# Atheism does not work... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2006, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571 "2006-12-02T04:31:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/161 "2006-12-08T07:50:28Z")
The proof destroys itself as **Apos** said. 1. Everything has a cause. 2. Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused. 3. Therefore not everything has a cause. ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/162 "2006-12-08T08:25:26Z")
Well, yeah, that too. I was focusing on a different problem. [sub]Not that I missed the self-destroying aspect or anything. No sir. Ahem.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Anduril](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c0e974/32.png) [@Anduril](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anduril)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/163 "2006-12-08T14:55:54Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Yes, but we do have an understanding now of how it behaves. So if you want to take it on faith that there’s some heretofore unknown physical property that would explain this, fine. That’s certainly possible. It’s just not consistent with our current understanding of the “causality” of the universe. [/QUOTE] No, we don’t. As far as the “causality” of the universe is concerned, we don’t know squat. So, we have no way of saying that it CAN’T be causeless or unmoved. Given that, which then is more likely, that the universe is the “unmoved mover” or that a supernatural entity is? Keep in mind that we have evidence of the universe’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/164 "2006-12-08T19:19:35Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] … What triggered it? The passage of time? Another physical influence? By definition, those could not have. What’s left? … [/QUOTE] By definition neither could intelligence or intention. Nothing is left. By definition, nothing triggered the unmoved mover. > [@](#): > > … > What do you see as the logical failing then? Strong atheism’s position of “There is no god” cannot be logically proven. But I’m not seeing any theism arising from your description of an unmoved mover. At best, you seem to be relegating a least powerful god to the smallest possible gap. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/165 "2006-12-08T19:38:24Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Again, I’m betraying my ignorance of physics here, but is that accurate? Atoms decay just with the passage of time, and not because of any physical influence? [/quote] Statistically, you can predict half life, but in my understanding you cannot predict when a particular atom will decay. Things are probabilistic at this level - God does play dice. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s the notion of “movement” he was trying to discuss. I think he referred to the inexorable regression of cause and effect one could trace back through time. Aristotle’s argument seems to conflate the two. It assumes that the movement of things cannot happen without something setting them into motion, which must be either a prime mover or something in motion itself. This assumes that the starting state was that matter was not in motion, and thus had to be put into motion by the prime mover - that the “natural” state of matter is to be at rest. Since the starting state of matter has to involve motion, the argument fails. This doesn’t address the issue of what created matter, but I think it refutes the movement argument. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/166 "2006-12-08T22:09:24Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Sorry, I didn’t say this entity had no awareness. [/QUOTE] Oh, then which Stratocaster was it that wrote: > [@](#): > > is aware of anything? No. That wasn’t you? Did I misunderstand? Did you mean to say “yes”? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/167 "2006-12-09T00:59:48Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] That wasn’t you? Did I misunderstand? [/QUOTE] Yes, indeed you did. You seem to have missed the difference in verb tense in your rush to score a point. “Had no awareness” \<\> “has no awareness.” In the context I was answering the original question, this is not picking nits, either. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/168 "2006-12-09T01:04:50Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] I was referring to the next to last sentence in[this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8022597&postcount=113)I read this as saying that if no other explanation is found you think we have to go with Aquinas. If that’s not your meaning, then what was it? [/QUOTE] Aquinas’s proof considers the mutually exclusive possibilities of an infinite regress or an unmoved mover. One either accepts his proof, choosing one or the other, or finds fault in the proof. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/169 "2006-12-09T01:16:03Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] The proof destroys itself as **Apos** said. 1. Everything has a cause. 2. Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused. 3. Therefore not everything has a cause. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that really represents the conclusion of the proof–or at least my conclusion. I would depict it as: 4. Everything in the universe, as we understand it, must have a cause. 5. Infinite regress is absurd so there must be a first cause which is uncaused. 6. Therefore there is an unmoved mover with properties outside of our understanding that completes this logical construct. It’s interesting to consider what these properties would consist of, assuming #1 is true. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/170 "2006-12-09T01:20:50Z")
[QUOTE=sturmhauke] Aquinas’ argument, on the other hand, doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. If you can make sense of it, I’d be greatly interested to know. Here it is in two different translations: In other words, the assertion that nothing may move itself has no basis, rendering the conclusion that there must be a first mover invalid. [/QUOTE] Aristotle is on his own, since I didn’t introduce his proof to the thread. 😉 Focusing on Tom A’s proof, I’m still not sure what your counter consists of. “I can’t make any sense of this” may well be true, but it’s not an argument. Is there a particular point of Aquinas’s that you’d show as a faulty? Can you show why? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/171 "2006-12-09T01:31:06Z")
[QUOTE=Anduril] No, we don’t. As far as the “causality” of the universe is concerned, we don’t know squat. [/quote] Well, that’s demonstrably false. We do understand something of the causality of the universe (which is not the same as saying we are certain we know everything). > [@](#): > > So, we have no way of saying that it CAN’T be causeless or unmoved. Yes, one could take it on faith that the physical universe can have a “causeless” start in the absence of an unmoved mover. > [@](#): > > Given that, which then is more likely, that the universe is the “unmoved mover” or that a supernatural entity is? Keep in mind that we have evidence of the universe’s existence. I can’t assign a probability to it, but given current understanding, I’d side with a supernatural being–i.e., one with properties outside of the “natural” that would permit it to exist as an unmoved mover. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/172 "2006-12-09T01:32:55Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] By definition neither could intelligence or intention. [/QUOTE] By definition? What definition? ---
**Author:** ![the\_PC\_apeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac8455/32.png) [@the\_PC\_apeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_PC_apeman)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/173 "2006-12-09T01:56:22Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] By definition? What definition? [/QUOTE] The same one referred to here: > [@Stratocaster](#): > > … > What triggered it? The passage of time? Another physical influence? By definition, those could not have. What’s left? > … ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/174 "2006-12-09T02:04:28Z")
I think \*\*Apos \*\* has it, the problem in the end is finding evidence on why we should plug an unmoved mover into the equation. As for: [QUOTE=Stratocaster] 3) Therefore there is an unmoved mover with properties outside of our understanding that completes this logical construct. [/QUOTE] There is a big problem here, thinking of some pre-Columbian American creations one might as well deduce the unmoved mover ceased to be as a result of the universe appearing. I call that the “Oh Shi…” theory based on the idea that that was the last “thought” he/she/it had. Still assuming a mover, we may be colossally wrong in assuming we were expected. Or created, for what we see in early galaxies or closer to the Big Bang is, well, chaos. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/175 "2006-12-09T02:40:11Z")
[QUOTE=the PC apeman] The same one referred to here: [/QUOTE] I think you misunderstand the definition of unmoved mover. There was no time. There was no physical influence (no prior movement). _By definition_. Intelligence or intention–while hardly conclusively evident–are absolutely consistent with the unmoved mover, and the definition of such offers no concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/176 "2006-12-09T02:48:57Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I think \*\*Apos \*\* has it, the problem in the end is finding evidence on why we should plug an unmoved mover into the equation. [/quote] Because it’s logical (though not conclusive). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/177 "2006-12-09T02:53:04Z")
Alls I can say is it works okay for _me_. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/178 "2006-12-09T02:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Because it’s logical (though not conclusive). [/QUOTE] And the alternative is also logical, in practical terms, both irrelevant to this universe. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/179 "2006-12-09T03:02:29Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] And the alternative is also logical, in practical terms, both irrelevant to this universe. [/QUOTE] It’s logical, if one assumes a physical property / circumstance that is not currently evident. Inferring an unmoved mover requires no assumption (of the type I reference here). ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571/180 "2006-12-09T03:20:20Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] “I can’t make any sense of this” may well be true, but it’s not an argument. Is there a particular point of Aquinas’s that you’d show as a faulty? Can you show why? [/QUOTE] If you can’t understand what the hell Aquinas was talking about in those portions I quoted, you can’t very well use it to support your argument. If you can understand, why don’t you try to explain it better than he did? You’re the one who brought up Aquinas in the first place, after all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-does-not-work/382571.md?page=10)