• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The self-defeating nature of atheism

Joined
Jun 19, 2023
Messages
375
Reaction score
378
Points
63
Age
46
Location
Canada
Faith
Reformed
Marital status
Married
Politics
Classical Liberal
The self-referential incoherence of an atheistic worldview as demonstrated by a reductio ad absurdum.

(1) If metaphysical naturalism is true, then all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes (e.g., physics, biology, chemistry, etc.).

(2) If all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes, then no belief is rationally inferred.

(3) Therefore, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.

(4) Metaphysical naturalism is true.

(5) Therefore, no belief is rationally inferred—including the belief that metaphysical naturalism is true.
 
I don't think it's a good idea to try to equate atheism with metaphysical naturalism. Atheism in itself isn't really a worldview, it's just a belief that no god exists. (A lot of atheists would go a step farther and say that it's simply a lack of belief in gods.) This doesn't rule out the supernatural. There are atheist Buddhists and Taoists.

But as far as metaphysical naturalism goes, yeah, I wouldn't argue with that part of your argument.
 
First, I want to clarify that I did not intend to equate atheism with metaphysical naturalism. While the title might suggest a connection, it was just a clickbait title. Upon reading the post, it immediately becomes evident that my target is metaphysical naturalism, which I referred to as "an atheistic worldview" (because it is).

Additionally, having spent the first three decades of my life as an atheist and a devoted student of philosophy, I fully understand that atheism is not a worldview in itself. Also, I acknowledge the existence of atheist Buddhists—my father, an atheist, is an adherent of Theravada Buddhism.
 
I believe Darwin asked the wrong question: origin of species

Should have been what is the origin of life?

Please answer
Thanks
 
I believe Darwin asked the wrong question: origin of species

Should have been what is the origin of life?

Please answer
Thanks
Neither would have been a good question for him. The question should be: Look at all these morphologic patterns, could there be a natural explanation for them?

He didn't have any evidence for the origin of life to work with anyway, so that one would have been a non-starter.
 
I believe Darwin asked the wrong question (origin of species). Should have been, "What is the origin of life?"

Please answer. Thanks.

Judging by something Charles Darwin wrote in a personal letter to Joseph Hooker (ca. 1863), he did not pursue that question because he understood the serious limitations of 19th century science. In his opinion, trying to grapple with the origin of life was pointless. "One might as well think of the origin of matter," Mr. Darwin said—another question which 19th century science couldn't tackle. That doesn't mean he dismissed the idea of life having a natural origin, but he recognized that the science of his day couldn't address that question. It sufficed for him to say that life "appeared by some wholly unknown process."

In that same letter, however, Mr. Darwin revealed that his father, Erasmus, had speculated about a primordial soup, "some warm little pond" in which "all the conditions for the first production of a living organism" could have been present, leading to the chemical formation of "a protein compound" which could "undergo still more complex changes." It couldn't occur in his day, of course, because "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed," as Louis Pasteur's experiments had demonstrated just a few years earlier. But that wouldn't have been the case on a primordial Earth, his father noted, because there was no competition until life appeared.

Source: Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1887).


Also (if you know): How old is the sun?

According to multiple independent lines of evidence, our best estimate for the age of the sun is roughly 4.6 billion years.
 
Neither would have been a good question for him. The question should be: Look at all these morphologic patterns, could there be a natural explanation for them?

He didn't have any evidence for the origin of life to work with anyway, so that one would have been a non-starter.
That cos there can be no origin of life!

He had no origin of species to work with either, the birds on the pacific islands were created specifically by God for that island and good source like the crossbill was created to eat pine nuts!

Thanks
 
First, I want to clarify that I did not intend to equate atheism with metaphysical naturalism. While the title might suggest a connection, it was just a clickbait title. Upon reading the post, it immediately becomes evident that my target is metaphysical naturalism, which I referred to as "an atheistic worldview" (because it is).

Additionally, having spent the first three decades of my life as an atheist and a devoted student of philosophy, I fully understand that atheism is not a worldview in itself. Also, I acknowledge the existence of atheist Buddhists—my father, an atheist, is an adherent of Buddhism.
Do you think a person can be a Deist, but irreligious? In my opinion, many Deists are essentially atheists —their "god" is only an intellectual answer to a beginning and its subsequent naturalism, and irrelevant otherwise. They suppress (Romans 1) their knowledge of God and pursue "No-God".
 
Judging by something Charles Darwin wrote in a personal letter to Joseph Hooker (ca. 1863), he did not pursue that question because he understood the serious limitations of 19th century science. In his opinion, trying to grapple with the origin of life was pointless. "One might as well think of the origin of matter," Mr. Darwin said—another question which 19th century science couldn't tackle. That doesn't mean he dismissed the idea of life having a natural origin, but he recognized that the science of his day couldn't address that question. It sufficed for him to say that life "appeared by some wholly unknown process."

In that same letter, however, Mr. Darwin revealed that his father, Erasmus, had speculated about a primordial soup, "some warm little pond" in which "all the conditions for the first production of a living organism" could have been present, leading to the chemical formation of "a protein compound" which could "undergo still more complex changes." It couldn't occur in his day, of course, because "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed," as Louis Pasteur's experiments had demonstrated just a few years earlier. But that wouldn't have been the case on a primordial Earth, his father noted, because there was no competition until life appeared.

Source: Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1887).




According to multiple independent lines of evidence, our best estimate for the age of the sun is roughly 4.6 billion years.
How can the sun burn that long??? It would have to have been so big it would fill the whole galaxy?
It burns tons of energy every day and can’t possibly last that long!

Science has no answer to the origin of life cos life has no origin!

God transferred life to Adam
Gen 2:7

God also transferred spiritual supernatural life to us thru the apostles Jn 20:21-23

Thanks
 
That cos there can be no origin of life!
You mean no natural origin of life. I would think that you're fine with God being the origin of life.

He had no origin of species to work with either, the birds on the pacific islands were created specifically by God for that island and good source like the crossbill was created to eat pine nuts!
Good to know. But does that mean that every finch species is a separate "kind"? That would be a lot of finches to fit on the ol' ark, wouldn't it?
 
You mean no natural origin of life. I would think that you're fine with God being the origin of life.


Good to know. But does that mean that every finch species is a separate "kind"? That would be a lot of finches to fit on the ol' ark, wouldn't it?
No God transferee life man but Hod is eternal no beginning His divine life always existed
 
No God transferee life man but Hod is eternal no beginning His divine life always existed
Um... I didn't mean an origin for God, I meant God creating life on Earth.

It looks like you're not sure about all the finch species being different kinds or not?
 
How can the sun burn that long?

Gravity, basically. The sun exists in a delicate balance of gravitational forces, temperature, and pressure. We might use a balloon to illustrate this unstable equilibrium. You have the compressed air inside pushing for outward release, and it's in combat with the elastic tension of the rubber straining to collapse inward. And it can last day after day in that critical balance of forces. How is that possible? It's just physics. Although there is probably some inordinately complex mathematical equation that could spell out the physics involved, I can barely handle algebra so I'll leave that to someone more qualified. Anyway, the compressed air inside the balloon pushing for outward release is a crude and inadequate illustration of the outward pressure generated by the energy released from nuclear fusion in the sun's core. And the elastic tension of the rubber poorly stands for the gravitational force that collapses inward. Just as a small balloon can remain inflated for several days, the sun—roughly seven billion times bigger—can maintain its equilibrium for several billion years.


It would have to have been so big it would fill the whole galaxy!

Interestingly, when the sun eventually expands during its red giant stage, its outer layer will engulf Mercury, Venus, and Earth a few billion years from now, and nearly reach Mars. That's not the whole solar system, much less the whole galaxy, but still impressively huge. The remaining core of the sun will contract and become a white dwarf, while the expelled outer layers will continue to spread out into the interstellar medium.


Science has no answer to the origin of life because life has no origin!

Science has no definitive answer yet, but it has a couple of promising leads that are being followed.

And if life on our planet had a beginning, that's its origin.
 
Gravity, basically. The sun exists in a delicate balance of gravitational forces, temperature, and pressure. We might use a balloon to illustrate this unstable equilibrium. You have the compressed air inside pushing for outward release, and it's in combat with the elastic tension of the rubber straining to collapse inward. And it can last day after day in that critical balance of forces. How is that possible? It's just physics. Although there is probably some inordinately complex mathematical equation that could spell out the physics involved, I can barely handle algebra so I'll leave that to someone more qualified. Anyway, the compressed air inside the balloon pushing for outward release is a crude and inadequate illustration of the outward pressure generated by the energy released from nuclear fusion in the sun's core. And the elastic tension of the rubber poorly stands for the gravitational force that collapses inward. Just as a small balloon can remain inflated for several days, the sun—roughly seven billion times bigger—can maintain its equilibrium for several billion years.




Interestingly, when the sun eventually expands during its red giant stage, its outer layer will engulf Mercury, Venus, and Earth a few billion years from now, and nearly reach Mars. That's not the whole solar system, much less the whole galaxy, but still impressively huge. The remaining core of the sun will contract and become a white dwarf, while the expelled outer layers will continue to spread out into the interstellar medium.




Science has no definitive answer yet, but it has a couple of promising leads that are being followed.

And if life on our planet had a beginning, that's its origin.
What was the cause of ignition
 
What was the cause of ignition
Gravity due to the immense mass of the Sun compresses and fuses hydrogen atoms together into helium. This releases a huge amount of energy. The Sun is a gigantic fusion reactor.
 
Um... I didn't mean an origin for God, I meant God creating life on Earth.

It looks like you're not sure about all the finch species being different kinds or not?
Breeding is not same as evolution
You said no individual evolution

Can’t survive millions years evolving to become able to eat certain foods

Thanks
 
Gravity due to the immense mass of the Sun compresses and fuses hydrogen atoms together into helium. This releases a huge amount of energy. The Sun is a gigantic fusion reactor.
Still must expire all energy after a certain amount of time

There really is no way to “know” what the sun is cos it’s to hot to me measured with instruments
 
Breeding is not same as evolution
It is a form of evolution. Any change in genetic traits in population over time is evolution. Breeding is one of many ways this can happen.
Can’t survive millions years evolving to become able to eat certain foods
Unless they were eating other foods. I'm not sure what your point is here.
 
Still must expire all energy after a certain amount of time
Um, yes, the Sun will run out of energy sometime way, way in the future.
There really is no way to “know” what the sun is cos it’s to hot to me measured with instruments
We measure a wide array of things about the Sun with instruments. In fact, anybody can buy some pretty good solar measuring instruments online. It only takes a few minutes to look up some information before deciding the Sun is too hot to study.
 
Back
Top