Strong Atheism is a Sound Position

A Deductive argument is considered "Sound' when the premises are true and the inferences are valid. Inductive arguments are not called "sound" they are called "strong". In the literature I have read "soundness" is never used in combination with abductive inference. Strong Atheism is a philosophical position. Instead of arguing semantics and proper use of terms, I gesture that we use a more colloquial definition of the word "sound". More like the definition of cogency: (of an argument or case) clear, logical, and convincing.fig. 1 http://www.debate.org... Con1. Doubt Confirms Nothing Figure 1 is a line with 100% certain God exists at one end, and 100% certain God does not exist at the opposite end. Let's define certainty as a position based on cogent argumentation that implies no possibility for the antithesis. Even from 99% to 100% strong atheism is quite the leap. Simply put, "It might not be so" can not deduce down to "it is not so". To do so is known as the Prosecutor’s Fallacy.[1] Even if the possibility is 1% that in and of itself implies it does happen and could be the case. An argument for Strong Atheism would follow this form: P1. If G then Q. P2. Not Q. C1. Therefore Not G. Assuming P2 is actually true and Q naturally follows from God, such an argument would make God impossible. And in turn make Strong Atheism a cogent or sound philosophical position.[2] Envisage provides such an argument so I move to rebuttals. R0. Formalizing Inference to Best Explanation (IBE) IBE is used quite often in our everyday lives. Take for instance the following example: P1. Tim and Harry were friends. P2. Time and Harry are seen jogging together. C1. Time and Harry made-up and are friends again. This makes sense to us, but logically unsound. The inference does not logically follow the premises. There is no property of jogging together that naturally follows to being friends. IBE is criticized for being a known fallacy Affirming the consequent.[3] Which is a formal fallacy, a pattern of reasoning which renders the argument invalid due to a flaw in its logical structure. To demarcate IBE from circular speculation let us establish some formalization to garner more confidence in this method. Three conditions for an hypothesis (H) to be a good explanation for event (E): IBE 1. Causation Condition: H makes a claim about something that caused E. It may describe the nature of a known cause, or posit the existence of a previously unknown cause. This should be accepted because a cause should be sufficient to produce the effect. IBE 2. Inference Condition: E can be inferred from H, to a high degree. IBE 3. Plausibility Condition: H is relatively likely to be true, compared to competing hypotheses, given our background knowledge. Say a Cause(C) is postulated in H for E. If C is contingent on C1, C2, etc. If C1 is not present then C makes H considerably less valid. Karl Popper relegates IBE to the formation of hypotheses. Stating the discovery of new ideas can not be found in a systematic logic. "The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis nor to be susceptible of it". Charles S. Peirce concludes there must be some logic or, at least, heuristic for scientific discovery. Abduction is this method.[4][5] R2. Law of Parsimony Parsimony is an heuristic principle. The use of word "law" is anecdotal, not necessarily true or reliable based on personal accounts rather than facts or research. It is like Murphy's Law. Most do not expect their cars to not start every morning due to a series of possible malfunctions. Scientist are not ashamed to posit additional as yet unobserved entities if the current body of evidence is insufficient to account for an Event. In the 1800s, scientists found that Mercury’s perihelion shifts in slowly around the Sun. Scientist postulated the existence of another planet called Vulcan. The solution to the mystery of Mercury’s orbit came in 1915, when Einstein modified and improved Newton's laws with his new theory of relativity.[6] Einstein added another dimension to make his formulas work: Time. A method used today by Scientist who conjecture this universe being the event horizon of a 4 dimensional black hole, or the addition of special matter that only interacts gravitationally (Dark Matter, Dark Energy). If what is known is insufficient to cause an event, it is not illogical to seek what is not known. R1(+4). Explanatory Power, Makes Predictions About Reality Envisage posits: "Theism always has the disadvantage over metaphysical naturalism since metaphysical naturalism only entails the physical universe we have observed." Exemplifies the Problem with Induction.[7] The understanding of Science increases with time, objects that are in the domain of "Supernatural" transition into the domain of "Natural". One driving force to this transition is new evidence, previously held explanations are insufficient or based on incomplete understandings. Clearly some Supernatural objects exist, for some objects have existed before their transition into the domain of scientific explanation. In the beginning... of time, t+1 is the earliest in which the Laws of Nature as we know them remain unbroken. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang (t+1), as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang. (Stephen Hawking [8]) Making a Metaphysical Naturalistic explanation of the universe incoherent. Unfalsifiable. Ultimately insufficient. R3 Proposition is within Background Knowledge "Theism however, posits omnipotence and omniscience, something we have exactly zero experience ... such an explanation is necessarily beyond our experience." Truth is not contingent on being experienced by mankind. Things on the quantum level are not experienced macroscopically. To educate ourselves we often simplify subjects into human relatable analogies. Take the well-known analogy of a marble on a rubber sheet to explain the bending of space-time in General Relativity. The erroneous conclusion would be that a marble on a trampoline would simulate the orbit of any planet This is simply not the case.[9] I postulate that "truths" become universal and absolute, the more they depart from the context of human experience. Con2: Absolute truths 2.1 Mathematical Argument P1. Only the abstract and immaterial can be universally true. P2. Mathematical concepts and relationships are abstract and immaterial. C1. Mathematical concepts and relationships are universally true. P1 is accepted because when removed from the spatiotemporal conditions the statement is either true for all universal conditions or for none. 2.2 Warping of Space-time Argument Space-time is not energy nor is it matter. Yet we do ascribe physical attributes to it when we say it stretches or curves. If space-time is not matter nor is it energy this is a very loose description of physical and the Metaphysical Naturalist who postulates "all is physical" allows for greater diversity in object properties than I would say is fair. Maybe Envisage can touch on this point further. R5. Employment of ad hoc assumptions And Now we come full circle. I want to thank Envisage for structuring the debate so well. Is Strong Atheism, as a philosophical position, logically sound on some argumentation. The cogent argument for such a position being valid, truthful premises, valid inferences and negate the possibility for God. R5.1 Argument From atemporal Minds R5.1.1 Minor Rebuttal Pantheism Using Metaphysical Naturalism we can reduce the emergent phenomena of mind to interactions between nodes. For the machinations to emerge a mind the logic gates must be able to open in may valued states. This is what we have with quantum wave-functions. The entire universe could be one large divine mind going through the process of thought. As a whole encompassing all spacetime and thereby fulfilling the defined attributes of God.[10,11] R5.2 Incoherence of a Caused Universe It would behoove the Atheist to compose their own arguments instead of using one's generated by Theist. The roots of this argument, almost verbatim, comes from Book 11 in Confessions (circa 400a.d.) by St. Augustine. The question that some ask Augustine, "what was God doing before He created the Heavens and the Earth" is completely inapplicable. Augustine puts it "for there was no 'then' when there was no time" - "There was no time, therefore, when thou hadst not made anything, because thou hadst made time itself".[12] Nothing in the description of God infer he is atemporal. Just that God is external to THIS spacetime. Conclusion Strong Atheism, (100% believe God does not exist) is an "Unsound" position. The arguments to support it are composed of untrue premises, the inferences are invalid. The conclusions do not negate the antithesis "God exists" and therefore as a philosophical position should be upheld by the rational mind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://philosophicaugustine.wordpress.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://155.97.32.9/~plutynsk/HOPOSproofs.pdf [5] http://www.informationphilosopher.com... [6] http://m.teachastronomy.com... [7] http://plato.stanford.edu... [8] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [9] http://arxiv.org... [10] http://www.neuroquantology.com... [11] http://www.csse.monash.edu.au... [12] http://www.sacred-texts.com...