Atheism is implausible

Here is a more fleshed out version of the argument, along with refutations to common rebuttals to it.



I will present a simple argument for why atheism is implausible. But before I start, what does plausible mean? When something is plausible it is reasonable or probable. This is different from saying something is possible. Lots of things are possible without being plausible.

This argument isn't going to be a "proof," which is something many people mistakenly ask for. Not many things in life can be proved. For example, we can't prove that we're not living in some kind of simulation, similar to the one that Neo from the movie The Matrix found himself in. Yet, most people strongly believe that we're not living in a simulation. The argument that I present won't be a proof, but I do find it compelling, although I'd be lying if I said it is the reason for why I believe in God. With that being said, I'll begin.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) website describes theism in the following way.

Theism

"[Theism] is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as 'the belief that God exists'"



And the SEP describes atheism in the following way.

Atheism

"[Atheism] should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods)."

Consequently, the plausibility of theism and atheism are inversely correlated; if theism is plausible, then atheism becomes implausible and vice versa.

Reality is either past-finite or it is past-infinite. By reality, I mean the totality of being. In other words, if something really exists, then it is part of reality. If reality is past-finite, then that means there was a point where reality came into being. And if reality is past-infinite, then that means there was no point where reality came into being and that it just exists.

Now, let's assume atheism (as defined by the SEP) is true. If atheism is true and reality is past-finite, then that leaves us with the idea that nonbeing produced being. That is, not anything, literally nothing, or nonexistence, inexplicably causing reality. First, there appears to be a contradiction here because didn't we just define reality to mean the totality of existence? How is it possible then for "that which does exist" to bring into existence reality? At the very least this idea is implausible.

And if atheism is true and reality is past-infinite, then that means reality has always existed, with all of its whirls, processes, behaviors, sounds, causes, and effects. We seem to live in a world of cause and effect. A causing B, and then B causing C, etc. Meaning, for the universe, galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even for us to exist and function, then there must take place a long chain of actions. And if reality is past-infinite, then this chain of actions is inexhaustible--or it's on a loop, similar to the hands of a clock. Let's say that this chain of actions is on a loop. That is, there is a finite number of actions and these actions are looped through over and over again. This would only push the question back a step, because if reality is past-infinite, then there would need to be an actually infinite number of loops. The question is raised: How are we experiencing the present if it is really the case that reality is past-infinite? Wouldn't an inexhaustible series of actions need to be processed first? Once again, at the very least, this idea appears to be implausible.

So, that's what atheism is left with. Two implausible explanations for the nature and origin of reality. And since atheism is implausible, that makes theism all the more plausible.

atheism,theism,daggerfall,elderscrolls,philosophy,religion,science,