God Theory always defeats Atheism Theory.

  1. The atheist claims that everything in the universe is necessary.

  2. Anything that is necessary must itself have a cause making it necessary.

  3. For the atheist then, the universe logically should not have a first cause, because the first cause could not then be necessary.

  4. A universe without a first cause would then contain an infinite regression of causation.

  5. An infinite regression of causation is illogical, and hence the universe must have a first cause.

  6. A first cause cannot be necessary because a first cause cannot itself have a cause, but rather the first cause must be unnecessary and uncaused.

  7. Something can only be unnecessary if there are at least 2 possible options to choose from.

  8. The universe must ultimately be the result of at least 2 possible options - one of which happens to be the case.

  9. A dichotomy between existence itself and pure nothingness are two possible uncaused options where existence itself happens to be the case.

  10. The universe is unnecessary and uncaused and the inherent nature of the universe is existence itself.

  11. Because the universe must have a starting point, there must be a mechanism of choice to decide that starting point and such a mechanism of choice must precede the universe itself and also be eternal.

  12. That mechanism of choice can only be God, because randomness cannot choose a starting point from an infinite number of possible starting points because there is no defined probability for any given starting point.

So this s a form of the Kalām cosmological argument, no?

No. My theory asserts that the uncaused must also be unnecessary. An infinite regression of causation can never be “unnecessary”, because it is a chain of the necessary and the order of the creation of the infinite causal chain cannot itself be explained without reference to a starting point.

No he doesn’t. :shrug:

No, a necessary thing, by definition, must exist, with or without a cause.

An atheist, a priori, has no problem with a first cause or an unecessary thing, as long as neither fits his definition of a ‘God’. :rolleyes:

Or a causal loop. Or many simultaneous uncaused causes. In other words, take logic 101 then get back to us.

No. It may be unintuitive, but that is not the same as illogical. There is no logical contradiction in an infinite series.

But not the only possible dichotomy.

At best unclear, at worst nonsense.

Blind assertion.

Blind assertion.

Blind assertion.

Name a necessary thing that is uncaused.

As an atheist, what is your first cause then?

A causal loop cannot explain the order of necessary creation. Simultaneous uncaused things is randomness, which cannot work where an infinite number of possibilities must have no defined probability.

What is the other possible dichotomy?

The atheist assumes everything is happenstance, and would have no opinion as to whether anything is “necessary”.

You are drawing a false equivalency between religion, which requires positive belief, and atheism, which has no belief structure whatsoever. Trying to logically deduce that the atheist is incorrect by starting from a position they do not hold, will not create a convincing argument.


As an atheist, what is your first cause then?

As an atheist I am unconvinced by the existing evidence for invisible sky friends. That is pretty much it.

I am guessing that somewhere in your word salad you might be trying to ask about the origin of the universe? If so then I’ll simply state “don’t know” and leave it at that. Better than make believe.

Why should I have to? You are the one attempting to present an argument. I need only point out the flaws in that argument - such as that a thing that would not exist without a cause is not necessary, but contingent on that cause. :shrug:

Again, why should I have to posit a first cause? You cannot defend your philosophy by demanding that I present mine for you to attack.

A) why not?
B) it does not have to in order to expose the fault in your logic. A causal loop has no first cause.:rolleyes:

Simultaneous uncaused things are not ‘randomness’ by any commonly accepted definition of those terms. Your comment about infinite possibilities necessarily having no defined probability remains nonsensical and unsupported.

Again, it is up to you to support your assertion of a necessary dichotomy. But, for example, two different forms of an existent universe.

Can you explain how an atheist has no belief structure??? I believe that an atheist BELIEVES there is no God.:slight_smile:

Many Atheists subscribe to the Big Bang theory. Since no one was there, and the Big Bang can not really be demonstrated, it gets a bit make believe-ish itself.

Nothing here has anything to do with atheism.
The fact that you have to strawman your so-called ‘atheism theory’ is amusing.

Oh dear god the Ken Ham argument?
Does ANYONE ever use that in any other context?

That’s not even addressing the rest of what’s wrong with this post.

A lack of belief in a god to be more specific.
But to argue that atheists have no beliefs is to imply that god is the ONLY thing a theist believes in, which is absurd.

I’m glad someone understands this.

Many don’t.:shrug:

Many Catholics subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, including the catholic priest who proposed it in the first place!:rolleyes:

Interesting. If you believe this, how do you justify calling yourself ‘Catholic’?

You are unaware of the evidence for the Big Bang theory?

To an atheist, the mere existence of the universe demonstrates it must have been possible for the universe to form (however small the probability).

It would also not bother the atheist to conclude that the universe always existed, since all that means is that the second law of thermodynamics, the assumption that the universe always experiences entropy, would need revision to accommodate an infinite existence.

On a fundamental note, the atheist also has no opinion as to whether God is ultimately the “first cause”, because religion has no relevance in their world view.*

*They may, however, object to religious perspectives that are clearly at odds with the scientific consensus (Young Earth creation, for example). Young Earth creation is a protestant invention of the 1800’s that is rejected by Catholicism, which has generally held the Genesis account to be allegorical (a position argued by Saint Augustus, for example). Even Orthodox Jews, while believing the “world” was created 5000 some odd years ago, accept that there were earlier phases of creation that were “recycled”. Dinosaur fossils, for instance, are evidence of previous phase that has already passed; they thus do not believe dinosaurs ever lived among humans, for instance.
by our prudent Lord, and

but the Catholic Church also generally rejects Young Earth Creation, a position invented by protestants in the 1800’s.)

The mechanism of its origin may not be known, but it is futile to

I would actually agree with this post.

And many don’t subscribe to it. It is a theory.

When I say no one was there, I mean human beings to observe it and report it as a fact.

I am aware that “evidence” is presented. But to put it into the same observable category as gravity for example is a stretch.

The vast majority of the many atheists I’ve spoke to hold a belief that the universe is necessary.

Why say “don’t know”, when you can know?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.