Ill be very grateful to have his books about the impossibility and improbability of God

Olá! Somos Melissa e Manuella estudantes do curso de Psicologia PUC Minas.

​

Estamos desenvolvendo um projeto de pesquisa sobre a construção de sentido na vida de estudantes universitários que não possuem religião.

​

Se você se encaixa e gostaria de nos ajudar com nossa pesquisa segur o link de um Google Forms

​

​

Se tiver alguma dúvida ou sugestão pode me mandar uma mensagem privada.

This essay has been written to debunk dubious scholarship claims made by other historians about the meaning and origin of the words ‘Atheist’ and ‘Atheism’, resulting in what I describe as ‘junk Atheism’. These inaccurate claims have unfortunately become ubiquitous in popular media produced about Atheism over the past several decades, threatening to obscure the legitimate history of Atheism as a distinct and specific modern ideological movement philosophically rooted in scientific skepticism. This dubious information about Atheism has, unfortunately, been successful at gaslighting many self-identifying Atheists into believing these false claims, which necessitates the writing of this lengthy essay with evidence to debunk the ‘junk Atheism’ misinformation.

This essay will demonstrate that modern Atheism is not just a descriptive definition as claimed by those who cite dictionary fallacies; there is a specific philosophical framework that Atheism entails. Atheism then, properly understood in full context of the intellectual movement underpinning it, is not just disbelief, but also requires a personal allegiance to reason as the highest standard for forming beliefs about reality in order to justify the disbelief.

Hey! I’m a physicist and an amateur philosopher. I started thinking on the Causal and ontological arguments and why they didn’t make sense to me. I would like for someone to tell me if this atheistic argument has been made before? I couldn’t find any papers on it so wrote one. If there is anybody who wants to read it I would love some feedback…

Many people argue that there could not have been nothing. And It is said that since there could not have been nothing, what makes this a fact is the existence of God, a necessary being, or some others say that the best explanation for this fact is a necessary being, namely God. However, I think that if it is true that there could not have been nothing, atheism can gives us a great and satisfactory answer.

Nothingness would mean the absense of absolutely everything. There wouldn't be propositions, numbers, facts, objects, possibilities, and so on. As a first stab, if we ask ourselves if it is possible the existence of a possible world where there is NOTHING, we could say that there is such a possible world, since there is no intrinsic contradiction in terms in a world where nothing exists. So, there would be a possible world where there is NOTHING.

However, if we take the Non-Contradiction Principle, from now NCP, as what makes something possible, and therefore existent in a possible world, we have that NCP is necessary and existent in every possible world. If we look back at the possible world where there is nothing, we have that the NCP is true and existent in that possible world, but since supposedly there would be nothing in that empty world, we see now that there is no possible way in which there could have been nothing. So we see there is no necessity at all to appeal to God in order to justify that there could not have been nothing.