as much time speculating around the nature of the tooth fairy, I’d have way more to work with

Lol Wonderfully expressed. Funny how Sci comprehends the most complex philosophies yet is stump by this simple thing.

Lol Wonderfully expressed. Funny how Sci comprehends the most complex philosophies yet is stump by this simple thing.

Explain it to me then.

@malf

Is your position (the existence of God) that of an agnostic or are you just absolutely certain there isn't anything (God does not, cannot exist) ? If it's the latter, seeing as we haven't really got the slightest conception of what we are referring to ('God') how can you deny his/her/it's possible existence ?

Not getting involved, I'm just curious. A no reply I'll take to mean your position is the latter, if that makes it easier for you.

Explain it to me then.

Philosophers spend much time thinking and explaining defending why all of the various philosophies and sub varieties to make sense; if they decided to devote the same amount of time to the reality of the tooth fairy they could make a case why this fairy is real; it would give Malf more things to pick apart.

Philosophers spend much time thinking and explaining defending why all of the various philosophies and sub varieties make sense and if they decided to devote the same amount of time to the reality of the tooth fairy they could make a case why this fairy is real and it would give Malf more things to pick apart.

But my first link to Feser's post about the illogical nature of the atheist claim (posted here for your ease of access) goes into the very difference between proofs of God as the underlying, supportive power sustaining/allowing Creation vs. a mere entity in creation like the tooth fairy.

Perhaps you can explain why you see the proofs I mention - God as Prime Mover and God as Universal Intellect -as they might apply to an entity in creation like the tooth fairy?

Though before that, given your past failures at explaining the arguments you critique you might explain what you think the proofs are actually saying as a test of good faith.

@malf

Is your position (the existence of God) that of an agnostic or are you just absolutely certain there isn't anything (God does not, cannot exist) ? If it's the latter, seeing as we haven't really got the slightest conception of what we are referring to ('God') how can you deny his/her/it's possible existence ?

Not getting involved, I'm just curious. A no reply I'll take to mean your position is the latter, if that makes it easier for you.

I get the impression, as Sci speculated earlier, that many atheists take less of a philosophical position than a kind of rebellious one. Something like the way I object to royalty - what makes a king or queen deserve my respect and obedience? With atheists and God it seems to be the issue of worship - something I entirely understand but philosophically it falls short of legitimacy. You can't make a case against God from irreverence - that's just a reaction. The mocking, sneering, childish (tooth-fairy) attacks are to be expected with that kind of reaction. An honest atheist would, upon reflection, have to conclude that what they really are is agnostic and that is precisely what Dawkins did with the tooth fairy - he admits he is agnostic but uses a childish device to show his level of agnosticism.

But my first link to Feser's post about the illogical nature of the atheist claim (posted here for your ease of access) goes into the very difference between proofs of God as the underlying, supportive power sustaining/allowing Creation vs. a mere entity in creation like the tooth fairy.

Perhaps you can explain why you see the proofs I mention - God as Prime Mover and God as Universal Intellect -as they might apply to an entity in creation like the tooth fairy?

Though before that, given your past failures at explaining the arguments you critique you might explain what you think the proofs are actually saying as a test of good faith

Look, you wanted to know Malf's point which I explained. Furthermore, it was explained to all who read this thread by Malf, Linda, me in various ways. I don't see any reason to rehash why believing in God is equivalent  to believing in the tooth fairy. You don't get it now and I don't think you'll get it ever.

Lol Wonderfully expressed. Funny how Sci comprehends the most complex philosophies yet is stump by this simple thing.

You take a lot of pride in not taking philosophy seriously. It's pretty alarming, and revealing